Talk:William II of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	Middle Ages Portal William II of England is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Comments 2 Bribing the English 3 Infobox 4 Fakelore? 5 Third son? 6 Not history 7 Also Questionable 8 Requested move 8.1 Survey 8.2 Discussion 9 William II's relations with the church & his political nous 10 Was William II gay?

[edit] Comments

Is there any doubt as to William's homosexuality, or is this only speculation? RickK 01:58, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Although not directly stated in historical documents (it very rarely is, historians are traditionally heterosexist) William II was famous for his debauchery and his long standing disagreement with Archbishop Anselm for the latter's suggestion that sodomy be made illegal. Anselm attacked William's courtiers for their practice of sodomy and for wearing their hair long, we are meant to take this as an attack on the king because if Anselm had attacked the king directly he would have been executed for treason. Unfortunately clear as mud. Graham :) 02:12, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Very few things are clear at a remove of 900 years. The homosexuality issue is at least worth a reference, hence the edit. In any case the original reference was removed by a (no doubt homophobic) user who has since been banned. Rollo 01:48, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Bribing the English

I noted the recent change which reverted the text which read William, however, bribed enough Norman nobles and English folk to help defeat the rebellion back to read William, however, managed to rally the English and defeat the rebellion

I did at first also intend reverting it - it was fairly robustly worded and anonymous - however, after a bit of research in other sources I decided that the text referring to bribery was more likely to be correct, so I left it as it stood. I'd be in favour of putting something similar back in unless anyone has any good reason why not. Naturenet 16:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bartlett (2000) talks about William promising the English "the best law there had ever been in this land" and calling those who wouldn't fight for him cowards—"nithing". Seems closer to rally than bribe? Everyking 18:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The first part is from the ASC, by way of elaboration: he "sent for English men and announced his need to them, and begged their support, and promised them the best law there ever was in this land; and forbade every unjust tax, and granted men their woods and coursing—but it did not last long. But nevertheless the English men came to the support of the king their lord..." I guess you could really call that rallying or bribing, couldn't you? Rallying their support, but doing it with promises of good government that were effectively bribes. Everyking 19:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right, there's a bit of both. In The History of England, Volume I by David Hume we find The king, sensible of his perilous situation, endeavoured to engage the affections of the native English. ...they zealously embraced William's cause, upon receiving general promises of good treatment, and of enjoying the license of hunting in the royal forests.. Perhaps a slightly fuller sentence might do justice to it. Naturenet 21:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I took a stab at it, pretty minimal, but I guess it's still better than what was there before. Everyking 22:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "won with promises" is deinitely better than "bribed". -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 01:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me, a suitable compromise which expresses the consensus succinctly. Naturenet 08:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

After all, would anyone even dream of accusing Tony Blair of bribing the British electorate, with promises of better health, education, weather, etc.? (A cynical --Orelstrigo 23:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) )

No, they would not, if they wanted to retain a NPOV. But that's no reason not to mention it in slightly more neutral tones. Good analogy!!  :) Naturenet 19:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

• Just look at that "info"box! So much space, so little information! What an unattractive presence. Doesn't it really belong at Simple Wikipedia? There's a whole class of Wikipedians who invent these because their leisure outruns their information. A better designer could pack this information in a box the quarter this size. --Wetman 22:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. However, I am aware that there is a whole class of Wikipedians who spend editing time complaining peevishly about perceived defects which they are allowed, nay, encouraged, to take action to fix themselves. I'm sure that you're not one of those. Why not have a go and see if you can improve it? Naturenet | Talk 11:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't much like bio-infoboxes in general; it seems silly to have all that info sitting there when it's mostly duplicated in the text right there to the side in the intro. But nevertheless, infoboxes are popular and if we removed it from just this article we'd be inconsistent with the articles on William's predecessor and successor, just to start with. Everyking 11:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of the infoboxes is to give the most essential information at a glance; by making information easier accessible, the site will be more attractive to use. I think we sometimes need to remind ourselves that Wikipedia exists for the users, not for the editors. As for the information here, and on the other kings, much of it cannot be found in the intro, on the page, or anywhere on Wikipedia. It should also be said that the current infobox replaces the infobox Normans, which took up the same amount of space, but contributed little of value about the king, only on the royal family to which he belonged.

