The Crown plans to depict the 'tampongate' call

Such cases are very sad, but if there has been incompetence in investigating them, or if there has been 'institutional racism' (as was the finding of the official inquiry in the case of Stephen Lawrence) then IMO it is in the public interest to have those things aired.

Wrt The Crown, yes, the princes were children at the time, but they are not now, and they don't have to watch. I don't think that it is the same as ordinary people seeing a drama about the death of their mother, really. It was the biggest story of the decade at the time, and there are still documentaries about it 25 years later.

Also, we still don't know how the crash is going to be dealt with in The Crown. I am uneasy about the idea that people should boycott something just in case there is content that others might not like.

From an article in tge Telegraph this morning:

“Charles did discuss his regency with a PM – just not with John Major.
The latest instalment of Netflix’s fictionalised dive into royal history has caused consternation, but those who were there for the real-life ups and downs of its characters know it is more fact than fantasy

Patrick Jephson, Equerry and 
Private Secretary 
to Diana, Princess 
of Wales 1988-96”

I think there is a difference between a documentary investigation, like those Doodledog refers to, and a drama, which by definition will include entirely fictionalrecreations of what the author and producers think could have happened.

I do not think dramas should be made that involve living people. Those of us who do family history know that census returns are not released until 100 years after they were taken to ensure that, originslly, no one mentioned in them would still be alive, obviously the increase in longevity, has altered this slightly, but the principle is sound.

I started watching the new series last night. It is well acted and beautifully shot. I don’t think it would frighten the horses.

I am about half way through The Crown now. It’s produced as well as usual, and as LLFL says, it is very well acted. I’m not as invested in it (yet) as I was in previous series - possibly because there is more historical material (eg the background to Al Fayed’s desire to be accepted by the RF and his relationship with Edward V111’s valet, for instance, or the death of the Romanovs). In earlier series’ the action was historical so there was less need for flashback.

I don’t think it’s prurient- so far at least. The ‘Tampaxgate’ episode has happened. I think the conversation went on too long, but the episode was about Charles’ attempts to be taken seriously in the face of media intrusion.

The documentaries about the RF I referenced earlier (my other examples were of dramatic representation of events concerning living people) are often more intrusive, from what I’ve seen of them. Ladies in waiting, royal correspondents and various hangers-on are trotted out to spill beans and rake over coals. They don’t have the distraction of an ongoing narrative arc, so are simply tittle tattle. Why are they more acceptable (to some) than an attempt to contextualise the stories in a long-running series charting 70 years of the House of Windsor? I’m not sure that it’s any more partial than Lady Colin Campbell’s gossipy recollections.

There are documentaries (of varying quality) which sometimes feature talking heads and tittle tattle. There are also docudramas which have a narrator telling the story and actors who do not speak but provide a visual representation of the story. They are usually very good and as far as I know stick to the facts. Because there are no dramatised scenes or conversations they do not speculate about behind the scenes events (as The Crown is doing).

I am not being argumentative, honestly, but I dislike the 'dramatised' documentary style that is currently fashionable. They seem really condescending. A 'real' documentary presents the 'facts' as seen by the historian whose version of events is being represented (there is always a version of events), a drama embellishes them and puts the 'facts' into a human context. The hybrids really don't work for me at all.

I don't see history as a series of facts, though. I firmly believe that facts are negotiable - ask two people who have witnessed the same incident and you will get at least 1.5 versions of what happened. This is why witnesses are not allowed to embellish tales in court. To get a full picture of what happened, we really need to explore the human motivations behind what happened. Did Anne Boleyn love Henry, or was she driven by ambition? Was he a narcissist or a dutiful king who needed an heir? Was Guy Fawkes a hero or a villain? Historians will disagree about these things (which is, of course, the point of them). They use evidence to back up their versions of events, but do not simply present Gradgrindian lists of 'facts'. Dramatists add dialogue to the stories and make them accessible, from Shakespeare to Carry On Henry or The King's Speech.

Which 'facts' are emphasised, and which glossed over will depend on the purpose of the drama, of course. The dramatised documentary style may be useful for teaching historical stories to schoolchildren, as the dramatised bits will stick in their minds and anchor the events better, but dramatisations are stories about the people involved in those events, which explain them in a human context. I think it's natural for people with an interest in history to want to go beyond the dates of battles, and lines of succession.

We watch different programmes for different reasons. The Crown is more of a soap opera, as was Keith Michell's The Six Wives of Henry VIII, which kindled a lifelong interest in history in me as a child.

M0nica

I think there is a difference between a documentary investigation, like those Doodledog refers to, and a drama, which by definition will include entirely fictionalrecreations of what the author and producers think could have happened.

I do not think dramas should be made that involve living people. Those of us who do family history know that census returns are not released until 100 years after they were taken to ensure that, originslly, no one mentioned in them would still be alive, obviously the increase in longevity, has altered this slightly, but the principle is sound.

