It’s annoying when shows like this take real life events and twist them for entertainment value- it’s tricky because some of these people were still alive when this was made.
Yes, The Crown is a drama but they somehow try to convince the viewers that it’s real. Only in season 5 and 6 that they heavily pointed out that it’s a drama because it’s getting to close to reality. Shakespeare wrote his dramatised tragedy based on kings and queens, when they already passed away, that’s the same thing.
While I love The Crown and it brought me a lot of newfound interest in the Royal Family, there are times when I see how dramatized it is and how it bastardizes so many characters due to fantastical writing. I would love to see Mr. Vickers critique the series more.
There truly isn't anyone else to really talk knowledgeably about the Royal Family except Hugo! Maybe Ingrid Stewart but Hugo has a real insight into The Family and The Firm and how both of them work intertwined.
I totally understand that not all of what happened is true to facts. Nonetheless the person speaking is obviously a big supporter of the royal family… and it kinda does seem ingenuine that such a person comments on the actions of the royal family… for example, many scenes that he disagrees with by saying the royal family would never do this seem very much plausible that the royal family would never ever tell an outsider how they really felt in that particular situation
He's not talking about how they'd feel. He's talking about what they would do. You can know that based on a person's past words and actions. Even I knew Elizabeth would never go to her uncle for advice.
Exactly And, the crown is great but still a show (and of course, the private conversations we can just imagine), so if someone believes totally all that appears in the show, they're at least a bit ingenuous
@@ikexbankaihe does know because he was part of the social circle at the time and when you spend so much time socially with the Royals you come to know them well.
He has no shame. And that "taint" came through old Lizzy and through her to her offspring and on down the line. Incestuous relationships are rife in such circles, old Lizzy married her cousin.
@railiedouglas3018 it has everything to do with old Lizzy. The "taint " as its euphemistically described came from her ma the old Scottish Queen, the Queen mother. And through her down the line ,Charlie, Andy,Eddie and arrogant Ann
@@roscomeon3965Clearly, you didn’t listen to Hugo V explaining that the cognitive delays came from a sister-in-law of the Queen Mother. There is no shared DNA there. Please be sure of the details before you comment. You obviously dislike the RF but it’s important to ignore your feelings and stick to the facts. Mr Vickers is very knowledgeable on this subject.
@@roscomeon3965 Prince Philip was not the late Queen's cousin , he was her 3rd cousin, going back to Queen Victoria you go back far enough and you will find most families-probably yours too, have cousins marrying cousins because people never moved much out of their own little village even 120 years ago -and i mean first cousins
6:31 SERIOUSLY?!? You’re critiquing a scene with a monologue that is basically stating that the monarchy is just a big loud show to distract everyone from the fact that society is crumbling, and all you can criticize is that a background character?!?!
I agree about a Imelda Staunton, terrible casting. That’s why she was great in Harry Potter as the meanest teacher, Dolores Umbridge. But I love Oliva Coleman ❤ I think she’s great in whatever she does.
It seems that this video is another example of how the older British generation fears are silly regarding mainstream media. Any one watching should have the common sense to realize that the show is a dramatization and not based on facts. The ONLY reported instance of the show influencing people was its depictions of Charles and Diana, which he did not cover surprisingly. But what those episodes did was remind people of how Charles and Diana’s relationship was publicized. And as someone who remembers those times I can say that it was accurate how they depicted it. Other than that, the show hasn’t really shaped peoples perceptions of the monarchy other than making the Queen a more sympathetic person and reminding the people of who she was and all she did. So someone like this gentleman going on about how the show is rubbish is just being snobbish and somewhat silly for even having to talk about it.
i have American friends who took it as gosbil when it is not as they didnt have the collective memory that we who had the late Queen as Head of state still do
I think creating a drama of somebody who existed in reality is a very sketchy thing to do. You risk people taking the dramatization as factual information of real events that happened. Irrespective of whether it was realistic, intended to be realistic, or far from both, when you're making a series about a real person that existed you should be well aware that many people will see it, see who it's based on and automatically assume that it will be 100% factual down to the minor details. I feel like they didn't do enough consideration for the audience with this series. I can appreciate a fictional recreation of dramatized (to the extent of fabricating) events, but to me the biggest red flag was this series not making clear that although there is a more serious tone and although it is about somebody that existed, it isn't an entirely factual retelling of events. Another problem for me was that they very easily could have made this 100% factual while not losing anything. You'd think with such a big production with many renowned actors, very high production value etc that they would have enough money in the budget to hire a royal historian..?
im glad that people like him who has the actual knowledge of in-and-outs of what happen in the Royal Family to dissect what is the truth and what is not on The Crown.
