Sebastian Faulks has criticised the Netflix series *The Crown* for blurring the line between fact and fiction, suggesting that the show has made it difficult for viewers to distinguish historical truth from dramatized invention. Speaking at the Cheltenham Literature Festival, the bestselling novelist said the increasingly common practice of portraying real, living people with invented dialogue has contributed to this confusion. "I think this is something people struggle with; the difference between fact and fiction," Faulks said. "I think it used not to be the case. I blame *The Crown*, basically."

Faulks, 73, who has recently published a novel titled *Farewell to Eden* set during the final days of the British mandate in Palestine and the early years of the state of Israel, felt it necessary to include an explanatory note at the end of his book. There, he aimed to clarify which parts of the narrative were rooted in historical events and which were fictionalized. He stated that the actions attributed to Palestinian police, the army, and various groups are either factual or slight variations of real events, and that any scenes involving named historical figures occurred as described. Faulks said that fictional characters in his work do not engage in actions that could not reasonably have been taken by real counterparts. He acknowledged that while most readers might understand these distinctions, others—perhaps influenced by shows like *The Crown*—find the boundary between fact and fiction harder to navigate.

The creator of *The Crown*, Peter Morgan, has defended the series' approach to dramatization. He has admitted to inventing dialogue in scenarios where the exact details are unavailable, such as conversations between Prince Charles and Lord Mountbatten, or between Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed on the night of her death. Morgan argued that the dialogue is based on a careful understanding of the individuals’ perspectives and that audiences can recognize implausible fabrications if they arise.

Nevertheless, *The Crown* has faced criticism for its historical liberties. Some commentators have objected to speculative storylines, including those suggesting Princess Margaret’s desire to become queen, and portrayals of Prince Philip as being responsible for the death of his sister, which reportedly caused distress to the late duke’s family. Royal biographer Jonathan Dimbleby described the show’s portrayal of events as “nonsense on stilts.”

At the festival, Faulks also addressed the broader issue of misinformation, lamenting how social media platforms like TikTok often amplify strong opinions from individuals who may lack deeper knowledge on complex subjects. He expressed hope that readers of his novel would come away with an appreciation of the nuanced and complicated nature of the historical period it depicts, rather than adopting simplistic or partisan views. “If anyone came away thinking, ‘Oh, I am definitely going to nail my colours to that mast,’ then I think I would have failed,” he said. “It is extremely complicated.”