King Charles Will Go Down in History for His Wives Like Henry VIII—Author

The disintegration of King Charles III and Princess Diana's marriage is "a philosophical and personal issue" of "massive proportions," a royal biographer who consulted on The Crown told Newsweek.

Season 5 of the Netflix series covers the 1990s when Charles' affair with Camilla became public knowledge via an explosive biography that the princess secretly co-operated with.

The show has triggered a public backlash that reached as high as former Prime Minister John Major and actress Dame Judi Dench in Britain.

Robert Lacey, author of Battle of Brothers and other royal books, told Newsweek that—in spite of the furor about the perception The Crown might harm the monarchy—the show in fact deals with legitimate questions over a marriage that would be unlikely in the modern world.

Charles was then 32 while Diana was 19 when they got engaged and 20 by the time of the wedding, which was was covered in Season 4—which also earned a backlash at the time of release in November 2020.

Lacey said: "I find it frustrating that the current season is discussed so much in terms of gossip column items. We're dealing with a philosophical and personal issue here of massive proportions.

"Would that be allowed today? That a 19-year-old girl would be led like a slave to the altar. Would any modern 19-year-old girl accept it? Would the system try to create it? We're dealing with real issues that actually have become more and more pertinent today.

"The last season presented a 21st century take on the romantic follies of the late 20th century. You're looking at a modern version of a classic arranged marriage. To start with she was the willing victim to the altar, which is a word that has a double meaning. You get married at an altar and sacrificed at an altar."

Lacey's words echo some of the script itself, including a scene in which Diana tells her boyfriend Hasnat Khan that the royals are not so different from the traditional values of his own family in Pakistan.

Elizabeth Debicki, portraying the princess, says: "You think the family I married into is any different? I was instructed to dress modestly, speak in a lowered voice and walk one pace behind my husband and address him always as 'sir.'

"I was discouraged from expressing opinions or having an education and I had to make a vow that I was a virgin before being considered fit to marry him."

Lacey said: "He's going to go down in history as 'the two wives of Charles III' just as much as Henry VIII, no matter how much they try to shake it off.

"For everyone who lived through the reign the drama and romance of the fairy tale wedding of the '80s and the dissolution that followed in the 90s, that is reflected at the beginning of the season. Suddenly, opinion polls in 1991 are talking about the queen abdicating, there's a real disillusionment with the monarchy."

One of the more widely criticized elements of Season 5 is an early plot line in which a poll in The Sunday Times suggests an increase in the number of people who would support the queen abdicating in favor of her eldest son.

Former British Prime Minister John Major denounced the show had been released to The Mail on Sunday over a scene in which Charles is, off the back of the polling, shown meeting him and attempting to sound out his views on the prospect of an abdication.

The Conservative Party politician said the exchange never took place, however, Princess Diana's former private secretary has since written a piece for The Daily Telegraph stating there was a real-life conversation about a regency with a different, earlier U.K. prime minister whom he did not name.

Patrick Jephson added: "Since I was witness to quite a few of the original events portrayed here, I accepted the producers' invitation in early 2019 to contribute my firsthand perspective on what really happened.

"After all, it was my life too and I wanted to make sure they made the bits I knew about as authentic as possible.

"Finally, a couple of weeks ago, I sat in a screening room to see the final version. I was on maximum alert, watching for malicious twisting of words and dishonest presentation of historical facts.

"I was looking out for lies and cruel falsehoods that would have allowed my inner critic to throw metaphorical tomato soup all over the picture the artists were painting. I didn't find any."

Lacey also argued that as much as there are elements in The Crown that would make for difficult viewing at Buckingham Palace—for any palace staff who might deem to watch it—there are also scenes that paint the now King Charles in a positive light.

He said: "There's a lot of positive material about Prince Charles, his role in the Way Ahead Group, his work with young people by the Prince's Trust. Even his clear impatience with the waiting he has to do is imbued with a sense of purpose frustrated.

"You feel for him. This is the heir who had to wait longest in modern history. It is a classic tragedy, the dilemma of a man who can only realize his destiny through the death of his parent, his mother."