Catherine Curzon, The Royal Family vs 'The Crown' Separating Fact from Fiction, Pen & Sword | Pen & Sword History, January 2025.
Thank you, NetGalley and Pen & Sword, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.
Catherine Curzon parts company with the usual lively writing style of Pen & Sword publications in this almost dry account of the popular Netflix drama, “The Crown,” and its mixed adherence to a factual account. Although relieved by some levity, Curzon’s commitment to comparing drama and authenticity relies on an account that leaves little time for frivolity. In reading this interpretation, although “The Crown” had eons of time for frivolity and melodrama, history did not. Or did it on occasion? Although the style is critical and is not as accessible as the usual Pen & Sword publication, it follows the same standards in providing well researched material. This is a robust comparison of reality and the account of the historical, social, and personal developments given in the 6-part series, featuring themes and events; characters and characterisation; locations; style and costumes.
The format is excellent – The Crown version of events is followed by the facts as Curzon knows and researched them. Where there is a question, or it is difficult to determine the facts Curzon acknowledges this. Unfortunately for “The Crown” there is abundant information that undermines the factual nature of the series. One major criticism made by Curzon is the timelines that often become muddied and demonstrably incorrect in the series – events and characters’ presence are often impossible because they happened at a different time, or the characters wee somewhere else at the time in which they are portrayed in the series. Sometimes a character is depicted taking an action that belongs to another. And so, it goes on – there is an abundance of evidence that underpins Curzon’s case.
However. This is a fact-finding mission, and in this respect, it is a grand history as it relates to the Windsors and those impacted by the world of the British crown. In its meticulous attention to getting the facts right, we are presented with an impressive history of the time. And to be fair to Curzon, this is what she aims to do, no more. But, looking at the series from a wider perspective there are so many questions I would have liked answered. What lies behind the most egregious of the factual errors? Can some be excused and explained because of the need for dramatic impact and it having inconsequential outcomes to take this licence? What of the expense of ensuring that some characters are not stand ins for others? Introducing a new character in a film is quite different from writing the correct figure into a historical novel – the immense expensive to find another actor to fill a part that in its most critical sense means little, may have been considered unnecessary. What impact did the current royal, social and political environment have on the way the themes were drawn in the series? Perhaps none of these questions matter, and the value of Curzon’s factual account is beyond these questions anyway. However, I would have liked some attention given to the questions I raise. Further, although she raises is the way in which female characters often give way to male characters’ stories and feelings, there is little analysis of why. I would have liked some analysis of the series and its, at times, seemingly cursory concern for facts.
There is a lengthy bibliography of secondary works and relevant photographs. The way in which Curzon finishes the book is a poignant reminder of at least one fact that “The Crown” stressed throughout, Queen Elizabeth’s commitment to duty.