I am more impressed he was watching it on VHS. Isn’t it interesting that with all the episodes of Diana and all the various events and discussions that were portrayed he picks out some minor details like was wearing a morning coat and who wasn’t? I think the Palace is good at image control and this is just another way for them to gloss over much of the behavior of the Royal family that was shown to the public. Great series. Hollywood often embellishes facts for the sake of entertainment. That’s why people watch.
Thank you for the warning. I'm not going to waste my time with this series again. I had recently watched excerpts of scenes here on TH-cam and was very impressed, and had thought about getting a boxset, not now! Thanks again! 🙂
As a fifty year old American, I was quite disappointed while watching the first three seasons of The Crown, because it dulled the luster of the Royal Family. So I am extremely excited to learn that most of it was fanciful. My respect for the the real Royals is restored and I am chastised for my ignorance.
I get the fact-checking, but honestly do not see the need for that much bitterness. If anything, the show makes people take an interest in a matter that they would never have taken otherwise. Why not be appreciative of that instead?
I'm curious to know your thoughts on Diana's engagement to Dodi and their "accident". It's so obvious how desperately they try to portray his father, Mohamed Al Fayed as this despicable opportunist... and the one to blame for their death.
The only thing is that it was my understanding Netflix specified that The Crown was NOT completely factual history. I watched The Crown as it was released, and even in season 1 I was viewing it with the knowledge that Netflix was not claiming it to be 100% factual.
Fact checking medals, I mean imagine how long we should have waited for each season? Plus he is clearly biased, he is basically saying the royal family is an example they never did anything wrong. Which is biased because it's impossible to be human and not do the wrong thing at least once.
That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying the royal family didn't do these particular things the show invented lol Believing historical accounts over a work of fiction isn't what biased means
@@safespacebear well, I believe that's more than clear. It's fiction. Somethings happened, some didn't, some who knows. I do know that, thank you. I was just pointing out that if the creators had to fact check the crown, at the point of zooming in medals the show would still be a work on progress, and if you really think about it, there would be no job, who knows what happened between the walls of Buckingham Palace during a 70 year reign? "sources", that's the tabloids. But you missed my point. And honestly I am terribly tired so please do not start a fight, I would appreciate it enormously (and I mean it) thank you.
I didn't provide a 'comment' initially; instead, I expressed my opinion on the matter. It's not presented as a fact, and I don't claim to be right; I might very well be wrong. Perhaps it was wishful thinking to believe that someone wouldn't respond to my opinion on fact-checking medals. I was very tired and having a bad day when I politely asked if you could respect the fact that I was not in the mood for delving into what I consider a trivial and even frivolous matter. All I did was state my thoughts. Now that I can reply without being mentally drained, I want to make it clear that I won't discuss my opinion further. It hasn't changed with your insight, so I stand by it. I respect the fact that you disagree with me and have a different position on this matter, but I won't attempt to change your mind, as I neither want to nor care to. I hope you don't take this in a negative way; I mean no harm or disrespect. Why would I? I don't even know who you are. If you want to express your thoughts on mine, feel very welcome to do so, but I won't entertain this exchange any further. Thank you.
I'm so glad to watch this. I've actually been really upset for the Royal family for their treatment of Thatcher, I was upset by the lying and cheating from husbands and much more, so it's good to know some of these events were fictional.
Of course the show is heavily dramatised and fictionalised, but these “Royal Historians” and “experts” speaking like they know the truth are just hilarious. Not only are they strongly biased because they are supporters of the Monarchy and think if they defend them the Royal Family might thank them somehow, but everything they “know” is complete speculation. The only people who know what they said, saw, or felt about something are the people who were actually involved. There is enough inaccuracy in the way major historical events are understood and explained (because you can’t possibly know exactly what happened 300 years ago, you can only piece historical data together hoping it isn’t fabricated or biased), now imagine how speculative determining what people felt or said in private at a precise moment. 🤷🏻♂️ It’s absurd. There is no more reality to what an “expert” believes to be the truth based on their inevitably subjective understanding of events than there is to what the writers in historical shows may come up with. These people believe because they might have shaken hands with a Royal a couple of times they understand their inner thoughts and motivations. Completely ridiculous.
I'm sorry but in interviews everyone from the cast and crew very clearly says that the series doesn't portray reality. What they do is create complex characters with story-arks that are interesting and moving to watch. It's a drama series so yes- there bound to dramatize some things. I don't really understand what the problem is.
The old boy needs to relax. The crown never said it was totally factual. And he is assuming he knows everything that went on behind closed doors without any imagination. It was a great series very well produced and gives a great eye into the royal family and the infastructure. If anything it shows they are human. The only mistake was not letting Claire Foy and the first actors continue with an aging process.The series carries on well and overall is great entertainment giving insight into a historical system with some pizazz.
A lot of the scenes show interactions between just two of the characters which one can bet are likely just to move the overall story line along and not have actually taken place. The scene at Prince Philip's sister's funeral where his father verbally attacks him is just pure fiction. Just finished watching the entire series. Enjoyed the wonderful richness of the production and yes, took much of it with a grain of salt.
