All historical fiction takes liberties with the "true story" for artistic effect, and there's no reason facts like a historical person's race can't be subject to that as well. Of course that's not a neutral decision, and changes what the work says, but it's not necessarily some sort of bastardization of the truth.
And another comrade elsewhere in this thread worded their comment much better which is where I was going with this. I wasn’t sure how to word it myself exactly.
It just serves no purpose to racially recast a historical figure. Especially a monarch which race also was a huge factor regarding their attitudes and subjugation of others. And what purpose does it serve as “art” if all it’s only substance is, “but what if this person was actually black?”
All historical fiction takes liberties with the "true story" for artistic effect, and there's no reason facts like a historical person's race can't be subject to that as well. Of course that's not a neutral decision, and changes what the work says, but it's not necessarily some sort of bastardization of the truth.
Hamilton is still a bad play though.
Thankfully I’ve never watched Hamilton.
And another comrade elsewhere in this thread worded their comment much better which is where I was going with this. I wasn’t sure how to word it myself exactly.
I think I pretty much agree with you, I just don't want to throw the artistic possiblity of racial recasting out entirely
It just serves no purpose to racially recast a historical figure. Especially a monarch which race also was a huge factor regarding their attitudes and subjugation of others. And what purpose does it serve as “art” if all it’s only substance is, “but what if this person was actually black?”