British Kings "Bullet Book", William II, a.k.a. "Rufus the Red"
BillJones
Posts: 34,683 ✭✭✭✭✭
• William the Conqueror passed over his eldest son, Robert, and selected William to succeed him as king of England. William belittled Robert because of his short stature.
• William was a very competent military man which probably accounted for his selection as the king.
• William had a red face which was enhanced by his drinking and further inflamed when he became angry. Hence he had the nickname, “Rufus” the red.
• Rufus blasphemed the church and often used foul language. He rejected the church and misappropriated its funds. When an abbot or bishop died, Rufus did not appoint a replacement. Instead he took charge of the church property and took the income from for himself. It is therefore no surprise that the monks, characterized Rufus as an evil person who had the characteristics of a witch.
• His debaucheries were described as “hateful to God and man.” It was said that young men minced their gait with lose gestures and walked around half naked in William’s court.
• William was a flashy dresser and wore expensive clothes and shoes.
• Like almost all Normans, William loved to hunt. The Normans set aside over 70 hunting preserves around England that were designated for the use of Norman royalty only. Anyone else who was caught hunting in them was punished by blinding and other mutilations. Those who lived near the preserves could not have dogs unless the animals had one of the toes on their front paws removed to prevent the dog from hunting and chasing game.
• William was killed in a “hunting accident” when a Norman nobleman, Walter Tyrel, missed a deer and hit the king instead. William’s brother, Henry, who was also in the hunting party immediately high tailed it to Westminster where he laid claim to the royal treasury and the crown.
• Tyrel hightailed it back to Normandy immediately. Henry awarded Tyrel’s brothers in law, Gilbert and Robert of Clare, special favors.
• William II was the only British king who never married. Some historians have come to the conclusion that William II was gay.
• Starting with the coins of William II, the quality of the British coinage suffered. The quality of the coins would not improve until the reign of King Henry II (1154 to 1189).
Comments
Interesting, thanks for sharing !!!
@BillJones - thanks for these posts. I enjoy seeing the coins and reading about the rulers. Have you ever listened to the “History of England” podcast by David Crawther? Very entertaining.
One question for the group - were peck marks ways to tests for authenticity/silver content? Why do some coins have so many?
My current "Box of 20"
I'm not certain that you can say the elder son was 'passed over'. The elder son, Robert, received Normandy - and managed to hold on to it for almost twenty years. Normandy was probably considered greater than England (and much more stable) at that time.
Eventually Robert lost Normandy to his younger brother, Henry. Robert was a prisoner in England and Wales for almost thirty years, until his death.
Have I said that I despise spellchecker, recently?
Anglophiles have written my reference books so perhaps that's why they wrote that "Robert Short Stockings" was "passed over." Those authors claimed William the Conqueror looked down on him because he was short.
Robert was a relatively rebellious son - he only helped his father fight his enemies 'sometimes' - and sometimes he openly fought against his father. But he didn't get passed over for what was perhaps, at that time, the better portion of his father's lands.
I am still a newbie in this area so my answers might not be accurate. I am guessing that the are. More of this will be covered in the Henry I bullets. Let's put it this way. You would not want to get on Henry's bad side if you made coins for him.
I question Bill Dugan’s perspective.
Which is the preferred, to be King or Duke?
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
@EVillageProwler
England wasn't what it later became - the area of Norman control was much smaller in those days. I'm thnking they didn't control all of Wales as yet, none of Scotland or Ireland. Some of the English border areas around Scotland were probably iffy too. This was 900 years ago!
You are looking backwards from a modern perspective, and are reading too much into nominal titles. The Duke of Normandy may have owed some kind of nominal fealty to the King of France, but the reality was that the Normans fought that King hard if they thought it was to their own advantage.
Of course, in 1066 the Normans wiped English/Saxon rear-end. Who was greater then, the King of England or the Duke of Normandy?
I concede that this is a fair point. Thanks.
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
Well, in 1106 the King of England took the Duke of Normandy.
But Robert fought incessantly when he was Duke. His realm must have been near exhausted.
Another perspective on this ...
Perhaps William the Conqueror picked William II because he was the better warrior. After William I won the Battle of Hastings, he spent some time consolidating his position and then he went back to Normandy. During his absence the Saxons started to act with some independence.
When William returned he saw what was happening and put the hammer down. If you didn’t knuckle under to his rule, you either were imprisoned or liquidated. There was also a lot of England left to conquer. Perhaps William the Conqueror thought that his warrior son, which was William II’s reputation in history, was better suited for the job.
Both Robert Curthose and William II were quite formidable military leaders - one just has to look at Robert's achievements during the First Crusade for evidence. He also seemed to have had a great deal of 'esteem' amongst his contemporaries - some chroniclers hint that many found his treatment by his brother Henry I following the Battle of Tinchebrai unworthy of a former crusader and all-around honourable man. He may have even allowed Henry I to keep England after Rufus's death (some historians at the time report that Curthose invaded England to claim his patrimony but then decided to show mercy and allowed his little brother to keep it - but they could have just been casting Robert's inability to claim England in a good light).
None of the three surviving sons of William I would be considered 'light-weights' in my book.
One last thing - I think Normandy was certainly looked upon (especially by William and his first two sons) as the more prestigious title. It wasn't recently conquered, had their native culture, and was well fortified (although this could be problem as many strongholds were held by potentially troublesome lords). Remember though, that England was very wealthy at this time - a look at the amount of money that Aethelred II could pay the Danes a hundred years earlier, and the evidence in Domesday book shows a land that could generate tremendous income. And it had a crown attached to it... Henry I certainly seemed to view it as the seat of his power, even after he held both England and Normandy, even marrying a scion of the old West Saxon line.
Hope I am not being too long winded, just thought I would toss in my two cent piece!