When he starts talking about the Queen Mother and her cousins, he makes the opposite point of the one he's trying to, and actually reinforces the way The Crown wrote it. For instance, he says those cousins were "tainted"?? What a thing to say! The point was that the Queen Mum didn't want people saying that about her cousins.
Homie’s spending a lot of time talking about minutiae and just ignoring the whole point of the show, which is that the royals all freaking hated each other and themselves
One big mistake is the tatler continues to call Catherine princess of wales still call her Kate Middleton I've stopped buy the magazine as I find it insulting her name is CATHERINE
Please get a critical thinking Historian... Dr Tessa Dunlop comes to mind. She is entertaining, beautiful, affable but most importantly a doyen of Royal History and Social Science. This man bless his heart sounds a bit more propaganda and less informative especially his use of adjectives without adequate substance
Even some minor props were wrong.. Her Majesty uses a Parker 51. The show makes her use a Parker Royal Challenger. Churchill's signet ring wasnt round.. it was a flat table.
Its not a documentary Hogo. I thinkwe are clever enough to realise that. You seem to be doing quite well writing books off the back of The Crown so good luck to you.
Considering how many episodes the show has, the few inaccuracies he talks about are negligible. The way I see it is - in spite of falsifying certain details, the show is still a great history lesson, especially if you're not from the UK. And after all, it works well as a drama (well, some of it, the drama did become somewhat lame after the first two seasons), and overall, the most important thing is whether the audience enjoys it. No biopic is 100% factual, but I suppose if you're a royalist/conservative, you might believe that the Royal Family was sent by God or something and is thus untouchable, or something like that.
The Crown is a marvelous work of fiction. The Princess Diana episodes were very difficult to watch as it's a highly fictionalized narrative that, once again, uses her to further their own agenda. It was movingvto watch, but take it all with a grain of salt.
Very interesting video and the fact checking is excellent. My impression of Olivia Coleman’s performance, as great an actress as she is, is that the impression that HM needs a good dose of salts. My grandmother used this expression to be more delicate 😂
“purports to tell the truth.” Some how I missed that. I’ve never read anything that even hints that the producers of the Crown claimed to present an historical and chronologically accurate account of the Royal Family. I’ve always understood the show to be taking many artistic liberties to enhance the entertainment value and in that, they achieved some measure success. I’m American but have spent many months in England on business trips. From that, I have developed a fondness for following British politics, including the royal family and peerage. To that extent, I enjoy watching The Crown because it helps me understand that part of British culture, even though I recognize that many aspects of the show are works of fiction.
Who else thinks the books on the left shelf are actually a facade and perhaps a false shelf/secret door? The books look like it’s just the spines attached to the green background on the shelf.
Factual… the Crown never assumes to be factual. The fact that he’s “watching” this on a VCR and old tv sums up his antiquated ideology and staunch defense of the Royals with his “facts” which are mostly as much opinion as what the rest of us are aware in terms of what happened behind the scenes.
If only everyone were as intelligent and insightful as you must be. Unfortunately, most people will take what they see on the Crown as fact. Especially people outside of the UK who only get their knowledge of the Royal family through entertainment media.
thank you Mr Vickers the crown made me so angry, there was no need to make stuff up and then leave out thinks like Anne's kidnapping attempt, not to mention the share force of nature the Queen mum but the way they portrayed Prince Philip's sister's plane crash is unforgivable on every level, in real life at that time Prince Philip was old and getting pretty frail, i read in the newspaper it upset him greatly yes the little details matter, the jewellery wasnt that good either the series got more ridiculous as the series went on -i felt so sorry for the real Prince William and Catherine, it is awful and i cried at the way they were portrayed especaily Mrs Middleton i hope the actual royal family do not watch this awful show who i beleave had the ulteria motive of republicinism -excuse my bad spelling, the crown really riles me up, Gillian Anderson was an awful Mrs Thatcher
There are creative licenses taken, for whatever reason, within most all produced and directed series, programs, or films which depict historic eras and their legendary counterparts. We may as well criticize Michelangelo's David as being disgustingly too tall or the marble far too pale in the depiction of the actual young boy in antiquity or Monty Python's rendition of The Spanish Inquisition as not containing enough torture. HBO's ROME from almost 20 years ago distinctly comes to mind as such a series containing items which do not jibe with accurate written accounts. In point of fact, to find a mere twelve minutes of odd events within sixty hours of programs is as ridiculous an attempt to discredit the body of work as those that made it their lives to discredit the crown itself in real life. It seems as though this bit of bother was nothing more than sour grapes because Mr. Vickers may have not been consulted for the series at all. Most importantly, to flat out call discrepancies in the history of Queen Elizabeth's life in The Crown as disgraceful is most assuredly failing to take into account the remarkably disgraceful tie and it's most horrid attempt at whatever knot that represents, which Mr. Vickers deemed appropriate for this video! Actually, appalling is a much more appropriate word, indeed. Perhaps that is why he might not have been consulted for contributions in this extensive project in the first place.
