How the ‘White Queen’ got Margaret Beaufort so, so wrong…

cropped-beaufort_margaret1-1.png

As I trawled through my Google analytics the other day, I noticed that my post on the ‘Three things the White Queen Got Wrong’ was one of the highest read so far.  In fact, with the exception of anything about Prince Harry, the Wars of the Roses is easily the most popular topic.  Clearly the hit BBC series had something to do with that.

And for the most part, I’m a fan.  I’m relatively relaxed about the fact that historical fiction needs to take twists and turns that cause it to differ from the facts.  Obviously I wish that people would channel their new found interest into checking out an actual history book, but the fact that they don’t isn’t the fault of fiction writers or TV producers.

But it’s the Margaret Beaufort stuff that still bothers me.  I know, I know – I’ve blogged about this before.  However, the more I get into engaging with the historical community on Twitter (which I love by the way) the more I realise that some stuff still needs to be said.

For me, it isn’t the fact that the White Queen series has got facts about Margaret’s life wrong.  These things happen and actually the Philippa Gregory book of ‘The Red Queen’ is chronologically very accurate (and btw, an excellent read).  It’s the fact that her portrayal on the series – and how she is presented in other formats – has totally skewed perceptions of her.  This has now reached such an extent that back in 2013, the BBC history website (which many might understandably view as a respectable source) actually listed Margaret as a potential killer of the Princes in the Tower – almost as if the case against her was as strong of that against Richard III.

Anyway, I’m getting toward the end of my rant.  What I want to do quickly, is just list three things I believe about Margaret which the White Queen TV series entirely failed to capture:

  • She had a sense of humour – Okay, so she didn’t exactly leave behind a collection of published jokes in her (for the time) quite extensive collection of books, but that doesn’t mean she was all work and no fun.  There is evidence of her sharing jokes with servants and making humorous remarks in correspondence.  Her household was remembered as a happy place to be.
  • She was a pragmatist – I really did not like the Lancastrian fanatic that was presented in the White Queen.  Yes, she knew where her deep loyalties lay but she was as happy as most people of the era to play the game.  When she needed to be loyal to the Yorkist Edward IV (who she was actually genetically more closely related to than she was Lancaster’s Henry VI) then loyal she was.
  • She was quite a good wife – Margaret’s second husband, Sir Henry Stafford, was presented in the series as a loyal and long suffering spouse to the cold and aggressive Margaret.  Despite being only fifteen when she married the thirty-something year old, there is much evidence that their wedding was warm and happy.  Its childlessness is probably better explained by the damage caused by the birth of Henry VII (when Margaret was just 13) rather than any sexual frigidity on her part.

Rant over for now.  But one day, I would love to see a novel and TV series that present the warmer, practical and realistic Margaret that I have been privileged to get to know through study.

5 thoughts on “How the ‘White Queen’ got Margaret Beaufort so, so wrong…

  1. Have laboured my through a number of Gregory’s Wars of the Roses novels I couldn’t help feeling that despite her often claiming that she wanted to write about strong independent women, when she actually did write about one, Margaret Beaufort, she didn’t much like her. Her religious piety, genuine and quite normal for the period, is presented from the start of ‘The RedQueen’ as about her wanting power, she’s relentlessly ‘Lancastrian’ (not a term I think she would have understood) and of course she talks Lord Stanley into dealing with the princes.

    As you say she’s more interesting than that. Still, at least she wasn’t turned into a white witch (a form of ‘religion’ novelists are more comfortable with) like the hapless Woodvilles.

  2. Your post about Margaret Beaufort shows how truly ignorant you are and how little you have actually read regarding her. Historic read I mean, not novels. There are historic facts that she was an absolutely despicable person,who killed, stollen, cheated, lied all this while posting as a Christian woman with moral values. Or maybe you think it was God himself who removed all in line for the throne to place Henry? An advice,read some history books, not novels. Get your facts checked. And your defence towards her brings only three ridiculous facts. That she could make a joke is one of them. Becouse nobody who can joke would ever be a killer right?! Your level of ignorance it’s beyond believe.

    1. Thank you for your comments. However, I must challenge you on your tone which risked being unkind and uncharitable.

      I believe I have read every factual biographer of Margaret every published. If there’s one you feel I have missed, please do let me have the details.

      You mention that the historical facts show that Margaret was a person who:
      – killed
      – stole
      – cheated
      – lied

      However, you did not state any sources. Please can you provide your references and I will review them.

  3. I didn’t like how the White Princess and the White Queen got Margaret Beaufort’s age so wrong. She was only 13 years older than her son but both series had her much older

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *