The Crown is a ‘historical prick’ guilty of ‘hostile manipulation’ of the truth – but is as ‘influential’ as Shakespeare in shaping our view of the monarchy, veteran broadcaster Andrew Marr warns
The TV show Crown is a ‘historical prick’ but has been as influential as Shakespeare in shaping perceptions of the monarchy, according to Andrew Marr.
The former BBC presenter said the Netflix drama was guilty of a “certain amount of hostile manipulation” of the historical facts and the use of dramatic license.
But he added that despite its inaccuracies, the drama had given viewers a “tremendous and virtuous re-education” about parts of British history that had been almost forgotten.
He even claimed that the series had been a ‘great gift’ to the royal family. Marr, 65, was removed from a BBC obituary of the Queen after she died in 2022, having already left to join rival LBC. He had spent years updating the tribute program.
Royals are said to be bracing themselves for ‘painful’ scenes in the new series of The Crown, in which Princess Diana will appear as a ghost.
The former BBC presenter said the Netflix drama was guilty of a ‘certain amount of hostile manipulation’
Princess Diana (Elizabeth Debicki), Prince Charles (Dominic West) and The Queen (Imelda Staunton)
Marr wrote about the drama in the culture section of The Sunday Times, saying it was part of “the American cannibalization of British history for mass global entertainment.”
He added: ‘As it is, entire generations derive their understanding of the modern British monarchy from the drama. Understanding or misunderstanding? We’ll find out.
“In any case, it has been as influential on today’s public perception as William Shakespeare was on the way Tudors, Georgians and Victorians thought of the Plantagenets.”
He said it was “wise to recognize the considerable amount of historical nonsense involved, which runs from dramatic debauchery and reform to a degree of hostile manipulation.”
And he pointed out “distortions” and said it was not surprising that the late Prince Philip was angry at the way the show seemed to suggest he was somehow responsible for the fatal journey his sister Cecilie took in 1937 .
Marr, who hosts a Sunday morning show on BBC1, said the portrayal of Queen Elizabeth’s “genetically disabled” cousins seemed “heavily fictionalized and designed to show the Windsors as heartless and conniving.”
Elizabeth Debicki as Princess Diana performs the scene where she is chased by the paparazzi before her tragic end under the Alma Bridge
But Marr said writer Peter Morgan was more sympathetic to female members of the royal family, such as the late queen.
He also claimed that ‘having an image of the monarchy’ was good for the royal family and that it would be more worrying if they were not portrayed in a ‘top drama’.
He said the show gave a sense of how people dressed and spoke “for a generation that probably doesn’t read history books or watch conventional documentary series.”
Marr added: ‘Millions of people in Britain, as well as abroad, now have an unforgettable image of the royal family in their minds.’