For six seasons, Peter Morgan’s The Crown has captivated global audiences, offering a sumptuous, dramatic, and deeply human glimpse behind the fortified walls of Buckingham Palace. More than just a television show, it has become a primary source of historical understanding for millions, blurring the line between documented fact and cinematic fiction. With its final season, covering the tumultuous period from the late 1990s to the early 2000s, the series faced its most formidable and sensitive challenge: dramatizing the tragic death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and the nascent relationship between Prince William and Kate Middleton.
The question of the show’s historical accuracy is not a new one, but it has never been more pressing. The final season deals with events that are seared into the global consciousness, where memory, emotion, and media narrative collide. This deep dive seeks to separate the royal wheat from the dramatic chaff, examining the final season’s biggest claims against the historical record, with a focus on expertise, authoritative sources, and a nuanced understanding of both the monarchy and the art of storytelling.
Understanding the “Based on a True Story” Framework
Before dissecting specific events, it is crucial to establish what The Crown is and, just as importantly, what it is not. Peter Morgan has never claimed to be a documentarian. In a 2015 interview, he described the show as a “reimagining” or a “portrait” of the Queen’s reign. The series uses known historical events as a skeleton, but it is the muscle and sinew of private conversation, imagined motivation, and compressed timelines that give the drama its power.
The show operates on a principle of “emotional truth” rather than “forensic accuracy.” Morgan and his team take historical pillars—a speech was given, a meeting occurred, a death happened—and then construct the private, emotional world that might have surrounded those public moments. This is a legitimate and powerful dramatic technique, but it requires the viewer to be a critical consumer. The final season, perhaps more than any other, tests the limits of this technique, venturing into territory where the “emotional truth” for some may feel like a painful “historical falsehood” for others.
The Ghost in the Machine: The Portrayal of Dodi and Mohamed Al-Fayed
One of the most significant and controversial narrative arcs in Season 6 is the portrayal of Dodi Fayed and his father, Mohamed Al-Fayed. The series presents a clear, almost novelistic narrative: the wealthy, ambitious Mohamed is orchestrating a relationship between Dodi and Diana, seeing it as his ultimate ticket into the British establishment—a “royal seal of approval” that would finally secure the coveted British passport he had long been denied.
The Claim: The show depicts Mohamed as a puppet master, constantly on the phone, pushing Dodi towards a proposal and fantasizing about a future where his grandchild would be a half-sibling to the future King of England. Dodi is portrayed as a somewhat hapless, love-struck figure, eager to please both Diana and his demanding father.
The Historical Record: While Mohamed Al-Fayed’s desire for social acceptance and a British passport is a matter of public record, the extent of his direct involvement in the relationship is speculative. Friends of Dodi and Diana have offered conflicting accounts. Some, like Diana’s confidante Rosa Monckton, have stated that Diana saw the relationship as a summer fling and was not in love. In a 1998 letter, Diana herself wrote that she thought Dodi was “soooooo boring,” though feelings can certainly change.
The show’s dramatization of Dodi purchasing an engagement ring on the day of their death is a key point of contention. The ring was indeed bought from Repossi Jewelers in Monaco, but the timeline and intent are murky. The Paget Report—the official, extensive investigation into the deaths—concluded that the ring was likely a “friendship ring” or a “commitment ring,” not necessarily an engagement ring, and that it was selected by Dodi alone, not with Diana. By presenting it as a near-certain pre-engagement, the show leans into a more tragic, star-crossed lovers narrative.
Verdict: Dramatic Embellishment. The series creates a coherent, dramatic motive for Mohamed Al-Fayed that, while rooted in his known ambitions, simplifies a complex human relationship into a strategic gambit. The engagement ring narrative is amplified beyond the available evidence to heighten the tragedy.
The “Queen of Hearts” vs. The Monarchy: The “Two Camillas” Leak
A powerful storyline in the first half of the season involves a secret campaign by “the Establishment” to rehabilitate Camilla Parker Bowles’s image and, by contrast, tarnish Diana’s. This culminates in a scene where Charles’s private secretary, Mark Bolland, presents a strategy memo titled “The Two Camillas,” outlining a plan to position Camilla as the “victim” and Diana as the “villain.”
The Claim: That a calculated, top-down media strategy was actively deployed by Charles’s camp in the summer of 1997 to undermine Diana’s public standing and pave the way for public acceptance of Camilla.
The Historical Record: This is one of the season’s most accurate and well-documented plot points. Mark Bolland, who was indeed Deputy Private Secretary to Prince Charles at the time, was a master of media manipulation, nicknamed “Lord Blackadder” for his cunning. His work to rehabilitate Camilla’s image is a matter of public record and was the subject of extensive media coverage and subsequent books, including Penny Junor’s The Firm.
Bolland himself has confirmed the existence and intent of such strategies. He famously engineered Camilla’s first public appearance with Charles in 1999 and worked tirelessly to position her as a loyal, dependable, and unfairly maligned figure. The specific term “The Two Camillas” may be a dramatic invention for the show, but the strategy it represents—contrasting a “stable” Camilla with a “volatile” Diana—was very real. The show is on solid ground here, illustrating the brutal “media wars” that were a defining feature of that era.
Verdict: Largely Accurate. The show correctly identifies the key players, the strategic intent, and the ruthless nature of the public relations battle being waged from St. James’s Palace.
The Final Hours: The Paparazzi, the Chase, and the Aftermath
The depiction of Diana’s final days and the car crash in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel is the emotional and ethical core of the season. The show handles this with a degree of solemnity, but still makes key dramatic choices that shape the narrative.
The Claim: The season portrays the paparazzi as a relentless, predatory horde, whose aggressive pursuit directly caused Henri Paul to drive at high speed, leading to the fatal crash. It also shows the British Embassy in Paris being slow to respond and the Queen and Prince Charles receiving the news with a sense of dread and, initially, a focus on protocol.
The Historical Record:
- The Paparazzi: The official Paget Report and the French investigation concluded that the pursuing photographers were guilty of “invasion of privacy,” but that the primary cause of the accident was Henri Paul, who was driving at extreme speed while intoxicated (his blood-alcohol level was over three times the French legal limit) and under the influence of prescription drugs. The show accurately shows the paparazzi following them from the Ritz, but the emphasis on their bikes and cars being directly on the Mercedes’ bumper in the tunnel is dramatized for effect. The cause was a tragic cocktail of Paul’s impairment, high speed, and the presence of the paparazzi, not the paparazzi’s driving alone.
- The British Embassy: The series shows a junior embassy official, having been woken up, being dismissive and slow to act. This is a dramatic device to create tension. In reality, the British Ambassador to France, Sir Michael Jay, was quickly informed and was actively involved throughout the night, liaising directly with Downing Street. The show’s version creates a narrative of bureaucratic indifference that is not entirely fair.
- The Royal Family’s Reaction: The private reactions of the Royal Family are, by definition, unknown. The show’s depiction of Prince Charles being deeply distraught and the Queen being stoic and concerned about protocol is consistent with their public personas and accounts from insiders like Press Secretary Alastair Campbell, whose diaries describe Charles as “utterly horrified.” The Queen’s initial reluctance to fly the flag at half-mast and to make a public address was real and was a significant point of conflict with Tony Blair’s government, which understood the public’s need for a symbolic gesture.
Verdict: A Mix of Fact and Necessary Dramatization. The show responsibly avoids showing the actual impact, a commendable choice. Its attribution of blame leans more heavily on the paparazzi than the official reports do, which is a clear dramatic choice to create a villainous force. The embassy scene is overly simplified, while the royal reactions are plausible, if imagined, interpretations.
The “She’d Have Taken the Title”: The Queen Mother’s Alleged Comment
In a particularly chilling scene, the Queen Mother (played by Marcia Warren) watches Diana’s funeral on television with the Queen. As Elton John sings “Candle in the Wind,” the Queen Mother coldly states, “Thank God she’s gone. No more trouble. No more embarrassment.” She then adds a even more cutting remark: “And thank God that young man [Dodi] was with her. Can you imagine if she’d have married him? She’d have taken the title… ‘Queen of Hearts’ was bad enough. What would she have become? Our Queen?”
The Claim: That the Queen Mother held such vitriolic feelings toward Diana that she was relieved by her death and specifically feared a hypothetical future where a married Diana would have overshadowed the monarchy.
The Historical Record: There is absolutely no evidence to support that this conversation, or anything like it, ever took place. This is one of the most egregious examples of pure fiction in the entire series. Biographers of the Queen Mother, such as William Shawcross, paint a picture of a woman who could be sharp and fiercely protective of the institution, but also one of immense personal charm and discipline. To attribute such a ghoulish and callous sentiment to her, especially at such a moment, is a profound dramatic liberty.
This scene serves Peter Morgan’s thematic purpose: to represent the most traditional, unforgiving wing of the monarchy that viewed Diana as an existential threat. It is the voice of the “old guard” made manifest. However, presenting it as a factual event without any basis crosses a line from “emotional truth” into harmful characterization.
Verdict: Fabricated for Dramatic Effect. This is a low point for the season’s historical integrity, inventing a malicious quote purely to illustrate an internal institutional attitude.
Read more: The Great Reboot Debate: Nostalgia Cash-Grab or Worthy Reimagination?
The Heir and The Spare: William, Kate, and the Aftermath
The second half of Season 6 focuses on Prince William’s grief and his budding friendship with Kate Middleton at the University of St. Andrews. This is where The Crown begins to lay the groundwork for a more hopeful future.
The Claim: The show depicts a deeply grieving William, resistant to his royal destiny and struggling under the media spotlight. It shows his mother’s ghost appearing to him as a comforting guide. His relationship with Kate begins tentatively, with the show suggesting he was initially more interested than she was, and that her now-legendary “fashion show” moment was a key turning point.