I would also appreciate it if everyone could refrain from resorting to unconstructive criticism and unfounded personal attacks. I believe I have personally contributed several fairly informative articles, but I don’t think that is in any way mutually exclusive with making Wikipedia more user-friendly. Constructive suggestions for improvements are of course welcome. Eixo 18:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I think between info boxes, navigation templates, History of England, History of Europe.. etc.. etc.. articles start appearing like multi-colored jigsaw puzzles of "essential info". Real estate is limited in the opening sections and you want to emphesis the article contents, to draw readers in so they have a summary of what the article contains, per the style and guidelines of how to create a good article. The "essential info" templates can esily be relegated to the bottom of the article using a different format template. Stbalbach 18:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Even I would find these aggressively inflated templates with that "baseball-card" look quite innocuous if they were at the bottom of articles. --Wetman 20:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Only that would not correspond with the standard for biography infoboxes, such as the ones for presidents, prime ministers, popes, saints, or just plain biographies. I don't see why monarchs should differ greatly from these; you're talking about a reform proposal that would affect all of Wikipedia. I think it would be more fruitful to discuss if the box could perhaps be made shorter and slimmer. Eixo 22:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fakelore?

"An alternative Legend suggests that William Rufus' murderer was actually a local poacher. In this version Walter Tirel, who may have witnessed the murder, choses to save himself instead of avenging the murder of his king. The song, "who killed Cock Robin", is an account of the murder, being based on a play of words as the murderer's name was Jack Sparrow."

"Who killed Cock Robin" first appears 500 or 600 years afterwards. The coincidence of "Jack Sparrow" make it less rather than more likely. An article Cock Robin should tell the origin, first printing and associations, genuine or spurious, of this nursery rhyme. Anyone ready to write the article? --Wetman 22:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)--Wetman 22:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Third son?

The article (twice) describes William II as the third son of William I. I can only find one prior son in any of my sources. William II appears to be the third child, the second son. Am I missing something? Mark Durst 18:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a son, Richard, who died c.1081, thus taking himself out of the succession. I know this is a few months late for you, but maybe it'll help.... Cheers, Lindsay 18:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not history

I moved this here: Margaret Murray theorised that William was actually a member of a witch cult, and his death a pagan sacrifice - a view still popular in pagan circles despite the paucity of supporting evidence. (William's favourite oath, "by the holy face of Lucca", previously mistranslated as referring to St Luke, is argued by Murray to have referred to Loki, thus reinforcing the view that William was a pagan. However, there is at Lucca a crucifix known as the "Holy Face", and there is no reason not to suppose that this was what was meant.)

There's no authentic report that William Rufus swore by the Volto Santo of Lucca (see here) for a start. Margaret Murray was not a historian (see Margaret Murray). --Wetman 15:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No authentic report? Sorry, but what could be more authentic than a report by William II's contemporary, William of Malmesbury? See William of Malmesbury, A History Of The Norman Kings (1066 - 1125), Llanerch, 1989, p.63. Nortonius (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Also Questionable

I'm moving this here: Lammas, the festival of the First Fruits of the Harvest, is the first festival of the Waning Year. It is celebrated on July 31, while the climate (in the United States) is essentially still Summer. Never-the-less, technically, Lammas is the first day of Autumn (fall). Lammas was a time of sacrifice. Sacrifices at Lammas were made to thank the Deities for the First Fruits and to guarantee an abundant Harvest. The victim was often the king, who was God Incarnate to his people. Sometimes a substitute king, a fool or "scapegoat", was sacrificed in the king's stead. King William II rejected the relatively new Christian beliefs, and openly declared himself Pagan. His death in a "hunting accident" on August 2, 1100 c.e., is believed by some writers to have been a case of the traditional sacrifice being disguised for the sake of the Christian priests.

It may (just) be true; certainly as it stands it needs to be referenced ~ who are these writers? ~ and shown to be a viable historiography. I personally don't believe it ~ apart from anything else the dates don't match, Christianity wasn't relatively new by 1100, and i'm not sure how open his paganism was, even if it was the kind which celebrated Lammas-day sacrifices ~ but my belief is not the point. We need to prove what we write. Cheers, Lindsay 19:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] William II's relations with the church & his political nous

I'm a newbie editor, so forgive me if I've stepped on anyone's toes with my edit to the sub-heading and info at 'Relations with the church', but I believe I've added useful stuff.