I agree. If you put yourself in the place of any of the living people and there were actors publicising their versions of the tacky bits or family rows from your family, and you weren’t allowed to refuse inclusion of, or give a more correct version, would you still say it was acceptable?
Or would the 15 minutes of fame persuade you.
Even Diana might not have been happy with such publicity since it means her sons, know viewers are relishing the scandals around their mother. Or maybe she wouldn’t have cared.

I have been watching a two part docudrama about Charles I which is attempting to tell the story factually whilst using actors walking around, gazing out of windows, using quill pens etc. This does give a human element to the people involved without imagining conversations which might have taken place or events which may have happened. I think it's a great way to tell the story without speculating. In fact questions can even be asked by the narrator, rather than giving us someone's interpretation of the answers through dramatic spoken scenes. This is the criticism levelled at The Crown, creating imaged scenes and imagined conversations which took place only 25 years ago and may give a completely inaccurate representation of the people involved. People who are still alive and carrying out royal duties for the country.

Sorry but I find most of the narrative about the royal family 'imaginary' so I cant get too worried about the crown.

It's just another fictional soap albeit with high production values. The RF are immensely privileged and their main concern is how to remain so in my opinion.

It’s a good soap opera and I am enjoying it. How much is the truth is a moot point but I really don’t think it matters. I agree, things about living people like Charles and Camilla should not be included but they haven’t tried to stop it and they probably don’t give two hoots. I bet they watch it and have a good laugh at the inaccuracies.

I have watched to the end, and this series has not covered the death of Diana - in fact she hasn't yet met Dodi, who is happily with someone else.

So much for the gruesome scenes we were being asked to boycott. I think that shows the folly of believing rumours without even watching/reading/hearing things for oneself.

Thanks Doodledog for telling us what the series actually covers.
Nothing too much for the RF to fret about then and perhaps Spare will be equally be the same.
I'm going to watch The Crown at the weekend when less busy.

Doodledog

I have watched to the end, and this series has not covered the death of Diana - in fact she hasn't yet met Dodi, who is happily with someone else.

So much for the gruesome scenes we were being asked to boycott. I think that shows the folly of believing rumours without even watching/reading/hearing things for oneself.

The Crown is not finished! Season 6 is being made which will cover the death of Diana. There were pictures of the recreation of the car crash so it is being portrayed. Season 6 will go into the early 2000s.

Lots of information here if you scroll down: The Crown Season 6

Oh yes, there was always going to be a set of six series, but there are comments on this thread about the gruesome scenes of Diana's death in this one.

Series 6 will also cover Andrew's shenanigans, I believe - it will be interesting to see how that goes .

Maybe people were getting confused because the media were showing pictures of them filming the car crash from Season 6 at the same time as Season 5 went on air.

Maybe. Anyone wanting to judge for themselves can watch safe in the knowledge that there will be no gruesomeness in this series though. Tampon talk, but Diana doesn't die.

We all know the story before we start, so it's not as though there will be any surprises for anyone involved (audience or RF), in this series or any other.

One spoiler - the BBC episode, where the Queen is persuaded to get Sky to watch the racing, and has to get William to help her find the channels made me smile . Whether that is true or not it was a very human moment.

From Wikipedia:
In April 2022, it was reported that Netflix and Left Bank were having preliminary conversations about a prequel. It is believed that the series will span a period of nearly 50 years, starting with the death of Queen Victoria in 1901 and ending around the wedding of Queen Elizabeth II in 1947. The series will also reportedly cover the reigns of the four kings that ruled during that period: Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII and George VI

Ooh! I'll look forward to that.

I enjoyed Victoria with Jenna Coleman.

Genna. Can I disable autocorrect on here?

Jenna Coleman is correct. The four kings will be great. There have been movies etc. before for the period 1900-1950 but the Crown lavishes so much money on them I'm sure they will be spectacular.

I am not a prude. It's cruel to air other people's private phone calls especially when they are intimate. If this drama is as reported I will believe it to be nothing but cheap sensationalism.

Chestnut

Jenna Coleman is correct. The four kings will be great. There have been movies etc. before for the period 1900-1950 but the Crown lavishes so much money on them I'm sure they will be spectacular.

Oh, is it? . I googled, as I nearly typed Gemma, but thought that was wrong, and found Genna, which I put in my post and it autocorrected to Jenna.

I agree that it will be good. It's not a time period that tends to get covered in history, other than the two world wars. It will be good to find out more about the politics and domestic affairs.

Caleo

I am not a prude. It's cruel to air other people's private phone calls especially when they are intimate. If this drama is as reported I will believe it to be nothing but cheap sensationalism.

Yes but so many people will enjoy prurient interest in it and it will make money.