Historian and veteran journalist Mr Marr lashed out at the popular Netflix show a few days after its fourth season was released. Mr Marr argued the portrayal of the royals in the fictional show is so well done that it could convince people it is showing the complete truth about the events narrated – doing a dangerous disservice to the Royal Family.
He told : “If they announced, ‘This is drama, it’s fiction, it’s entertainment’, you would say it’s brilliant.
“But when you start to say, ‘This is the truth about these people’s lives’, it’s grossly unfair and really quite sadistic.
“It’s so convincingly acted people may think it’s the truth, and it isn’t.
“If I was one of the Royal Family, I would be utterly, utterly horrified.”
Mr Marr’s criticism of the series comes as Windsor Churchill’s grandson, Sir Nicholas Soames, accused The Crown of a “vile misrepresentation” of the Royal Family.
He wrote on Twitter: “Just watched an episode of The Crown.
“Truly appalled at the deliberate mischief-making, lies and meanness, clearly intended to be a vile misrepresentation of The Royal Family #shockingrubbish”.
READ MORE: Churchill’s grandson defends Royal Family in attack on The Crown
Netflix, contacted by Express.co.uk, didn’t comment on this remarks.
Several royal commentators have recently warned about the possible damage The Crown could cause the monarchy.
Hugo Vickers, author of The Crown Dissected, a book fact-checking events portrayed in the Netflix show, called last week for the Netflix show to add a disclaimer before the beginning of each episode stating it is a work of fiction and not a documentary.
He added: “Peter Morgan says he conflates incidents, which is understandable, but he also twists the facts and thus turns the truth into something so distorted that it becomes an out and out lie.”
Sally Bedell Smith, a royal biographer, also believes The Crown could be taken as a truthful representations of the facts by some viewers, given its lavish production and excellent acting.
This, she added, could have a negative impact on the monarchy and in particular on the image of Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, whose relationship in the 1980s has been falsely depicted in the TV show.
She told Vanity Fair: “Peter Morgan has created his own personal narrative of Charles and Camilla’s relationship that is largely fictional.
“If Diana had been grounded and confident and clever, her other good qualities such as her sense of humour and natural warmth could have won Charles over in a heartbeat, and Camilla would have been history.
“Charles actually appreciated Diana’s quick wit; during the engagement, he wrote to his grandmother about how funny Diana was.
“He did not enter into the marriage cynically, thinking he could keep a mistress on the side.
“He was telling the truth when he said to Jonathan Dimbleby on camera in 1994 that he had remained faithful to his wedding vows until his marriage to Diana became ‘irretrievably broken down’ in 1986, when he resumed his intimate relationship with Camilla.
“It’s fair to say that between 1981 and 1986, Charles and Camilla were in telephone contact when he was in distress and needed a sympathetic ear, but their physical relationship was in abeyance for five years.”
In its fourth season, The Crown implies Charles and Camilla had an affair throughout his marriage to Diana.
The author added 10 episodes of this show could “undo” the work done by the Prince of Wales and his second wife over the past 15 years and “resurrect the hostility from two decades ago”.