Also, under the sub-heading 'War and rebellion', it says that William II 'was less effective than his father in channeling the Norman lords' propensity for rebellion and violence'. But the example immediately following seems to demonstrate that in fact he was extremely effective, both in its details and in its outcome. Perhaps the observation is wrong, or a better example is needed? The observation also appears directly to contradict what is said previously, under the sub-heading 'England and France'. Nortonius (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Was William II gay?

Before adding an LGBT royalty link to the page for William II of England, as some have lately done, I think it would be good to add some evidence. I refer to the reason given for DrKiernan’s deletion of this link on 11 April 2008: ‘not shown conclusively - only alleged by some, disputed by some, rubbished by some’. As it stands, the footnote at the end of the sentence which mentions William II’s ‘numerous homosexual liaisons’ cites only modern historiography; apart, that is, from the subsequent mentions of William of Malmesbury and Orderic Vitalis, which in themselves are indeed only mentions, not citations, and might indicate only that William II was, perhaps, the victim of a smear campaign worthy of a modern, tabloid newspaper, in a society which viewed non-heterosexual orientation as dangerous and unhealthy.

I would think that the sort of evidence to be cited would need to be at least on a par with Suetonius’ report of the Roman emperor Gaius Caligula’s apparently bisexual behaviour, in e.g. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, The Twelve Caesars (tr. Robert Graves, revised edition), Penguin, 1979, p. 172. I imagine that many would accept such a report as useful, though it is strictly hearsay.

Until such evidence is cited, I would say that wanting William II to be gay or bisexual doesn’t make him so. Cite the evidence, and my own objections will evaporate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nortonius (talk • contribs) 18:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the best treatment of the subject is Barlow's discussion in William Rufus on page 102 and following. It breaks down to:

• Eadmer, the earliest writer, is very hostile to Rufus, and only discusses two things that MIGHT allude to homosexuality. The first is that in 1092, Anselm of Canterbury took Rufus aside to investigate unspecified rumors circulating about the king. The second is that the courtiers of Rufus' grew their hair long like girls, and that Anselm tried to enlist Rufus' help in holding a church council condemning sodomy, but Rufus was offended (of course, at this point, Rufus was just plain offended at everything Anselm did) and Anselm had to wait to until Henry's reign.
• William of Malmesbury, who used Eadmer as a source at times, mainly elaborates on the elaborate fashions of the court and courtiers and that the courtiers "chose to remain weak and effiminate" and that a "flock of harlots" and a "band of effeminates" followed the court. (Phrases are Barlow's, p. 104).
• Orderic Vitalis claimed that the king was lustful and shameless. He also complained that the courtiers wore their hair long, wore shoes with long curling pointed toes, and wore "improper fashions" such as tight shirts and tunics with full sleeves that were voluminous.

As you can see, the charges aren't very specific. A Welsh chronicle of the time (Brut y Tywysogion) even claimed that the Rufus used concubines, which led to his death without children. Barlow, seems to think he was bisexual, mainly because he had no children. But it's still only his opinion, and he very carefully says that it is his opinion, not a fact. Emma Mason, writing a bit later then Barlow (who wrote in 1983) seems to give the impression we just can't know, because the sources don't tell us enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly; and thanks for the detail - I was too lazy to dig my copy of Barlow out of the attic! In fact, I was also bothered by the very sentence containing the words 'numerous homosexual liaisons': certainly these aspects of William II's reign are of interest, as reported, but to speak of 'numerous homosexual liaisons' seems to require an imaginative leap which goes well beyond the evidence. I think the sentence needs editing. Nortonius (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has been on my "Someday" list for forever, but it'll probably stay there for a long time. I do highly recommend Mason's William II: Rufus, the Red King which came out in 2005. ISBN is 0-7524-3528-0. It's pretty good, from someone a bit more "pro-Rufus" than Barlow is. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem has always been that the family was Norman. William's father and two older brothers are mentioned as having long hair at times, as well as their courtiers etc. It's just that William was unpopular in my opinion. People like Edward II are remembered as gay because they weren't liked, whereas with the likes of Richard I the issues are not common knowledge. Also, we all know to be careful with church sources on the Norman dynasty, because the two did not get along. Appears mainly to be gossip, I've yet to see anything concrete --Tefalstar (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion (and that's what it is, so it shouldn't creep into the article) Rufus got horrible press. Eadmer hated him, and William of M pulled a bunch from Eadmer, so... that's two biased sources right there. Orderic is a bit more objective, and his entries seem to be the least inclined to believe Rufus was homosexual. If I'd stuck with medieval history, I'd probably have already written another biography of Rufus, but I changed careers... so... ya'll are missing my brilliant opinion as a WP source. I think it's probably okay to say that Barlow thought he was bisexual, but that's just Barlow's opinion, and if you read what he bases it on, it's clearly a lot of "gut instinct". Ealdgyth - Talk 21:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, Ealdgyth, but I’m afraid my days of rooting in academic libraries or buying books like that are long over! I did stick with medieval history, for a long time, but I’m no expert on William II either - I just wound up reading his Wikipedia page after following a thread started by a BBC News piece on the Turin Shroud, oddly enough, which led me to notice that someone had mistakenly attributed his reported oath involving the Holy Face of Lucca to Henry III! But, expert or not, evidence is evidence, and there doesn’t seem to be any here. And yes, Ealdgyth and Tefalstar, you both mention things which reflect what I had in mind when I compared William II’s press to a tabloid smear campaign.

