Friends of Prince Charles launched a violent attack on The Crown last night, accusing the producers of the hit Netflix drama of "trolling on a Hollywood budget".
Some of the prince's closest confidants have accused the streaming giant of exploiting the royal family's pain for financial gain, raging that "fiction in its twisted version of events is portrayed as fact."
The fourth series, which launches today, covers Charles & # 39; damn marriage to Princess Diana, her eating disorders, and his affair with Camilla Parker Bowles.
However, the broadcaster's willingness to swap the reputations of the royals has raised new questions among senior family members following the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's decision to sign a multi-million pound contract with the California-based broadcaster.
Emma Corrin as Princess Diana and Josh O & # 39; Connor as Prince Charles in the fourth series of Netflix & # 39; The Crown. Friends of Charles launched a violent assault on the show, accusing the producers of "trolling on a Hollywood budget".
Some of the prince's closest confidants have accused the streaming giant of exploiting the royal family's pain for financial gain and raged that "fiction in its twisted version of events is presented as fact" (Charles on November 14 in Berlin pictured).
In a series of highly unusual public interventions demonstrating deep concern at the top of the royal family, Palace insiders have lined up to plan the Netflix show.
"This is drama and entertainment for commercial purposes, regardless of the actual people involved, whose lives are being kidnapped and exploited," said a source.
"In this case, things that happened in very difficult times 25 or 30 years ago are dragged out without thinking about other people's feelings." This is not right or fair, especially when so many of the things depicted are not the truth. "
The fourth series of the hit drama spans the years from Lord Mountbatt's assassination in 1979 to the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher in 1990. However, it is a portrayal of a callous and selfish meeting with Charles and marrying an innocent Diana while he was his affair with the then married Camilla, which sparked such anger.
"The new series paints the Prince and Duchess in a very unflattering light, but at least at the start of reality shows like 'The Only Way Is Essex,' they admit that some scenes were made up for entertainment," a source testified the palace.
"It doesn't make sense to tell carefully nuanced stories – everything is very two-dimensional." This is trolling on a Hollywood budget. The public should not be fooled that this is an accurate representation of what really happened. "
Scenes of Diana eating food before vomiting into a toilet are so vivid that they have on-screen warnings. The prospect of it – and the very public reminder of the bitter separation of his parents – will undoubtedly also irritate Prince William, according to an insider.
“The Duke of Cambridge is not too pleased with it. He feels that both of his parents are being exploited and portrayed in fake, oversimplified ways to make money, ”the source said.
Prince Charles and Diana imagined announcing their engagement at Buckingham Palace, London in 1981 (file photo)
Emma Corrin as Princess Diana and Josh O & # 39; Connor as Prince Charles in the fourth series of Netflix & # 39; The Crown
The series – the most serious between a broadcaster and the royal family since the BBC apologized to the Queen in 2007 after mistakenly suggesting she stormed out of a photoshoot – is getting attention back to that of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Deal signed with Netflix direct earlier this year. Some estimates put it at $ 100 million (£ 75 million).
"There are raised eyebrows when Harry takes millions from the company that is behind it all," said a source. "After all, where does a lot of Netflix's profits come from? The Crown."
So far, the royal family has refused to comment on The Crown.
However, The Mail on Sunday believes the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh were upset about previous series. Philip was shown having an affair with a ballerina in the second series and ignoring his mother, Princess Alice, in the third series while she was living at Buckingham Palace in 1967. Neither happened.
When Prince Charles celebrated his 72nd birthday yesterday, friends explained what they consider gross inaccuracies in the new series. These include scenes in which Charles berates his wife and Diana confronts the Queen and Prince of Wales about their affair at their wedding rehearsal in St. Paul's Cathedral.
The series also falsely suggests that Charles and Camilla's affair continued throughout his marriage to Diana.
Emerald Fennell as Camilla and Josh O & # 39; Connor as Prince Charles in the fourth series of Netflix & # 39; drama The Crown
In a particularly wounding invention, Charles & # 39; beloved great-uncle Earl Mountbatten is shown shortly before his death by the IRA how the family is disappointed in his relationship with Camilla and finds a wife. In the drama, Charles calls him a traitor. There is no evidence that the exchange took place.
In another insidious fictional scene, Prince Philip threatens Diana in 1990 after she suggests leaving Charles. Sources said this was an inept reference to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that he was somehow implicated in the car accident in Paris that killed the princess in August 1997.
A palace source accused Netflix of failing to realize that there are still scars from Charles and Diana's bitter breakup.
“These events are not the story of 100 or even 50 years ago. The pain is still hard and not enough time has passed, ”said the insider. "Fiction becomes more attractive than fact and it is very insensitive to dramatize these painful incidents of marital breakdowns and angry children."
Last night, the royal biographer Sally Beddell Smith said: “The crown is a fiction and the level of invention has increased. While the previous seasons were historical plays, the fourth series is a more recent story, which is why it appears more cruel in its misrepresentations.
“Because The Crown is such an elaborate and expensive production, and because so much attention has been paid to visual details about historical events, viewers are led to believe that what they are seeing actually happened. At the beginning of every program there should be a disclaimer that says: "This is a fiction, and any resemblance to the living or the dead is purely coincidental."
Accusing the Crown writer, Peter Morgan, of being “almost Trumpian” with his alternate facts, she added, “There have been extreme and outrageous misrepresentations … Viewers should not be fooled. This is a Royal Family version of Downton Abbey. "
Last night, both Clarence House and Kensington Palace declined to comment.
Emily Andrews: How Can Prince Harry Steal Millions From Streaming Giant Who Is Spreading The Truth About His Family?
By Emily Andrews for the Sunday Mail
Why is the representation of the royal family important in The Crown? I'm sure everyone knows it's just fiction: another costume drama from Netflix, the California-based “Dream Factory,” which pumps out £ 12 billion worth of content every year.
But therein lies the brilliance – and the cruelty of real life – of the crown.
Although it is a "drama that follows the political rivalries and romance of Elizabeth II's reign," the meticulous detail that goes into the filming suggests that the producers want to get as close to the truth as possible .
For example, all of the toys shown in young William's nursery are exactly those that were used in the early 1980s. To recreate Diana's wedding dress, the costume designer went to Paris to buy buttons in a shop that the queen's dressmaker uses and chose from a collection of more than 30,000. The grocery stamps in Margaret Thatcher's cupboards have been chosen with immaculate care.
So when Camilla is portrayed as selfish, scheming and poisonous; Charles as selfish, callous and weak, their love affair destroys the innocent Diana. Viewers are encouraged to believe that this is true.
The Crown Season 4. Pictured: Princess Diana (Emma Corrin) and Prince Charles (Josh O Connor)
But these are real people who lead complex lives and have been shabbily reduced to a dramatic stereotype to tickle the paying viewer. No wonder the royals are angry.
"Never Complain" was one of the queen's noblest articles of faith. However, over the years it has been put to the test.
But never before have members of their own families been associated with those who “troll” the monarchy. The unsatisfactory impression is that Prince Harry and his former Hollywood star wife Meghan are profiting amply from the company's distortion of the truth about the royal family after signing a deal with Netflix.
Her reported $ 100 million (£ 78 million) deal with the U.S. streaming giant will give Harry financial freedom, but he raised eyebrows at home – especially those close to Charles and William.
How can he take money from a company that his family trades? Does this callously recreate the Irish terror bomb that killed Lord Mountbatten and three others? That scratches the carcass of Harry and Williams' parents like a vulture, bitterly breaking the marriage?
In addition, The Mail on Sunday can show that the Netflix documentary they are discussing goes beyond the originally promised "inspirational family programming".
Instead, it will be about the couple's first year after splitting up from the royal family, their new life in California and the reasons for fleeing the UK.
