Interesting companion to the Netflix series, that fills in the political landscape and clarifies the rumours from the facts. Much of the series is imagined, but based on detailed research. Some events are totally fictious, but, according to the authors, designed to reveal deeper truths.
I am very interested in the series. It is a remarkable achievement, beautifully acted and edited. I am interested in this idea that the monarch supposedly floats above politics like some guardian angel. This series shows the monarch to be very much involved in discretely pulling on the levers of power, and acting in accordance with political wishes.
I am also somewhat uncomfortable with the idea that I am presented with 'history', even though it is clearly a dramatised narrative. The screenwriters and authors freely admit that some events are fictious, and most canny viewers would understand intuitively that the private conversations depicted in The Crown could only the work of imagination. Clearly a large amount of research has gone into this series, but it still a subjective view appearing with a kind of gloss of being more fact than fiction. How many viewers rely on this version of history as being fact, or 'the truth'? How many viewers do not understand the complex interplay between the need to tell a narrative and the need to remain faithful to events and political realities?
I find this trend of blending historical fact into a narrative both interesting and a little disturbing, with the popularity of authors like Hiliary Mantell and Philippa Gregory. Both are excellent authors and I have enjoyed books by both, but I still have a somewhat niggling doubt about how lesser research teams and less professional authors can massage the truth into something else for their own narrative, or even political, purposes.