The first four seasons of the Crown are based on someone else who used to be queen of England. They stole her life and gave it to the Windsor family, where she did all the work, and the Windsor family did nothing that is, including Elizabeth.
His or Her Majesties correct title is by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories, King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. NOT QUEEN OR KING OF ENGLAND Queen Ann was the last Queen of England and in 1707 she became Queen of GB
Totally agree with Mr Vickers. It was well filmed, in parts well acted but it was the script and storyline that let it down. "Loosely based on True Events" should of preempted each episode but elements of it were just fabrication of the truth. Its not like the script writers, editors and producers hadn't got historical records after all this was modern history. With all drametesations who can have some poetic licence on what characters would of said but when you get timelines totally wrong it detracts from the actual programme. Look at Mr Bates and The Post Office recently, accurate and well made and has had a lasting effect on the country The Crown in comparison is poor English Language essay thats been made into a TV series.
I'm personally uninterested on what really happened, or at least most of it. Because is not my reality, it happened a long time ago, far away from me, and to people I don't know. But I am aware is not a documentary, is not what really happened, it is based on real things, but is just an entertaining TV show
The more they try to prove that the facts are wrong, the more i believe in the show.. because, there’s no business like show business and the monarchs are not exempted of it.
I definitely agree hes bias. He wanted to shed light on the fact they made things up but his approach is what I think you're really disagree with. It was a terrible to explain his points
this is so funny the “i watched with great displeasure”
Looool
Same! I can’t get this phrase out of my head. Great delivery.
😂 “…I’ve watched 54 episodes…with great displeasure” 😂
Lol, I thought so too
This guy is everything wrong with the Monarchy. He maintains the abusive structure.
The early days of The Crown were the best, Claire Foy can't be topped as Elizabeth II.
It’s a bloody show not a documentary 😂
It’s annoying when shows like this take real life events and twist them for entertainment value- it’s tricky because some of these people were still alive when this was made.
It should be a warning.. "the series a soap opera and is loosely based on Royal Family but is fiction and dramatised for entertainment value."
Yes, The Crown is a drama but they somehow try to convince the viewers that it’s real. Only in season 5 and 6 that they heavily pointed out that it’s a drama because it’s getting to close to reality. Shakespeare wrote his dramatised tragedy based on kings and queens, when they already passed away, that’s the same thing.
The only good thing about season five and six is the casting and the final scene. Anything else is 😕
Noooo! It got further away from reality as it went on. That's why I gave up on it. The gentleman in the video is correct.
There should be a comment that this is fictional before each episode. I’m afraid younger generations might take it as fact
Not just younger generations, unfortunately.
its footage is already being used in some internet docos
The crown has never purported to get everything right. It’s a piece of entertainment.
Claire Foy, the best Queen Elizabeth II. That’s right 🥰
While I love The Crown and it brought me a lot of newfound interest in the Royal Family, there are times when I see how dramatized it is and how it bastardizes so many characters due to fantastical writing.
I would love to see Mr. Vickers critique the series more.
There truly isn't anyone else to really talk knowledgeably about the Royal Family except Hugo! Maybe Ingrid Stewart but Hugo has a real insight into The Family and The Firm and how both of them work intertwined.
😂 “…I’ve watched 54 episodes…with great displeasure” 😂
I totally understand that not all of what happened is true to facts. Nonetheless the person speaking is obviously a big supporter of the royal family… and it kinda does seem ingenuine that such a person comments on the actions of the royal family… for example, many scenes that he disagrees with by saying the royal family would never do this seem very much plausible that the royal family would never ever tell an outsider how they really felt in that particular situation
That’s the thing he actually doesn’t know.
He's not talking about how they'd feel. He's talking about what they would do. You can know that based on a person's past words and actions. Even I knew Elizabeth would never go to her uncle for advice.
Exactly
And, the crown is great but still a show (and of course, the private conversations we can just imagine), so if someone believes totally all that appears in the show, they're at least a bit ingenuous
@@ikexbankaihe does know because he was part of the social circle at the time and when you spend so much time socially with the Royals you come to know them well.
Great displeasure, I will add it to my vocabulary
He sound like a man with great love for the royale family. Which makes him passionate and fierce defender of their honour. Love it. 😊
then straight into this gem: "the inherited taint came through the Clinton family". Gurl! 💀
He has no shame. And that "taint" came through old Lizzy and through her to her offspring and on down the line. Incestuous relationships are rife in such circles, old Lizzy married her cousin.
