I guess I take each story individually. Plenty of K.J. Charles’ book are set in times when being gay could get you hanged. I don’t think she sweeps that under the rug, but still manages to give a HEA to her characters. She isn’t giving HEAs to every gay person of the time period, just her characters,and it’s usually hard won.
That said, I also like the idea of representation, even if it’s not “historically accurate.” I’m more concerned about historical accuracy in historical fiction,not historical romances,which pretty much are never historically accurate anyway. Too many young dukes, too many “independent” young ladies, the completely false idea that women were “on the shelf” at 23, etc. The fact that too many novels have no minority characters at all, when Great Britain was such a colonial power and London had a significant minority population stretches credulity. Since there is so many inaccurate assumptions made by most HR (we call them “wallpaper historicals for a reason), I think deliberate stretching of the situation in order to include minority representation has it’s place. This is fiction, we are telling made up stories, and we can dream of “what ifs.” So when Milan writes about a half-Chinese Duke, or a Charles’gay couple gets their HEA, or a black person (or Indian person) has a place in society, I enjoy it for what it is. A chance for people other than whites to see themselves in history.