The widely acclaimed series, The Crown, has faced intense criticism from none other than the Queen’s former press secretary, Dickie Arbiter. Arbiter asserts that the portrayal of the events surrounding Princess Diana’s death lacks sensitivity and accuses creator Peter Morgan of taking “dramatic license gone bonkers.” In this article, we delve deep into the show’s alleged insensitivity and explore the stark differences between its depiction and the actual events that unfolded.
Arbiter singles out a specific scene where Prince Charles informs his sons, Princes William and Harry, about their mother’s tragic demise. He vehemently decries the insensitivity of this sequence, arguing that it was unnecessary and that the death of their mother is still a raw wound for both princes. Additionally, Arbiter dismisses the scenes between Charles and Queen Elizabeth, calling them “absolute nonsense” and refuting the claim that the Queen wanted Diana’s body transported in a Harrods van. He emphasizes that an aircraft was always intended to bring her back from France, and the Queen readily agreed to it.
Arbiter corrects another misrepresentation in the series regarding the preparations for Diana’s funeral. Contrary to the show’s portrayal, it was not the Queen but Diana’s brother, Charles Spencer, who proposed a public ceremony overseen by Buckingham Palace. As the person in charge of media arrangements during that period, Arbiter underscores that Spencer believed Diana’s popularity and adoration from the public warranted a grand public event. This revelation contradicts the narrative presented in The Crown and highlights a significant deviation from historical accuracy.
Arbiter challenges the claim that Prince William disappeared for a prolonged period of 14 hours at Balmoral Castle upon learning of his mother’s death. While he acknowledges that William and Harry did go for walks to cope with their grief, he firmly asserts that such a prolonged absence did not occur. This discrepancy further underscores the show’s deviation from reality and highlights the potential dangers of presenting inaccurate portrayals of real-life events.
The inclusion of Diana’s so-called “ghost” in The Crown is criticized as a desperate attempt to inject sensationalism into the narrative. Arbiter dismisses these scenes as a desperate measure, implying that the creators were willing to sacrifice accuracy for dramatic effect. This manipulation of events and characters only adds fuel to the argument that the show’s portrayal is far from sensitive and respectful.
In response to the mounting criticism, The Crown’s executive producer, Suzanne Mackie, claims that they approached the events of Diana’s death with care. However, she concedes that the audience will ultimately form its own judgments about the show’s handling of the delicate subject matter. While she defends the show’s thoughtfulness and sensitivity, it is clear that many viewers and critics disagree, accusing The Crown of taking too many creative liberties.
Peter Morgan, the sole writer of The Crown, has never marketed the series as an unflinchingly faithful portrayal of history. He readily acknowledges that his writing often blends “acts of imagination” with real-life events, blurring the line between reality and fiction. Despite this admission, Arbiter argues that global audiences believe every word of The Crown, calling for Netflix to provide a disclaimer to clarify the show’s heavily embellished nature.
Despite the controversies and criticisms, Arbiter believes that The Crown has not fundamentally harmed the royal family. It is important to note that this is his personal opinion, and many others may hold differing views. However, his assertion invites a broader discussion on the potential impact such portrayals can have on public perception and the need for responsible storytelling.
The portrayal of Princess Diana’s death in The Crown has come under intense scrutiny for its lack of sensitivity and historical inaccuracies. Dickie Arbiter, the Queen’s former press secretary, presents a compelling argument against the show’s impeccable reputation, drawing attention to the insensitivity, misrepresentations, and sensationalism that surround its narrative. As viewers, it is crucial to approach historical dramas with a critical eye and demand a balance between artistic license and a respectful portrayal of real-life events.