I wouldn't take any one set of rankings as definitive. I am not sure whether any meaningful assessment of the quality of research in history can be made.
I doubt that many would suggest that, for example, Leicester ranks above Oxford or Cambridge as a university for undergraduate study of history, because of some arbitrary measurement of research quality.
The Oxford history course has changed a fair bit since I did it, but it is still both wide and deep. You can to a large extent follow your interests by focusing on topics and themes within broad categories. There is usually a good choice of topics in the exam questions, allowing a student to play to their strengths.
History may be one of the subjects best suited to the Oxford tutorial system. An hour a week in rigorous debate with a practising historian is usually great fun. My tutors were a demanding lot who accepted no bluster or waffle. In between the tutorials, reading huge amounts of history in the Radcliffe Camera and elsewhere can be a great pleasure for an industrious student.
Although these days I read law for a living, I have retained a lifelong interest in history, and still read history with the critical eye that my tutors taught me to use.
If you are on target for high grades, and you relish a challenge, maybe give Oxford or Cambridge a try, but treat the application as a long shot and don't beat yourself up if you don't get in. There just aren't enough places to go round.