[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Would you apply that same principle to the Estates of individuals you didn't like - should the heirs of Richard Nixon, Saddam Hussain or Myra Hindley have the right to prevent them being depicted in drama/drama-docs in ways that they didn't like?

Technically I can neither like or dislike any of those people, since I've never met them. Whether I approve of them or not doesn't change my distaste for misleading historical fiction about them. It would be easy, for example, to write a story in which Myra Hindley explains why she committed her crimes. It would be easy to have Saddam Hussein be forced to explain himself to the family of a murdered political dissident, but in the end those stories would have no real value, because they would reflect what the author would like those people to be, or wants the audience to think they were, rather than reality; whilst giving the appearance of reality by the use of real names and personas. Reality is always more challenging, and ultimately more beneficial to the observer, which is why the best historical fiction avoids painting too detailed a picture of any real figure. Even the Flashman books, which are deliberately outrageous, are based on solid research into all of the events and (long dead) characters portrayed, not just what George Macdonald Frazer thought would suit his purpose. If you use real people and events in a story you have a duty to them not to show them doing and saying things that they would never have done or said - you can't have Cecil Rhodes condemning imperialism, for example, or Richard the Lionheart extolling the virtues of England. One of the great advantages of history is that the events of the past have no overriding purpose or message; the facts seldom support any one view, and they make no account of sensibility or taste. The very nature of fictional writing ensures that it embodies one person's beliefs and opinions, and the very events bear out those opinions. To present the latter as the former is to present the author's opinions as historical reality, which is profoundly dishonest.

Not really - what the Estate were attempting to do was prevent the use of a historical figure (JRR Tolkien) in a fictional work. If that is not to be allowed then you effectively end both historical fiction which uses real people as characters (ie everything from WWII novels which depict Churchill or a recent Doctor Who episode which featured Richard Nixon, & the like, would not be legal) or even non fiction works like Carpenter's Inklings & the invented 'typical' Inkilings meeting in the chapter Thursday Nights. You wouldn't be able to use any historical figure without the permission of their Estate

The typical Inklings meeting was drawn from the actual words of the participants, drawn from their letters, diaries and other writings. Its purpose was to show what it might have been like at an Inklings meeting, not as a critique of the Inklings or how Humphrey Carpenter thought an Inklings meeting should have been conducted. It was therefore at worst a very well-researched and objective piece of historical fiction. There was nothing in it that could possibly offend the estates of the people involved unless they were offended by what their ancestors had actually said, which would be tough luck for them really. The purpose of Mirkwood is manifestly different. I can see why Tolkien's estate would like to stop its publication, and personally I can't understand why a literary critique can't be written and published as such. I doubt that the wider implications had occurred to them, to be quite honest; although some sort of standard for the presentation of reality in fiction ought to exist. In short, you can't libel the dead, but perhaps I'd have to read and watch a lot less drivel if you could.

Perhaps the reason the Estate went for MirkWood & not 'Here there be Dragons' is that Mirkwood was self published & HTBD is published by Simon & Schuster (owned by CBS & one of the biggest publishers in the world). I suspect they knew S&S would stand up to them but expected Hillard to back down.

Perhaps they liked Here There Be Dragons, but thought that Mirkwood was awful. I suspect you may be right, though. I can't blame them for trying, because I can't imagine that they would object to something sympathetic and this wasn't after all a factual account of Tolkien, but the product of a mind that had never known him personally. I'd feel differently if the Estate had tried to suppress embarrassing revelations about JRRT or, indeed, anyone else.