Does historical drama need to make more effort to be accurate?

In the UK there is currently much discussion over Series 4 of The Crown, which follows the lives of the UK Royal Family under the current Queen Elizabeth.

As the Netflix drama has moved towards the near-present, focusing on events from the 1980s, and in particular the relationship between Princess Diana and the Royal Family, there has been an outcry from royal supporters that this most recent series includes 'wild cruel distortions' (Royal biographer Penny Junor)  and stretches 'dramatic licence to the extreme' (Buckingham Palace press secretary Dickie Arbiter).

Other critics argue that it is 'reality hijacked as propaganda, and a cowardly abuse of artistic licence' (Simon Jenkins, The Guardian).

So does any of this matter as long as The Crown creates good drama and entertainment?

Read the attached article from The Guardian which raises interesting issues regarding the role of historical drama and fiction.

In particular discuss the extent you agree with Jenkins' assertions that:

• There is a difference in how we can treat modern history and distant history
• ‘There cannot be one truth for historians, and journalists, their apprentice draftsmen, and another truth called artistic licence.’
• 'Fake history is fake news entrenched'