History fans love a good costume drama. History fans also love quietly muttering “that did not happen” at the screen. The White Queen sits right in that sweet spot where real people, real power, and very real bloodshed collide with television storytelling. Some characters come remarkably close to their historical counterparts. Others take scenic detours for drama, romance, or vibes.
This ranking looks at how closely the show’s major figures match the historical record. Not who was nicest, cleverest, or most memeable. Just accuracy, judged with a historian’s eye and a slightly raised eyebrow.
Elizabeth Woodville
Elizabeth Woodville is the strongest blend of drama and documented reality in the series. Historically, she really was a political operator who climbed from relative obscurity into the centre of royal power. Her intelligence, ambition, and determination are not inventions of television. Contemporary sources often framed her as manipulative, which usually means she was effective.
The show leans into her mysticism and emotional intensity, especially with prophecy and omens. That side is overstated, but her political instincts, devotion to her children, and fierce survival skills ring true. As portrayals go, this is a solid interpretation of a woman navigating a brutal system stacked against her.
Margaret Beaufort
Margaret Beaufort was not subtle. She was devout, obsessive, strategic, and entirely focused on putting her son on the throne. The series captures her religious intensity and her long game surprisingly well.
What gets softened is her patience and restraint. The real Margaret worked through networks, marriages, and quiet influence over decades. On screen, she sometimes feels like she wants to skip to the coronation speech. Still, the core personality is recognisable and grounded in the sources.
Edward IV
Edward IV comes across as charming, impulsive, and prone to letting desire override judgement. That tracks. He really was a charismatic warrior king with a weakness for romance and comfort.
The show slightly downplays his political competence and military skill, perhaps because competent kings are less interesting than messy ones. In reality, Edward was a formidable commander and an able ruler when he bothered to focus. Even so, the balance of charm and recklessness feels historically fair.
Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick
Warwick’s nickname “the Kingmaker” was not earned by accident. The series presents him as domineering, strategic, and increasingly bitter as his influence slips away.
Where the show simplifies things is motivation. Warwick’s actions were driven as much by self preservation and family power as by wounded pride. Still, his rise and fall are broadly accurate, and his looming presence over the politics of the era is well captured.
Richard III
Richard III is tricky. The show avoids turning him into a cartoon villain, which already puts it ahead of centuries of propaganda. He is portrayed as calculating, emotionally guarded, and shaped by resentment.
Historically, Richard remains contested. Some accusations against him likely stem from Tudor spin. Others are harder to dismiss. The series lands somewhere in the middle, which feels cautious but defensible. It is not perfect, but it resists the urge to go full Shakespeare, and that matters.
Anne Neville
Anne Neville often gets lost between powerful men in both history and television. The series gives her emotional depth and a sense of quiet endurance, which aligns with what little we know.
What we lack in the historical record gets filled in with drama, sometimes generously. Her inner thoughts and motivations are largely speculative. Still, the portrayal respects her as more than a pawn, which is an improvement on older interpretations.
George, Duke of Clarence
George was unstable, ambitious, and frequently on the wrong side of events. That much is accurate. The show captures his paranoia and erratic loyalty well.
The problem is emphasis. His emotional volatility sometimes tips into melodrama, making him feel less politically dangerous than he actually was. Historically, George was a genuine threat to the crown, not just an inconvenient brother having a bad week.
Jacquetta of Luxembourg
Jacquetta is one of the most fascinating figures of the period, and the show leans heavily into her reputation for sorcery. Accusations of witchcraft did exist, but they were politically motivated and never proven.
Her wisdom, influence, and noble lineage are accurate. The magic, less so. It makes for striking television, but it nudges her further from history and closer to fantasy.
Elizabeth of York
Elizabeth of York is portrayed with grace and restraint, which suits her historical role as a unifying figure after years of war. She was raised to survive political chaos quietly, not dominate it.
The show sometimes grants her more emotional confrontation than the sources suggest. In reality, her power came from symbolism and patience rather than open defiance. Still, the essence of her position is handled with care.
So Who Wins?
Elizabeth Woodville takes the top spot not because she is flawless, but because the show understands the world she lived in and how she learned to play it. The further characters drift into prophecy, simplified motives, or exaggerated villainy, the further they slide from the historical record.
That said, absolute accuracy was never the point. If it were, half the cast would be doing paperwork instead of plotting in candlelight. The White Queen works best when it respects the bones of history, even when it adds a little dramatic flesh on top.
Watch the trailer:
