Actors are called actors because they are capable of acting like other people.
You are also confusing history with a story. Do you think the history we know is how it happened? No, not for a second, history is only written by the winners and then it will be bias towards them. Is it a history programme? Is it a documentary? Or is it someone's interpretation of events?
To me, it doesn't affect the story unless you are getting hung up on the fact it's a black actoress and ignoring the story. Which if true, says more about you than it does the story or cast.
WTF are you on about? How are Anne Boleyn or Henry 8th 'winners'.
So...history is bunkum, that's not how it happened at all. Lizzie.........you'd better throw all of your books away Jeez.
Indeed Steve. History as we know it is all recorded in documents - personal, state, chronicler accounts and now in 'modern' times, the media - and then read, re-read, researched by numerous academics and published in 'papers', books, and now documentaries. Of course in the recording of history there can be bias, or simply recording errors, and that is what modern historians are constantly researching to establish the EXACT truth of what transpired. But certain facts cannot be established now, such as the exact numbers in the English population in 1348, at the time of the Black Death, or who really did kill the 'Princes in the Tower' in about 1483, etc, etc.
But certain FACTS are well established - Anne Boleyn WAS a white English women with six fingers on her right hand; Hitler WAS a white Austrian; Winston Churchill WAS a white Englishman with an American mother; the Duke of Wellington WAS a white English man; Nelson WAS a white Englishman, Nelson Mandela WAS a black African, and Jesus WAS certainly NOT a white man from Bethlehem, etc, etc, these are all FACTS that an actor, no matter how good they are or of any particular artistic persuasion, CANNOT change.
So to suggest a black actor can play the part of Anne Boleyn is just plain nonsense.