He Could Have Said "Alternative Facts"

Why are some people who claim to be knowledgeable of history should nevertheless be viewed with suspicion?

Take the case of Robert Lacey.

He is the historical consultant to The Crown, the Netflix television period drama.  He is the author of many popular histories and biographies on subjects ranging from King Henry VIII to the American gangster Meyer Lansky.

As Caroline Hallerman has observed,

“For Lacey, there can be truth without fact.”

In other words, a lack of evidence is really not insurmountable. Pressed on the matter, he responded to the interviewer’s question saying

"People say 'is it true or is it false?' I say, 'I don’t like the word false.' I’d rather say is it true or is it invented? Is it true or is it imagined? Because, you see there is a difference between history and the past… Through empathy, through imagination, through the psychology of characters. I’ve come to see that is just as valid as the dry documentation.”

And to top it off, he further stated

"History is a truth, but there are other truths that are conveyed in the drama."

Why didn't he just use the phrase "alternative facts". 

^