I would stress that's a dramatisation, not a documentary, and almost every word spoken apart from a few known quotes is made up. Probably not a suitable source to base your opinion of someone on tbh. Good TV by all accounts, but meant to entertain not inform.
Agreed.
But still a relevant topic, unfortunately.
Agreed.
It is the "one site" but - with the greatest of respect - I would argue that it is not the "one thread".
Actually - and I am not a monarchist - I think that she was an exceptionally safe pair of constitutional hands (for the most part) and played a difficult and demanding role with dignity and decency - elevating a vision and version of public service, that, while it may have been outmoded, can still merit respect - for well over half a century.
Not arguing, most conversations in any historical dramas are created, but I would expect those conversations at the least in a good historical drama, which I consider the The Crown to be, fall within the realm and support the historical record.
Yes, I would say it is first and foremost a work of fiction. It is based on historical events, but most of the fleshing out likely takes substantial liberties, or is entirely fabricated, unless there is direct historical evidence for it. The writers and directors will have their own biases, and moreover will want to create a narrative that will captivate people and keep them wanting to watch. A story requires conflict, and for this story at best they have conjured it up based on supposition and interpretation. Some of your examples may incidentally be true, but if that is the case you have come to the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons.
I think all of us could learn a little from this simple unofficial motto.
, yet…I’ll live if you don’t. 
Why wait. I’d ditch the lot of them tomorrow.
I am sure you and many would, unfortunately we have this pesky democracy stuff and the like. Unless a major political party backs a referendum then we are stuck with it. I’d say we have more pressing concerns right now though, so hence a few years.
Nothing democratic about hereditary titles! But yes I’d rather the government focused on other issues right now as well.
We have know for a very long time that we have a constitutional monarchy, we have known for 70 years that Charles would inherit the throne when the queen died. We didn’t just find out although a few people do appear shocked. A lot of us just wished it had passed to William instead.
No more love for William than I do for Charles or Elizebeth. Happy to abolish the lot.
There's a time and place for such sentiment. This is not it. Read the room (i.e., the title of the thread).
My views are my views. I’m not going to change them because someone died.
I didn't say anything with respect to your views. Maybe reread my post and try to understand it.
No need. I do understand. I’m just not going to pretend to have a different view because she died. I think the sooner we drop the monarchy the better.
Well I hope it makes you feel good to post your unsolicited views on monarchy. There are quite a few of them throughout the world. Now back to the thread memorializing Queen Elizabeth, who by almost all accounts was a great monarch.
I don’t feel good or bad thanks. You think she was a great monarch. I think there is no such thing as a great monarch. It’s an outdated system that belongs in the dark ages.
My view is that your posts are off-topic, insensitive, and disrespectful in the context of this thread. I also have to question whether your posts on monarchy as a political construct are even allowed under the forum rules. And, by the way, I do not disagree with you on the substance.
I'm not sure what point I'm meant to be conceding, that the television show is based on real events? Well so is House of the Dragon (The Anarchy) but like The Crown, it's fictional characters offer very little insight into the real personalities of those involved. That is a more exaggerated example, with a made up continent, houses as well as people fitted over the basic events, but the same principle applies. Thy have used a historical set of events to create a fictional story.Much of this has to do with your perspective about what qualifies as fiction and what is important. We watched The Tudors where every line of dialog was made up, so the only standard is does it support the historical record? Sadly on many occasions it did not, so entertaining but fictional.
No hard feelings on my part, it would be nice if you could concede my point
The people who crated this show based it on the life of Queen Elizabeth. It would not do to make up a false history or it would be called complete rubbish. For The Crown, you can say oh this was fiction or can you? It depends on what level you hold the show to. It can be said that Prince Phillip cheated on Elizabeth on his world tour, and she reacted to it in a certain way, and you can also say those conversations did not happen in that manner but it did happen and then dismiss it all as fiction, but that would be a mistake Imo.
I’d counter argue the show did not make this up. Princess Diana’s history because she spoke out about her experiences is likely the best documented, and it is your option to describe it as a work of fiction, but at it’s core imo this is truth at a fundamental level. Charles did pursue her under false pretenses, there was a knowledge within the monarchy that Diane was being deceived, and that for just about all of their history together until their divorce, despite the Crown’s efforts to keep Charles in line, he was unfaithful to Diana. Sure, call that fiction, but I choose not to without further qualification.
This article supports the idea of a historical drama but not a documentary:
Is The Crown Accurate? The Answer Is More Complicated Than Fact-Checking the Netflix Series
"There are two sorts of truth. There's historical truth and then there's the larger truth about the past," says the show's historical consultant, Robert Lacey.www.townandcountrymag.com
The big difference being only the CoE members contribute financially to the institution.