According to a well-placed source, the couple has video footage of the last time they left their Windsor home, Frogmore Cottage, and their “farewell tour” at Buckingham Palace. Its representatives are believed to have opened the footage – including personal videos captured when they retired from royal life – during negotiations with Netflix.
Given the broadcaster's critical stance on the royal family, this is hardly a good sign.
It is worth remembering that the Crown's screenwriter, Peter Morgan, once a staunch Republican, recognized the Queen as "a rural woman of limited intelligence who preferred to look after her dogs and breed horses than Queen." his". He has also compared the monarchy to "survival organisms like a mutating virus".
But never before have members of their own families been associated with those who “troll” the monarchy. The unsatisfactory impression is that Prince Harry and his former Hollywood star wife Meghan are profiting amply from the company's distortion of the truth about the royal family after signing a deal with Netflix
Morgan's latest series, The Crown, is littered with harmful falsehoods and misrepresentations.
At one such company, Harry and Meghan's promise that their Netflix deal will deliver "powerful storytelling through a truthful and relatable lens" sounds hollow.
A positive side effect of the couple's sudden departure, however, is that William and Charles – who didn't always see eye to eye – were brought closer together.
Father and son unite behind a common goal – to protect the monarchy's reputation and ensure its continuity and relevance.
Indeed, there was a collective sigh of horror when Harry and Meghan posted their own curated Remembrance Sunday pics last weekend while visiting Los Angeles National Cemetery.
They took their own celebrity photographer (and possibly a Netflix film crew?) And then distributed the images worldwide. Back in the UK, high-ranking royals saw this PR stunt as insensitive.
Remembrance Sunday is treated as one of the most important dates on the calendar – an opportunity that is a "privilege" for the living to pay tribute to the dead who sacrificed their lives for a greater good. Commemorations are not about the individual. Harry as a former soldier should have known better than "arming" memory as part of his little war with the rest of the Windsors.
That episode had further corroded the relationship between William and Harry. Orienting himself to his grandmother, William now realizes the good that his platform can achieve after initially struggling to take on the royal full-time duties.
Harry signed off – with a financial reward – and left Charles and William to pick up the pieces.
Yes, her father had a longstanding premarital relationship with Camilla. But it stopped before he married Diana and didn't start again until around 1986. At this point, Diana had her own lovers.
The crown exploits its misfortune to the bank.
How the American heads of Netflix must have enjoyed watching The Crown's writing team have fun at the expense of the current royal family and turn their lives into a moneymaking parody of the truth.
For those close to Charles, it's worse. They are "incredible and harmful lies".
The great fear is that many around the world will see the crown as the truth.
In due course, Charles and Camilla will become king and queen. They celebrated their 15th wedding anniversary this year – longer than Charles & # 39; wedding to Diana. The Duchess of Cornwall has worked very hard to help unfashionable causes such as victims of abuse and sexual violence, literacy and osteoporosis.
She knows that she can never be another fashionable, traffic-calming Princess of Wales – tellingly, she never used the title – but worked out her own role as the Prince's wife. He loves her and depends on her – in fact, she is mentally much stronger of both. They go well together, laugh at the same sense of the absurd, are fueled by the same ideals.
With her in his life, Charles feels perfect.
He has found more certainty in his role as the waiting king.
Mocked so many times in the past for his views on genetically modified plants, “talking to plants” and his environmental concerns, Charles has proven himself to be visionary in his campaign to protect the natural world.
When he landed in Berlin yesterday evening to become the first British king to remember German war dead, he spoke about "our countries that are beginning a new chapter in our long history". He added that all victims of war, tyranny and persecution "should inspire us to strive for a better tomorrow".
In other words, we should focus on the future, not the past.
With their jaundiced Hollywood version of the recent past in British history, Netflix bosses would take that advice well.
But they are probably too busy figuring out the big money way to portray Princess Diana's death for The Crown's fifth series due out in 2022.
