Much of “The Crown” is nonsense

livemint.com:

formed from the raw meat of the past are, with each successive season, turned into amateur historical analysts, as they google primary sources, fact-check phrases and scrutinise photographs. Again and again, the same question is asked: is this history? It is not asked without cause. A great deal of “The Crown"—even before you get to the ghastly prospect of a ghost—is manifest historical bunkum.

Prince Philip did not, as was claimed in the second season, inadvertently cause his sister to be killed in a plane crash (a fact that he found so offensive he reportedly considered suing). Prince Charles did not hint to the then prime minister, John Major, that Queen Elizabeth II ought to abdicate. The short answer to the question of whether or not “The Crown" is history is clear: no.

It is not. The longer answer is more complicated. History might be problematic for “The Crown", but it is also part of the appeal.

Many viewers’ interest is not just in the drama but in its historical backdrop. People have found themselves fascinated by forgotten facts, including the finer details of the Suez crisis, the severity of the Great Smog of 1952 and the (to many astounding) fact that the late queen had, once upon a time, been young. In its defence, “The Crown" does not claim to be history.

On the contrary, as its new disclaimer explains, it is merely a “fictional dramatisation" that was “inspired by real events". In doing so it is following in a grand dramatic tradition of playing fast and loose with the facts. Had Shakespeare had to slap a disclaimer on “Richard III" he would have had to opt for something stronger even than that, like “highly fictional dramatisation", says Emma Smith, a professor of Shakespeare Studies at Oxford