It’s a work of fiction based on Shakespeare who was playing fast and loose with the history already, and the role features a professional Shakespearean actor. I think the person to judge the casting is the casting director, and they’ve already decided and found someone they found suitable, so that ship’s sailed. We don’t know why the actor was chosen, but I’d wager it’s because she’s a very talented actor. You seem oddly comfortable advocating depriving her of the job because of her skin tone.
Would you be complaining if there was a production of Julius Caesar where Caesar spoke English and which was laden with all the inaccuracies of the Shakespearean work, or only if he was wasn’t portrayed with someone with pale enough skin to your imagining of what he looked like? What if Caesar was actually far darker-skinned than most dramas present him (as he was)? Do you get upset when you see Romans depicted as British accented pale people, and even blondes? Is the kind of historical inaccuracy of skin tone in a dramatic work specially more important to get correct over all the other kinds of historical inaccuracies the drama contains? Why care about that detail over the myriad of others that are historical mutilations if you’re committed to the criteria of historical accuracy? What drives noticing and caring about a detail about skin tone that isn’t historically accurate in a drama over the many others details that are also historically inaccurate?