@@roscomeon3965Lizzy who??? It had nothing whatsoever to do with Queen Elizabeth 11 if that’s who you’re referring to.
@railiedouglas3018 it has everything to do with old Lizzy. The "taint " as its euphemistically described came from her ma the old Scottish Queen, the Queen mother. And through her down the line ,Charlie, Andy,Eddie and arrogant Ann
@@roscomeon3965Clearly, you didn’t listen to Hugo V explaining that the cognitive delays came from a sister-in-law of the Queen Mother. There is no shared DNA there. Please be sure of the details before you comment. You obviously dislike the RF but it’s important to ignore your feelings and stick to the facts. Mr Vickers is very knowledgeable on this subject.
@@roscomeon3965 Prince Philip was not the late Queen's cousin , he was her 3rd cousin, going back to Queen Victoria
you go back far enough and you will find most families-probably yours too, have cousins marrying cousins because people never moved much out of their own little village even 120 years ago -and i mean first cousins
6:31 SERIOUSLY?!? You’re critiquing a scene with a monologue that is basically stating that the monarchy is just a big loud show to distract everyone from the fact that society is crumbling, and all you can criticize is that a background character?!?!
It is very nice they decided to dress him up when he was SAFELY DEAD for the years 😂😂😂😂
Its a TV show, they did a profound job with the show and the writing.
So glad he’s putting the record straight! The show character assassinates Phillip.
Phil was a stud who rogered many women. Fact
@phoebecaulfield4062 not prejudiced opinion. Its well documented. Fact. Old Lizzy was cold and frigid.
@phoebecaulfield4062 lol.🤣🤣🤣abuse the last refuge of a person in denial. Fact 🤣🤣🤣
@phoebecaulfield4062 Disgusting. The truth is often Disgusting but that doesn't stop it from being the truth.
@@roscomeon3965What a load of utter rubbish. There are literally NO VERIFIED REPORTS of Prince Phillip having any affairs with anyone.
I agree about a Imelda Staunton, terrible casting. That’s why she was great in Harry Potter as the meanest teacher, Dolores Umbridge. But I love Oliva Coleman ❤ I think she’s great in whatever she does.
It seems that this video is another example of how the older British generation fears are silly regarding mainstream media. Any one watching should have the common sense to realize that the show is a dramatization and not based on facts. The ONLY reported instance of the show influencing people was its depictions of Charles and Diana, which he did not cover surprisingly. But what those episodes did was remind people of how Charles and Diana’s relationship was publicized. And as someone who remembers those times I can say that it was accurate how they depicted it. Other than that, the show hasn’t really shaped peoples perceptions of the monarchy other than making the Queen a more sympathetic person and reminding the people of who she was and all she did. So someone like this gentleman going on about how the show is rubbish is just being snobbish and somewhat silly for even having to talk about it.
i have American friends who took it as gosbil when it is not as they didnt have the collective memory that we who had the late Queen as Head of state still do
Mr Vickers is spot on every time. Voice of reason.
I need a man like that next to me, whenever I watch a history drama.
He just stops the scene and goes: „actually…“
I would love this!
I think creating a drama of somebody who existed in reality is a very sketchy thing to do. You risk people taking the dramatization as factual information of real events that happened.
Irrespective of whether it was realistic, intended to be realistic, or far from both, when you're making a series about a real person that existed you should be well aware that many people will see it, see who it's based on and automatically assume that it will be 100% factual down to the minor details.
I feel like they didn't do enough consideration for the audience with this series. I can appreciate a fictional recreation of dramatized (to the extent of fabricating) events, but to me the biggest red flag was this series not making clear that although there is a more serious tone and although it is about somebody that existed, it isn't an entirely factual retelling of events.
Another problem for me was that they very easily could have made this 100% factual while not losing anything. You'd think with such a big production with many renowned actors, very high production value etc that they would have enough money in the budget to hire a royal historian..?
i think it was so hurtful to make up things about people who were still alive at that point
Is he "fact checking" a Netflix TV show using a VHS tape?
The episode about the cousins literally includes his correction as a plot point. They literally say it's from the Clintons
Thank God, you presented this commentary to us. Thank you very much.
Jeez, it’s fictional drama, it is art, stop picking at it. They didn’t the claim it being a documentary, did they?
It's a biographical series, the least they can do is get the details right
but a lot of people think its fact ! i know that sounds dumb. but they do
Well said, honest Sir.
They were playing her at different times in her life - when pressures on her were different ! I thought they all did an excellent job.
im glad that people like him who has the actual knowledge of in-and-outs of what happen in the Royal Family to dissect what is the truth and what is not on The Crown.
I am more impressed he was watching it on VHS. Isn’t it interesting that with all the episodes of Diana and all the various events and discussions that were portrayed he picks out some minor details like was wearing a morning coat and who wasn’t? I think the Palace is good at image control and this is just another way for them to gloss over much of the behavior of the Royal family that was shown to the public. Great series. Hollywood often embellishes facts for the sake of entertainment. That’s why people watch.