The royals of the crown are wild, cruel distortions of the people I've known for 40 years, says royal biographer PENNY JUNOR
By Penny Junor for the Sunday mail
Because it is based on real people and real events, it has the immediacy of a fly-on-the-wall documentary. The royal family, too, is an absolute gift from a subject. Over the decades, the Windsors have provided all the ingredients a writer can hope for: title, fame, money, sex, addiction, power, scandal, divorce, and death.
And with the millions that Netflix has thrown on The Crown, it's a visual feast. The casting is superb – Emma Corrins Diana is scary like real business.
How easy it is to be seduced into thinking what we see on screen is what really happened, and that is what members of the royal family really said to themselves.
So how do you separate facts from fantasies, and what are the likely long-term consequences of this seductive material for our future king and consort – and the monarchy itself?
Good for a Sunday night drama. But very unfair to those it represents. Much of this new series is based on Diana's own words. The question, then, is how reliable they were.
The truth is that she was a fragile and vulnerable young woman who struggled with life and relationships and saw conspiracies at every turn. Martin Bashir of the BBC obviously took advantage of this.
Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer, who would later become Princess of Wales, unveil their sapphire and diamond engagement ring after announcing their engagement in February 1981
As a little girl, she had felt unloved and unwanted. These feelings clouded her adult years and, in some ways, her marriage. Marriage into the royal family to a man she barely knew and with whom she had so little in common may have made matters worse, but she was already damaged by the time Charles met her.
Take, for example, a painful scene in the new series in which a smug-looking Camilla Parker Bowles and fresh-faced Diana have lunch together shortly after the princess was engaged.
Peter Morgan, the writer who has expressed Republican compassion in interviews, must have puffed in the air to discover that there was a restaurant the couple had once visited, Menage a Trois – the French phrase that Deliciously matches Diana's famous quote. & # 39; There were three of us in this marriage. Your conversation? Well, it could all be an invention of the imagination.
Good for a Sunday night drama. But very unfair to those it represents. Much of this new series is based on Diana's own words (Emma Corrin as Diana, pictured). The question, then, is how reliable they were.
The crown shows that women’s conversation at lunch very quickly goes dark. Camilla needles Diana, who becomes more and more desperate when she realizes how close Camilla is to her future husband.
The fact is that Diana and Camilla met in a restaurant called Menage a Trois, but only after Diana was married. Before that, they ate together at La Fontana, an Italian restaurant in Pimlico. Two of Camilla's friends were seated at the next table. Camilla's memory is that it was nothing more than a friendly lunch to wish Diana the best of luck.
There are other factual errors. Too many to mention here. But another also concerns Camilla. The letterhead on a correspondence she sent Diana reads “Middlewick House” – but Camilla was living at Bolehyde Manor in Wiltshire at the time.
The Princess of Wales in her wedding dress at Buckingham Palace after her wedding to Prince Charles at St Paul's Cathedral in July 1981
In summary, Camilla is established as selfish, scheming and twofold. Charles as spoiled, incompetent, and eccentric.
And Diana is cast as an innocent victim to be ruthlessly used not only by Charles and his lover, but also by his family and the entire palace establishment.
Every now and then I have been writing about these people for almost 40 years – most recently about Camilla – and have spoken to my family, friends and many people who have worked with them. I also met the individuals themselves.
"These people have raised millions of pounds for charity, brought tourists to the UK, boosted overseas trade and provided stability and continuity in a rapidly changing and uncertain world," says Penny Junor (pictured).
The characters on the screen in this new series are not the characters I know. Yes, there are flashes of them and lots of mannerisms, but overall they are wildly distorted for dramatic effects.
Camilla isn't the slut Diana destroys at Menage a Trois. In real life, she's giggling, funny, kind, and warm. She can be tough when she has to, but she's generally kind and caring, and knowing her means loving her. In the 15 years she was married to Charles, she has given problems (domestic violence, rape, and sexual violence) her name (where others would not).
She highlighted issues of literacy and loneliness. And her voice made a huge difference.
The reality is that Camilla liked Diana and was all for it when she and Charles first met.
Charles took Diana with him for the weekends at Bolehyde Manor, and Camilla got involved with the kids and was talkative and fun, and friends came for dinner and they got on well with everyone.
