Why does the presence of individuals of African ancestry baffle you while Spaniards and Portuguese would not, despite the fact that the strait of Gibraltar separates the European continent with the African continent by a mere 16.3 km?

To answer your question, the answer is: Yes. The royal court of Elizabeth I had individuals of African ancestry. So did the courts of her predecessors, Henry VII and Henry VIII. Her successor, James I (son of Mary, Queen of Scots), also had them in his court. Alongside this, wealthy and influential individuals also had people of African ancestry in their households. In cities and villages across the British isles, people of African ancestry lived and died throughout this era.

This African presence in the courts of different English monarchs is visible in the archives, but the majority of what we have is fragmentary. This is not something to be surprised about, seeing as we often have very little to go on in regards to the lives of specific commoners during this era. Sometimes, we're lucky, such as in the case of "John Blanke the blacke Trumpet" who was one of 8 trumpeters in the court of Henry VII and who first appears in the records in 1507. What makes the case of John Blanke so extraordinary is that he is depicted in the 1511 Westminster Tournament Roll. Historian Miranda Kauffman expands on John Blanke as well as 9 other individuals of African ancestry during this period in her book Black Tudors (2017).

But in the case of Elizabeth I, we have considerably little to go on. It is not for nothing that historian Imtiaz H. Habib has "Imprints of the Invisible" as a subtitle to his very detailed Black Lives in the English Archives, 1500-1677 (2008). It is in the household records of Elizabeth I that we in 1547 find a "litell blak a More" living in her court. Beyond this anonymous description, we have nothing. It has the "classic anonymity of the black subject whose particulars are irrelevant for the early modern English historical record," as Habib describes it. It is very likely that there are many individuals who simply went unrecorded. The reason as to why we know of this girl of African ancestry is because she was most likely given as a gift to Elizabeth I. Unfortunately, the scarcity of sources in the matter makes it difficult to give an in-depth and detailed description of the live of these (to us) anonymous people of color in European courts.

Yet, they are there. In household registries, on tournament rolls, in parish records and many other that records their presence, their baptisms, their marriages, their children, their deaths and their burials. The presence of people of color in a period movie should only be seen as an acceptance of that fact and an attempt to depict the historical diversity of European courts during the 16th century.

At the time, blacks were employed as musicians, foot carriage men and other servant positions; some were indentured. As far as Court life went, no records (to my knowledge) indicate blacks filled Ambassador or other lofty positions, although, they were steadily rising in the English gentry. Elizabeth would later attempt to expel blacks from the country for a variety of reasons: blaming the poor, of which most blacks were, for failing economics; blacks were of Muslim origins, a threat to a Christian nation rallying cry, etc.

Still, the movie ‘feels’ somewhat forced, viewing a period piece knowing that Blacks & Asians didn’t have those roles in that hierarchy. It’s not a slight, merely historical facts, but its director publicly stated her refusal having an all white cast, therefore, the cognitive dissonance is palpable...