This is a big discussion among readers & writers of historical romance. Some lean very far toward being as accurate as possible and working in real people of the time etc., others do what the reviewers call "history as wallpaper". To make a romance story set in another era palatable for the typical modern reader, there are tons of anachronisms even in the more accurate books---the heroine has to be self-reliant and a proto-feminist in terms of assuming that women can do what they want to; there is much less religious thought, attendance or discussion than there was in real life in most eras before 1950 or so; and of course the premarital sex. And everything is much cleaner, less smelly and less disease ridden than it really would be. And to ensure that as much as possible, the hero and heroine generally have to be of the highest levels of wealthy aristocracy or at best, the offspring of a fallen aristo who lives a very decent middle class existence and is swept away by a lover who is an aristocrat.
The further back you go, the more ahistorical you have to get to have a hero and heroine that most readers will connect with. There are some really good and historically more accurate medieval stories but most of them end up in trade paperback as "historical fiction"--the romance novels definitely go the wallpaper route.
I can count the stories I've read that have both hero and heroine who are not nobility on one hand. I think where there are so many overdone themes, that should be explored a little more by more authors.
Anyway, I can go either way on the accuracy question. If the author isn't trying to be particularly accurate I'm more inclined to let smaller stuff go but huge anachronisms will still bug me. If they are trying to be more accurate, I'm going to give them less slack when they mess it up or cut corners.