Unfortunately, the Queen (played by Olivia Coleman, pictured), who is still working at the age of 94, doesn't get out of The Crown well either
The characters on the screen in this new series are not the characters I know. Yes, there are flashes of them and lots of mannerisms, but overall they are wildly distorted for dramatic effects
They all went to races, polo and Balmoral together.
During the years Diana was so unhappy, Camilla felt compassionate. It was only later, when the princess was trying to harm the prince, that her feelings for Diana changed.
In The Crown we don't see that side of Camilla at all. Because the truth is seldom as interesting as a lie. And Peter Morgan is writing a drama for a multi-million dollar production. And every drama needs a hero and a villain. In the absence of the real thing, Morgan made it up. It is rewriting history and twisting our view of the country's best known and most important arguments.
Diana is cast as an innocent victim to be ruthlessly used not only by Charles and his lover, but also by his family and the entire palace establishment
More than 20 years ago I wrote a book called Charles, Victim Or Villain? At this point Diana was dead.
Her BBC Panorama interview, however, was still fresh on people's minds. Diana had convicted Charles and slandered Camilla.
I found it important to try to find out the facts about the three in marriage – because if the story had another side, it should be told.
I spoke to dozens of people who all knew them and were there at the time. My conclusion was that there weren't any bad guys; They were all victims.
Charles was a victim of his situation and his place in a very dysfunctional family. Diana suffered from childhood trauma and was abandoned by her mother at the age of six. And Camilla was lonely in a marriage with a serially unfaithful husband.
Unfortunately, the Queen, who is still working at the age of 94, doesn't get off The Crown well either.
Marriage into the royal family to a man she barely knew and with whom she had so little in common may have made matters worse, but she was already damaged by the time Charles met her
Neither did Prince Philip. Nor the queen mother. And most of the others are rather grotesque caricatures.
The convincing television and Peter Morgan will undoubtedly speak again at the various awards ceremonies, but without wanting to sound too pompous, its success comes at the expense of people who have selflessly and tirelessly given years of their lives to the service of this country. Menschen, die nicht darum gebeten haben, königlich zu sein, die vielleicht in Palästen leben, aber keine Freiheit, keine Privatsphäre und keine Wahl haben.
Diese Menschen haben Millionen Pfund für wohltätige Zwecke gesammelt, Touristen nach Großbritannien gebracht, den Handel in Übersee angekurbelt und für Stabilität und Kontinuität in einer sich schnell verändernden und unsicheren Welt gesorgt.
Morgan mag sich nicht um sie kümmern, und ich bin sicher, er ist nicht allein – und diese Anti-Royals werden ihre Fernsehgeräte anfeuern. Aber es gibt sehr viele Menschen, die sich sehr darum kümmern.
Wie auch immer, Camilla wird eines Tages Königin sein, und wenn die Leute glauben, dass die Geschichte der Ehe des Prinzen von Wales, wie sie in The Crown dargestellt ist, sachlich ist, könnte dies schreckliche Konsequenzen für das Paar haben. Und für die Zukunft der Monarchie.
Royals, Lügen und Videoband: The Crown ist ein bahnbrechendes, süchtig machendes Fernsehen, das eine Vielzahl neuer Stars auf den Markt bringt. Aber der königliche Historiker IAN LLOYD sagt, die Zuschauer müssen sich daran erinnern, dass das Drama schnell und locker mit der Wahrheit spielt
Von Ian Lloyd für die Mail am Sonntag
Wie die vorherigen drei Serien von The Crown ist auch die neueste mit sachlichen Fehlern behaftet. Hier hebt der königliche Historiker Ian Lloyd einige der schlimmsten Beispiele hervor.
DIANA UND CAMILLA'S LUNCH "DISASTER"
TV-VERSION Die beiden Frauen in Charles 'Leben treffen sich kurz nach der Verlobung von Prince und Diana im Londoner Restaurant Menage a Trois zum Mittagessen.