This man is a famous Royal biographer who has had significantly more access to royalty and staff and courtiers than the producers of the Crown.
Thank you for the warning. I'm not going to waste my time with this series again. I had recently watched excerpts of scenes here on TH-cam and was very impressed, and had thought about getting a boxset, not now! Thanks again! 🙂
Anyone else notice how he doesn’t ever look at princess Diana and Charles?
that’d be a whole 54 episode series in itself
Because he knows it’s true
To the people who think that it’s a documentary, he makes sure that you know it’s a drama made in documentary style- docudrama
As a fifty year old American, I was quite disappointed while watching the first three seasons of The Crown, because it dulled the luster of the Royal Family. So I am extremely excited to learn that most of it was fanciful. My respect for the the real Royals is restored and I am chastised for my ignorance.
I get the fact-checking, but honestly do not see the need for that much bitterness. If anything, the show makes people take an interest in a matter that they would never have taken otherwise. Why not be appreciative of that instead?
I'm curious to know your thoughts on Diana's engagement to Dodi and their "accident". It's so obvious how desperately they try to portray his father, Mohamed Al Fayed as this despicable opportunist... and the one to blame for their death.
I share the same view, this is terrible
This dude is brutal. I love it.
The only thing is that it was my understanding Netflix specified that The Crown was NOT completely factual history. I watched The Crown as it was released, and even in season 1 I was viewing it with the knowledge that Netflix was not claiming it to be 100% factual.
This guy is so cute - he expects the crown to be a documentary when it's a dramatization.😂
Shmaltzy… my new favourite word!
Fact checking medals, I mean imagine how long we should have waited for each season? Plus he is clearly biased, he is basically saying the royal family is an example they never did anything wrong. Which is biased because it's impossible to be human and not do the wrong thing at least once.
That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying the royal family didn't do these particular things the show invented lol
Believing historical accounts over a work of fiction isn't what biased means
@@safespacebear well, I believe that's more than clear. It's fiction. Somethings happened, some didn't, some who knows. I do know that, thank you.
I was just pointing out that if the creators had to fact check the crown, at the point of zooming in medals the show would still be a work on progress, and if you really think about it, there would be no job, who knows what happened between the walls of Buckingham Palace during a 70 year reign? "sources", that's the tabloids.
But you missed my point. And honestly I am terribly tired so please do not start a fight, I would appreciate it enormously (and I mean it) thank you.
Then why did you even make the comment in the first place? Did you not expect some sort of reply to you?
I didn't provide a 'comment' initially; instead, I expressed my opinion on the matter. It's not presented as a fact, and I don't claim to be right; I might very well be wrong. Perhaps it was wishful thinking to believe that someone wouldn't respond to my opinion on fact-checking medals.
I was very tired and having a bad day when I politely asked if you could respect the fact that I was not in the mood for delving into what I consider a trivial and even frivolous matter. All I did was state my thoughts.
Now that I can reply without being mentally drained, I want to make it clear that I won't discuss my opinion further. It hasn't changed with your insight, so I stand by it. I respect the fact that you disagree with me and have a different position on this matter, but I won't attempt to change your mind, as I neither want to nor care to.
I hope you don't take this in a negative way; I mean no harm or disrespect. Why would I? I don't even know who you are. If you want to express your thoughts on mine, feel very welcome to do so, but I won't entertain this exchange any further. Thank you.
details are important to me and wearing the coronation medal before the coronstion is lazy on the part of the costume designers
I'm so glad to watch this. I've actually been really upset for the Royal family for their treatment of Thatcher, I was upset by the lying and cheating from husbands and much more, so it's good to know some of these events were fictional.
Of course the show is heavily dramatised and fictionalised, but these “Royal Historians” and “experts” speaking like they know the truth are just hilarious. Not only are they strongly biased because they are supporters of the Monarchy and think if they defend them the Royal Family might thank them somehow, but everything they “know” is complete speculation. The only people who know what they said, saw, or felt about something are the people who were actually involved.
There is enough inaccuracy in the way major historical events are understood and explained (because you can’t possibly know exactly what happened 300 years ago, you can only piece historical data together hoping it isn’t fabricated or biased), now imagine how speculative determining what people felt or said in private at a precise moment. 🤷🏻♂️
It’s absurd. There is no more reality to what an “expert” believes to be the truth based on their inevitably subjective understanding of events than there is to what the writers in historical shows may come up with.
These people believe because they might have shaken hands with a Royal a couple of times they understand their inner thoughts and motivations. Completely ridiculous.
I stepped watching when Olivia Coleman played the Queen. The lack of chemestry between her and Tonias Menzies made it so hard to watch.