The Historical Record:
- William’s Grief: Accounts from those close to the prince confirm that he was profoundly affected by his mother’s death. His biographer, Robert Lacey, notes that he became more withdrawn and serious. The show’s portrayal of his turmoil is a reasonable interpretation of known facts.
- The Ghost of Diana: This is pure dramatic fantasy. While William has spoken of feeling his mother’s presence and seeking guidance from her memory, the literal apparitions are a cinematic device from Morgan, used to externalize William’s internal struggle and provide narrative closure.
- The William & Kate Romance: The timeline of their early relationship is broadly accurate. They did meet in 2001 at St. Andrews, share a residence (St Salvator’s Hall), and become friends before dating. The now-famous charity fashion show where Kate wore a see-through dress did happen in 2002 and is widely cited as the moment William saw her in a new light. The show’s depiction of Kate as confident and William as slightly awkward is a plausible, if simplified, take on their dynamic. The idea that she “played it cool” is supported by many reports.
Verdict: A Plausible and Largely Accurate Dramatization. While the ghostly visits are fictional, the emotional core of William’s grief and the general trajectory of his and Kate’s early relationship are handled with a surprising degree of sensitivity and adherence to the public record.
Conclusion: A Triumph of Drama, A Compromise of History
So, is The Crown historically accurate? The final season, like its predecessors, is a masterfully crafted piece of television drama that uses history as its raw material, not its script. It is at its most reliable when depicting broad political and media strategies (the “Two Camillas” campaign) and at its most speculative and potentially problematic when venturing into private, unverifiable conversations, particularly those attributing cruel or malicious thoughts to real people (the Queen Mother’s comment).
Its portrayal of the events surrounding Diana’s death is a careful but distinct interpretation, emphasizing the role of the paparazzi and the emotional turmoil within the palace, while simplifying complex causes and bureaucratic responses.
Ultimately, The Crown‘s final season should be viewed as a fictionalized epilogue to a real-life tragedy. It is a compelling, thought-provoking, and often deeply moving drama. However, it is not a substitute for a well-researched biography or a historical documentary. Its greatest success is in humanizing its subjects, but its greatest failure can be when that humanization tips into unfounded characterization. The informed viewer must watch it as Peter Morgan intended: not as a history lesson, but as a powerful and poignant story inspired by history.
Read more: Classic Film Revisited: Why ‘Network’ is More Relevant Today Than Ever
FAQ Section
Q1: Did Peter Morgan or the producers of The Crown consult with the Royal Family?
A: No. The Royal Household has a long-standing policy of not cooperating with such dramatic productions. The show’s writers rely on publicly available information, including biographies, newspaper archives, official reports (like the Paget Report), and the private diaries and memoirs of key figures (such as Alastair Campbell and Tony Blair).
Q2: Why does The Crown add scenes that never happened?
A: This is a fundamental part of dramatic storytelling. Scenes like the private conversations between the Queen and Prime Ministers or the ghostly appearances of Diana are used to convey internal emotions, thematic ideas, and character motivations that would otherwise be inaccessible. They are tools to explore the “why” behind the known “what.”
Q3: How has the British public and press reacted to the final season’s accuracy?
A: The reaction has been mixed. Some critics and historians have praised the show’s sensitive handling of Diana’s death, while others have condemned specific fabrications, like the Queen Mother’s comment, as cruel and unjustified. The British press has been particularly critical of the portrayal of Mohamed and Dodi Al-Fayed, arguing it perpetuates negative stereotypes.
Q4: Where can I go to learn the actual facts about this period?
A: For those interested in the historical record, the following are authoritative starting points:
- For Diana’s Final Days: The official Paget Report is the most comprehensive investigative document.
- For Royal Biographies: Books by respected historians and biographers like Robert Lacey (Battle of Brothers), William Shawcross (The Queen Mother), and Penny Junor (The Firm) provide well-researched perspectives.
- For Political Context: The diaries of Alastair Campbell and autobiographies of Tony Blair offer firsthand accounts of the government’s interactions with the palace during this time.
Q5: Did Prince Charles really try to “hijack” the plane to retrieve Diana’s body?
A: The series shows a frantic Prince Charles insisting on going to Paris immediately. This is based on accounts from insiders. Alastair Campbell’s diaries confirm that Charles was indeed insistent and emotionally distraught, wanting to bring Diana’s body back with dignity. The show’s dramatization of this is considered to be close to the truth.
Q6: Is it ethical for The Crown to dramatize events so close to the present, involving people who are still alive?
A: This is the central ethical question of the final season. Critics argue that inventing dialogue and motivations for living individuals like Prince William, Prince Charles, and Camilla, the Queen Consort, can cause real distress and misinform the public. Defenders of the show argue that the royal family is a public institution and that dramatic interpretation is a protected form of artistic expression. There is no easy answer, and it underscores the responsibility of viewers to consume the show critically.
/wion/media/media_files/2025/02/12/CRfEneJ6R32IeQjjeSKQ.png "Samay Raina")