Camilla wird gesehen, wie sie ihren zunehmend verzweifelten Liebesrivalen zum Abschluss bringt, indem sie sagt, dass sie Dianas zukünftigen Ehemann so viel besser kennt.
FICTION: Die Krone zeigt ein angespanntes Treffen zwischen Diana und Camilla. In Wirklichkeit waren die Beziehungen herzlich
DIE WAHRHEIT Wie Penny Junor auf der gegenüberliegenden Seite sagt, trafen sich Diana und Camilla 1981 im Menage a Trois, aber erst nachdem Diana verheiratet war.
Zuvor hatten sie zusammen in La Fontana, einem italienischen Restaurant in Pimlico, zu Abend gegessen.
Antony Worrall Thompson, der ehemalige Chefpatron von Menage a Trois, war Zeuge ihrer späteren Begegnung und sagte am Sonntag zu The Mail: „Die Damen waren ein paar Stunden dort und in Gespräche vertieft. Sie waren sehr liebenswürdig; Es gab keine erhobenen Stimmen. "
Camilla Parker-Bowles (rechts) und Lady Diana Spencer (später die Prinzessin von Wales) wurden 1980 im Gespräch auf der Rennbahn von Ludlow abgebildet
"GLADYS AND FRED" ARMBAND
TV-VERSION Laut Netflix entdeckt Diana nach ihrer Verlobung, dass Charles ein Armband mit den Initialen "G" und "F" entwirft.
Sie nimmt an, dass sie für Gladys und Fred stehen – Charles und Camillas Kosenamen füreinander.
Überzeugt, dass sie eine Affäre haben, sagt sie der Königin, dass die Hochzeit nicht stattfinden kann und konfrontiert Charles bei der Probe in der St. Pauls Kathedrale.
INSCRIBED: The real Camilla wears the G and F bracelet Charles designed
THE TRUTH While Diana did find the bracelet and was ‘devastated’, the initials stood for ‘Girl Friday’ – Charles’s nickname for Camilla.
But there’s no evidence Diana approached the Queen, and there was no confrontation at St Paul’s – it had been discussed earlier.
Charles did give the bracelet to Camilla on the day of the rehearsal, which led to Diana having what she described as a ‘wobble’.
THE TRUTH: Charles did give the G and F bracelet to Camilla on the day of the rehearsal, which led to Diana having what she described as a ‘wobble’. Pictured: Emerald Fennell as Camilla and Josh O'Connor as Prince Charles in series four of The Crown
DIANA DRESSED AS A WOOD NYMPH
TV VERSION While at Althorp House for a date with Sarah Spencer, Charles is seen entranced by her younger teenage sister Diana, who is in costume as a woodland nymph for a school production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream.
THE TRUTH Charles did first meet Diana at Althorp – when he’d been invited for a grouse-shoot – but there’s no evidence she was dressed as a wood nymph.
THE FIERCE GRANNY
TV VERSION A young Diana is seen arriving for a weekend at Balmoral with her grandmother Ruth, Lady Fermoy, the Queen Mother’s close friend and lady-in-waiting.
Lady Fermoy tells Diana the visit is ‘the most important weekend of your life’. After the engagement, Lady Fermoy schools Diana in the ‘sink or swim rules’ of Royal life, saying ‘if you get one wrong, you’re not only in trouble, you’re dead’.
THE TRUTH Lady Fermoy never gave Diana tutorials on Royal life. Diana was shown the ropes by lady-in-waiting Lady Susan Hussey and Edward Adeane, Charles’s Private Secretary. Royal writer Andrew Morton has said Lady Fermoy tried to counsel Diana against the marriage, warning: ‘Darling, you must understand their sense of humour and their lifestyle are different, and I don’t think it will suit you.’
DIANA’S MILE-HIGH FIGHT WITH COURTIERS
TV VERSION The Princess is said to have agreed to go on a six-week tour of Australia in 1983 on condition that baby William goes too.