I'm sorry but in interviews everyone from the cast and crew very clearly says that the series doesn't portray reality. What they do is create complex characters with story-arks that are interesting and moving to watch.
It's a drama series so yes- there bound to dramatize some things. I don't really understand what the problem is.
Mr. Vickers you have good sense of humor
Please make an extended version of this.
Can we also talk about The Queen Elizabeth the first and King George stories in more details?
Queen Elizabeth I reigned from 1558-1603. You want 45 years of detail from over 450 years ago?
I agree with everything you say , Sir….
The old boy needs to relax. The crown never said it was totally factual. And he is assuming he knows everything that went on behind closed doors without any imagination. It was a great series very well produced and gives a great eye into the royal family and the infastructure. If anything it shows they are human. The only mistake was not letting Claire Foy and the first actors continue with an aging process.The series carries on well and overall is great entertainment giving insight into a historical system with some pizazz.
How could it be , who on earth knows what any family talk about in private never mind what they are thinking !
A lot of the scenes show interactions between just two of the characters which one can bet are likely just to move the overall story line along and not have actually taken place. The scene at Prince Philip's sister's funeral where his father verbally attacks him is just pure fiction. Just finished watching the entire series. Enjoyed the wonderful richness of the production and yes, took much of it with a grain of salt.
When he starts talking about the Queen Mother and her cousins, he makes the opposite point of the one he's trying to, and actually reinforces the way The Crown wrote it. For instance, he says those cousins were "tainted"?? What a thing to say! The point was that the Queen Mum didn't want people saying that about her cousins.
Homie’s spending a lot of time talking about minutiae and just ignoring the whole point of the show, which is that the royals all freaking hated each other and themselves
listen to the expert here who think robespierre and danton are still alive. Pathetic you are
says you
One big mistake is the tatler continues to call Catherine princess of wales still call her Kate Middleton I've stopped buy the magazine as I find it insulting her name is CATHERINE
Why is he watching on VHS?
Please get a critical thinking Historian... Dr Tessa Dunlop comes to mind. She is entertaining, beautiful, affable but most importantly a doyen of Royal History and Social Science. This man bless his heart sounds a bit more propaganda and less informative especially his use of adjectives without adequate substance
This is beautiful explained
This is a streaming series. What’s with the VHS…?
Right? Showing him using VHS is a weird anachronism in a vlog about historical accuracy...
It’s just a joke for the video.
@@erinjohnson1124 What is the joke?
@@erinjohnson1124 😒 Thanks Erin 😑
1:45 the silly uncle and Harry might have a lot in common, like for example not being very much of the taste of their family
Even some minor props were wrong..
Her Majesty uses a Parker 51.
The show makes her use a Parker Royal Challenger.
Churchill's signet ring wasnt round.. it was a flat table.
Its not a documentary Hogo. I thinkwe are clever enough to realise that. You seem to be doing quite well writing books off the back of The Crown so good luck to you.
Hugo Vickers was writing royal histories before even Diana came along. There's no reason to value a soap opera production over the truth.
Considering how many episodes the show has, the few inaccuracies he talks about are negligible. The way I see it is - in spite of falsifying certain details, the show is still a great history lesson, especially if you're not from the UK. And after all, it works well as a drama (well, some of it, the drama did become somewhat lame after the first two seasons), and overall, the most important thing is whether the audience enjoys it. No biopic is 100% factual, but I suppose if you're a royalist/conservative, you might believe that the Royal Family was sent by God or something and is thus untouchable, or something like that.
The Crown is a marvelous work of fiction. The Princess Diana episodes were very difficult to watch as it's a highly fictionalized narrative that, once again, uses her to further their own agenda. It was movingvto watch, but take it all with a grain of salt.
Very interesting video and the fact checking is excellent. My impression of Olivia Coleman’s performance, as great an actress as she is, is that the impression that HM needs a good dose of salts. My grandmother used this expression to be more delicate 😂
I’m enjoying this…so much intelligence , so little sense of fun. A real stuffed shirt !!!
“purports to tell the truth.”
Some how I missed that. I’ve never read anything that even hints that the producers of the Crown claimed to present an historical and chronologically accurate account of the Royal Family. I’ve always understood the show to be taking many artistic liberties to enhance the entertainment value and in that, they achieved some measure success.
I’m American but have spent many months in England on business trips. From that, I have developed a fondness for following British politics, including the royal family and peerage. To that extent, I enjoy watching The Crown because it helps me understand that part of British culture, even though I recognize that many aspects of the show are works of fiction.
I honestly find no point in not trusting the story they are selling and believing yours
Since it is obvious how loyal you are to the royal family
Who else thinks the books on the left shelf are actually a facade and perhaps a false shelf/secret door? The books look like it’s just the spines attached to the green background on the shelf.
