In a 2017 discussion of “The Crown,” Morgan said
“you sometimes have to forsake accuracy, but
you must never forsake truth.”
Steven Fielding, a professor of political history
at the University of Nottingham, said the
suggestion that “The Crown” carry a disclaimer
was “reasonable and yet pointless.”
“It invariably doesn’t have an effect,” he said.
“There are studies that show that people believe
fiction when it’s presented as fact — even if you
tell them it’s not fact.”
Fielding said it was no surprise that Charles
and his allies were annoyed with the heir to
the throne’s depiction as “a bit of an idiot.” But
he said making a fuss about it only amplifies
the attention.
Historians are used to railing at inaccuracies in
dramas such as the Academy Award-winning
“Darkest Hour,” which included an invented
scene of Winston Churchill meeting ordinary
Londoners on an Underground Tube train
during World War II.
“Mixing historical fact and fiction has been
around since Shakespeare. This is not new
to films, it’s not new to TV,” said Fielding, co-
author of “The Churchill Myths,” which examines
Britain’s wartime leader in popular culture.
“I don’t recall the culture secretary complaining
about the ridiculous presentation of Winston
Churchill in ’Darkest Hour,” he said. “Because it
went with the myth, with the idea of Churchill
the hero, nobody complained.”
“Nobody’s bothered if fact and fiction are all
mangled up, so long as it’s saying nice things,”
he added.