Mt61
I like history to be true to history. I don’t think for one minute that Anne Boyleyn was black- I never watched that drama because of that. Nothing to do about racism.
I am as sure as I can be that she wasn't (as I said upthread, if she had been Elizabeth would have had mixed heritage, which she clearly didn't) but I just don't think it matters.
What does wanting history to be true to history mean? Sticking with AB, she has been reported to have had six fingers on one hand and a third nipple. She (and Elizabeth after her) had so many enemies with an interest in her being seen as a witch, which was not remotely far-fetched back then, so a case can be made for assuming that to be nonsense. OTOH, people do have anomalies like that, and in the days before routine operations would deal with them they would have been more common. We don't know. How would you make her portrayal in a drama 'true to history' there?
Anything that has not been written down is guesswork. Politics was ruthless and there were numerous factions - Catholic and Protestant, various claimants to the succession and more. How far can we trust what was written when people had so much to gain or lose by telling lies? Most people couldn't write, so only official records exist (alongside a few letters and personal papers) and they are not concerned with anything other than official business.
Various explanations for events and behaviour have come along as knowledge has expanded, but much is guesswork. Did Henry have syphilis, Kells Syndrome, NPD, blood poisoning, and were any of those things responsible for his behaviour? Did Anne have sex with her brother? Did she love Henry, or just want to be Queen? We don't know - how can we?
Anything to do with people's relationships and feelings was, as it is now, for them to know and others to wonder about. There have probably always been those who think they know people's motives ('she only did that because. . .' or whatever) but probably then, as now, they are mostly projecting their own outlook onto others. We just don't know, but that's where storytelling comes in.
If we want History to be a series of 'facts' such as a list of battles, monarchs, plagues and legislation it would, IMO, be dry as dust. Most people prefer stories, even in textbooks. Those watching drama or reading historical fiction know they are getting stories. If they honestly believe that everything from whether someone loved someone else to what people really looked like outside of very stylised portraits of the rich (and the painters wouldn't get paid if the patron wasn't happy with the result) is 'true', they are fooling themselves.