The Crown should carry fiction warning, says culture secretary

[ProfessorDavey]

Wolf Hall is about people who all died more than 500 years ago. The Crown is about people who are still alive.

I don't remember the culture secretary being critical about the first two series of the Crown - which was equally fictional and equally involved people still alive, but has a much more pro-Royal (or rather pro-current Royals) slant to it.

As I've already said, I have no issue with 'fiction warnings' but they need to be applied consistently not just when you object to the editorial slant of a piece of fiction based on real people and real events.

[Nearly Sane]

But it says nothing about how close to the truth the events depicted are.

Well, yes, given you asked about the definition.

[jeremyp]

But my point is that the likes of Oliver Dowden are only jumping up and down when their perceive that the fictional element isn't sympathetic to the Royals - where was the similar outcry against Series 1, demanding 'fiction warnings'.

That is a valid point. However, as I understand it (I haven't seen any of The Crown), this series portrays certain living people in a poor light. That does make a difference. People tend to complain more about made up stuff that makes people look bad than made up stuff that makes people look good.

[ProfessorDavey]

That is a valid point. However, as I understand it (I haven't seen any of The Crown), this series portrays certain living people in a poor light. That does make a difference. People tend to complain more about made up stuff that makes people look bad than made up stuff that makes people look good.

That cuts no ice if the portrayal is actually accurate (albeit based on a fictional manner of portraying). Frankly none of us (including Oliver Dowden) really knows what the Royals are like so we can't really judge whether the series 1, pro Royal rather sycophantic portrayal is correct, the series 4 rather one-dimensional negative portrayal is correct or the truth lies somewhere in between.

There are all sorts of dramas that portray living people in a bad light (and of course if they are living they can sue if they want) - that isn't the issue here - this smacks of the government not wanting our Royals to be portrayed in a negative manner. But lets face it in the period they are currently depicting the Royals completely destroyed their own reputation (almost terminally) in the years leading up to 1997. So if that is how they come across that seems a pretty accurate depiction of the developing public mood at the time.

[ProfessorDavey]

What I do find rather interesting is how of the Queen's four children, two are pretty well airbrushed out of the series. The series focuses on Charles (for obvious reasons) and Anne (as she is interesting).

But Edward hardly appears (as he isn't interesting), and nor does Andrew ... hmm, I wonder why that might be.