This should be renamed as “British historian ruins dramatized show”
Thank you. The treatment of Prince Phillip was appalling. So many incorrect and spiteful made up stories. Had to stop at #2.
I think he should come out of his shell a little and tell us how he really feels. 😂
Well.. waiting for part 2😁
I have a feeling they are going to be very schmaltzy indeed! No body said it better
You can't make a factual film without input and assistance from the royal family which will never happen. This was always disclosed by the writers🎉
Here here
Because tattler is factual....
Factual… the Crown never assumes to be factual. The fact that he’s “watching” this on a VCR and old tv sums up his antiquated ideology and staunch defense of the Royals with his “facts” which are mostly as much opinion as what the rest of us are aware in terms of what happened behind the scenes.
If only everyone were as intelligent and insightful as you must be.
Unfortunately, most people will take what they see on the Crown as fact. Especially people outside of the UK who only get their knowledge of the Royal family through entertainment media.
thank you Mr Vickers
the crown made me so angry, there was no need to make stuff up and then leave out thinks like Anne's kidnapping attempt, not to mention the share force of nature the Queen mum
but the way they portrayed Prince Philip's sister's plane crash is unforgivable on every level, in real life at that time Prince Philip was old and getting pretty frail, i read in the newspaper it upset him greatly
yes the little details matter, the jewellery wasnt that good either
the series got more ridiculous as the series went on -i felt so sorry for the real Prince William and Catherine, it is awful and i cried at the way they were portrayed especaily Mrs Middleton
i hope the actual royal family do not watch this awful show who i beleave had the ulteria motive of republicinism -excuse my bad spelling, the crown really riles me up,
Gillian Anderson was an awful Mrs Thatcher
There are creative licenses taken, for whatever reason, within most all produced and directed series, programs, or films which depict historic eras and their legendary counterparts. We may as well criticize Michelangelo's David as being disgustingly too tall or the marble far too pale in the depiction of the actual young boy in antiquity or Monty Python's rendition of The Spanish Inquisition as not containing enough torture. HBO's ROME from almost 20 years ago distinctly comes to mind as such a series containing items which do not jibe with accurate written accounts. In point of fact, to find a mere twelve minutes of odd events within sixty hours of programs is as ridiculous an attempt to discredit the body of work as those that made it their lives to discredit the crown itself in real life. It seems as though this bit of bother was nothing more than sour grapes because Mr. Vickers may have not been consulted for the series at all. Most importantly, to flat out call discrepancies in the history of Queen Elizabeth's life in The Crown as disgraceful is most assuredly failing to take into account the remarkably disgraceful tie and it's most horrid attempt at whatever knot that represents, which Mr. Vickers deemed appropriate for this video! Actually, appalling is a much more appropriate word, indeed. Perhaps that is why he might not have been consulted for contributions in this extensive project in the first place.
Well done, Sir; thank you. Fiction is fiction.
Schmaltzy 😂😂😂
The first four seasons of the Crown are based on someone else who used to be queen of England. They stole her life and gave it to the Windsor family, where she did all the work, and the Windsor family did nothing that is, including Elizabeth.
His or Her Majesties correct title is by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories, King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
NOT QUEEN OR KING OF ENGLAND
Queen Ann was the last Queen of England and in 1707 she became Queen of GB
The vast majority of people believe what they see on TV. Even those who think they are smart enough to see through the nonsense.
Totally agree with Mr Vickers.
It was well filmed, in parts well acted but it was the script and storyline that let it down.
"Loosely based on True Events" should of preempted each episode but elements of it were just fabrication of the truth. Its not like the script writers, editors and producers hadn't got historical records after all this was modern history.
With all drametesations who can have some poetic licence on what characters would of said but when you get timelines totally wrong it detracts from the actual programme.
Look at Mr Bates and The Post Office recently, accurate and well made and has had a lasting effect on the country The Crown in comparison is poor English Language essay thats been made into a TV series.
Great Displeasure 😂he is right
Starts the video with a freaking bias
I'm personally uninterested on what really happened, or at least most of it. Because is not my reality, it happened a long time ago, far away from me, and to people I don't know. But I am aware is not a documentary, is not what really happened, it is based on real things, but is just an entertaining TV show
Thats why it is a dramatazation and I google to find out
Yeah poor little Charles was a big ol play boy and had two different women not just Camilla!
Wood for the trees.
Where does he get his facts?
The more they try to prove that the facts are wrong, the more i believe in the show.. because, there’s no business like show business and the monarchs are not exempted of it.
One of the Grey Suits. Of course he’d say all that.
Fiction!!!!!!
hes very biased this isnt fair
He is so biased he'd believe history over a work of fiction lol
I definitely agree hes bias. He wanted to shed light on the fact they made things up but his approach is what I think you're really disagree with. It was a terrible to explain his points
Enjoyed the 1st 2 seasons and found the rest unwatchable.
I love him 😍 ❤