Peter Morgan once famously described his hit series as an "act of creative imagination." That’s a polite way of saying he took some massive liberties. If you’ve spent any time bingeing The Crown, you know the feeling. You’re watching Claire Foy or Olivia Colman or Imelda Staunton, and you’re thinking, Wait, did that actually happen? Honestly, most of the time, the answer is "sorta."
The show isn't a documentary. It’s a high-budget, beautifully lit psychodrama that uses the British Royal Family as a canvas to explore power, duty, and the slow erosion of the individual. But because the production value is so high—those costumes are basically museum-grade—our brains want to accept it all as gospel. We shouldn't. From the timeline of the Great Smog to the nuances of Prince Charles’s heartbreak, the gap between Netflix and reality is often wider than the English Channel.
The Fiction of the Private Conversation
Here is the thing about The Crown that drives historians like Hugo Vickers absolutely up the wall: the dialogue.
Nobody was in the room when Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth argued about their marriage in the 1950s. There are no transcripts of the "audience" meetings between the Queen and her Prime Ministers. Morgan is guessing. He’s a brilliant guesser, but he’s still guessing. He creates these sharp, biting exchanges to move the plot forward, but in reality, the royals are notoriously tight-lipped. The idea that they sit around articulating their deepest traumas in perfectly paced monologues is, frankly, hilarious if you know anything about the "stiff upper lip" generation.
Take the portrayal of the "Balmoral Test." The show makes it look like a terrifying social gauntlet where one wrong move with a salad fork gets you exiled. While the royals certainly have their quirks, and Balmoral is definitely their "inner sanctum," former staffers have noted that the Queen was generally a gracious host. She wasn't lurking in the shadows waiting for Margaret Thatcher to sit in the wrong chair just so she could judge her.
Why The Crown Matters Even When It Lies
It’s easy to nitpick.
💡 You might also like: Cliff Richard and The Young Ones: The Weirdest Bromance in TV History Explained
We can point out that the 1952 Great Smog didn't actually cause a political crisis that almost toppled Winston Churchill. That was a dramatic invention to give the season a climax. We can mention that Prince Philip wasn't quite the brooding, resentful husband the early seasons suggest—by most accounts, he was her greatest support from day one.
But does the inaccuracy matter?
For a lot of viewers, The Crown is their primary education on 20th-century British history. That’s a heavy responsibility for a streaming service. Yet, the show captures a "poetic truth" that a dry history book might miss. It captures the sheer, crushing weight of an institution that demands you stop being a person and start being a symbol. When we see Princess Margaret’s life unravel, we aren't just watching a soap opera; we’re watching the conflict between modern desire and medieval rules.
The Diana Years and the Ethics of "Recent" History
The tone changed when the show hit the 1980s and 90s.
Suddenly, the events weren't "history" anymore—they were memories. Most of the people involved are still alive. This is where the show got into hot water with people like Dame Judi Dench and former PM John Major. Major called the scenes suggesting he plotted with Prince Charles to oust the Queen "a barrel load of nonsense."
📖 Related: Christopher McDonald in Lemonade Mouth: Why This Villain Still Works
He’s right. It never happened.
The depiction of the marriage between Charles and Diana is where the show takes its biggest swings. It paints a picture of a cold, calculated Prince and a tragic, hunted Princess. While the broad strokes are based on Diana’s own secret recordings for Andrew Morton’s book, the show ignores the periods of genuine affection the couple shared. It simplifies a messy, two-sided tragedy into a hero-vs-villain narrative because that makes for better TV.
The Technical Mastery Behind the Scenes
Ignoring the scripts for a second, we have to talk about the craft.
Each season cost upwards of $100 million. You can see every cent on the screen. The cinematography uses specific color palettes to denote different eras—muted, dusty tones for the post-war years shifting into the vibrant, almost neon chaos of the 80s.
The casting is also a masterclass in "essence" over "imitation." Josh O'Connor didn't just look like Prince Charles; he captured the specific slouch, the nervous tugging of the signet ring, and that particular vocal cadence that suggests a man constantly apologizing for his own existence. Elizabeth Debicki as Diana was so uncanny it felt like watching a ghost.
👉 See also: Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne: Why His Performance Still Holds Up in 2026
Practical Steps for the Curious Viewer
If you’ve finished the series and you’re feeling a bit confused about what was real, don't just take the show at face value. Here is how to actually get the real story:
- Read the "Companions": Historian Robert Lacey, who actually consulted on the show, wrote several volumes called The Crown: The Official Companion. He breaks down exactly where the writers stuck to the facts and where they took a "creative leap."
- Watch the Archive Footage: Go to YouTube and look up the Queen’s real Christmas broadcasts or the 1969 Royal Family documentary (the one the show claims was a disaster). You’ll see that the real people were often much more reserved and, honestly, a bit more boring than their TV counterparts.
- Cross-Reference the Prime Ministers: Read the memoirs of Harold Wilson or Margaret Thatcher. You’ll find that their relationship with the monarchy was often much more professional and less dramatic than the "shouting matches" depicted in the show.
- Listen to "The Crown: The Official Podcast": If you want to hear the "why" behind the changes, the showrunners are actually very transparent about their choices here. They admit when they changed a date or merged two people into one character to make the story flow.
The Crown ended its run by trying to reckon with the death of Princess Diana and the aging of the Queen, eventually stopping in the early 2000s. It was a wise choice. Moving any closer to the present day—the Harry and Meghan era—would have turned a historical drama into a tabloid reenactment. By stopping where it did, the show preserved its status as a grand, flawed, and deeply human look at the most famous family on Earth.
The best way to watch it is with a grain of salt and a Wikipedia tab open. Enjoy the jewelry, appreciate the acting, but remember that the real Elizabeth II was probably just a woman who really, really liked her dogs and didn't spend every waking hour contemplating the "divine right of kings."
To truly understand the legacy of the show, look into the 1992 "Annus Horribilis" speech and compare the real footage to Imelda Staunton’s performance. The subtle differences in tone tell you everything you need to know about how Netflix filters reality through the lens of modern drama.