BUSH BABY: How The Crown shows Diana, Charles and William on their Australia tour
During the flight out, she is seen in a furious row with Charles’s Private Secretary, Edward Adeane, after learning she’ll be separated from William for two weeks.
In the show, Diana insists her son should grow up with ‘humanity’, which he won’t learn from courtiers.
THE TRUTH Diana said there was never a problem taking William, and that she and Charles ‘never had a fight about it’. In fact, she was prepared to leave her young son in the UK, until Australia’s prime minister, Malcolm Fraser, suggested she bring him.
Prince and Princess of Wales amuse baby Prince William on a rug in the grounds of Government House in Auckland, New Zealand in 1983
THE CLUMSY REFERENCE TO A CONSPIRACY THEORY
TV VERSION At Christmas 1990, amid problems in her marriage, Diana is seen warning her father-in-law that she may leave Charles. Prince Philip advises her not to, warning such action ‘might not work out well’ for her. Diana replies: ‘Is that a threat, Sir?’
THE TRUTH Philip did write letters to Diana but joked ‘I have no talents as a marriage counsellor!!!’ and later, when relations with Charles got worse, claimed it was ‘impossible’ to speak to her. Philip’s ‘warning’ is a clumsy reference to baseless conspiracy theories that he was involved in the crash which killed Diana.
QUEEN’S ‘CRIB SHEET’ ABOUT HER CHILDREN
TV VERSION Her Majesty is shown in 1982 asking her private secretary, Martin Charteris, to set up individual meetings with her four children, and requesting a ‘briefing document on each child’s hobbies and interests’ as ‘one would hate to feel cold or remote’.
THE TRUTH Martin Charteris retired in 1977, five years before this conversation supposedly took place. Her Majesty sees her children as and when, and certainly wouldn’t ask to see them individually with appointments. She also wouldn’t want crib notes.
However, it was reported she once forgot Edward’s birthday in the early 1990s and had to be reminded by household staff.
TOO BOASTFUL… EVEN FOR ANDREW
TV VERSION Prince Andrew is portrayed telling the Queen he has asked his brother Edward, rather than Charles, to be best man at his wedding. Thus Charles would know how it felt to be sidelined. Andrew also says Charles is ‘jealous’ of his military record and popularity, and insists that he would have made a better heir to the throne.
THE TRUTH It was only natural Andrew chose Edward as they are closer in age. Even with Andrew’s inflated sense of self-worth, the idea that he told the Queen he would have made a better heir is risible.
A RIFT BETWEEN CHARLES AND LORD MOUNTBATTEN
TV VERSION Despite being the Prince’s great-uncle and long-time confidant, Earl Mountbatten is seen having a frosty phone exchange with Charles about Camilla.
Mountbatten tells his great-nephew that the rest of the family is disappointed at him pursuing the relationship. He’s then shown writing Charles a letter, urging him to remember his duty.
The Crown portrays a 'rift' between Charles and long-time confidant Lord Mountbatten (played by Charles Dance in series four of The Crown), the truth is there is no evidence of a heated conversation or letter
THE TRUTH There’s no evidence of a heated phone conversation or letter. Mountbatten had advised Charles to choose a ‘suitable, attractive, sweet-charactered girl’.
A year after Mountbatten was killed by an IRA bomb, Charles began dating Diana – fulfilling his great-uncle’s wish.
THE DUKE AND HIS BALLERINAS
TV VERSION Prince Philip teases the Queen about never dancing for him. The Crown has her reply archly: ‘No – because you had your ballerinas,’ a reference to an alleged dalliance in the series.
THE TRUTH Women said to have befriended the Duke include a nightclub singer, a writer, two actresses, a TV personality, a Hollywood star, half a dozen aristocrats and the Queen’s cousin – but no ballerinas.
Compiled by Amy Oliver and Chris Hastings
.(tagsToTranslate)dailymail(t)news(t)Meghan Markle(t)Prince Charles(t)Diana(t)Camilla Parker Bowles(t)Duchess of Cornwall