I’d be delighted if there were more evidence for this period and earlier - my interest is mainly Anglo-Saxon - and I know very well that, in the face of inadequate evidence, we are often left to offer little more than opinion, having balanced what evidence there is; but it seems clear to me that this mention of ‘numerous homosexual liaisons’ is tantamount to weasel words (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words).

So, I still think that sentence needs editing, perhaps along the following lines: ‘William was roundly denounced in his time and after his death for presiding over what was held to be a dissolute court.’ Obviously the footnote would need commensurate editing, too. I’ll have a stab at it, if no-one else wants to, and if no-one comes up with a good objection. Nortonius (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

None from me. Someday, I'll rewrite this article, but I've got a big pile of bishops to work through first. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've done an edit - any useful comments welcome, obviously! Nortonius (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, saying Flambard was his 'favourite' really kinda implies much more than really was there. Flambard was very definitely heterosexual (he made passes at religious hermit, for heavens sake). Flambard was Rufus' chief minister and regent, but I'm not sure that "close companion" or "best friend" really fits. (Warning, I just finished revising Flambard's article to get it up at GAN, on its way to FAC so I'm eyeball deep in Flambard research). Let's stick with 'chief minister' which fits the sources better. We really should mention that some folks have considered him homosexual, but I suppose it can wait a while until I have time to dig into the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok - the word 'favourite' was already there in the article, and I didn't feel qualified to change it. I'm not sure that it necessarily implies sexual relations, but I agree 'chief minister' fits better: 'favourite' does carry pejorative connotations, which needn't be fair, and, given what you say about your own research, I bow to your judgement! When you say, 'Flambard was very definitely heterosexual (he made passes at religious hermit...)', you do mean the hermit was female? And, when you say, 'We really should mention that some folks have considered him homosexual', are you referring to Flambard, or William? If William, I did preserve reference to discussion of his sexuality, in the footnote. Sorry, just want to be clear, having just stuck my head over the parapet with that edit! Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL.. sorry. This is a case of being so far into the sources, that I'm not being clear. Flambard made passes at Christina of Markyate, who was definitely female. The "We really should mention that some folks.. " part meant Rufus, not Flambard. I really should move this article up on my "need to do list"... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! Yes, Christina of Markyate was definitely female! I'll see if I can't squeeze in some clearer reference to the sexuality question. And I'll go ahead and change 'favourite' to 'chief minister'. Then we'll just have to see what input others might have, until William gets on top of your pile of bishops (ugh!). Thanks for being so quick coming back on this! Nortonius (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Anything to distract my mind from the current task (updating references to use a new version of the British Handbook of Chronology... whee.) And thanks for doing the editing! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure! I suppose I'm using the editing to distract myself from other things, too...! I know what you mean about being so far into the sources, and making tedious updates... Cheers! Nortonius (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the discussion on this page didn't persuade someone. Now you see why I haven't bothered editing this article. Scholarly references don't hold up against H. Montgomery Hyde, in The Love That Dared not Speak its Name. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed - I had noticed that the question first arose nearly five years ago, and that it hadn't been touched since, so I had some idea of what might occur. I've invited BoBo to check the edit, and to come here for the discussion. Nortonius (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I just did an edit for which I gave the summary as Citations added for source of nickname 'Rufus', question of William II's sexuality, and his 'customary oath': I should also have mentioned that I changed the quotation from William of Malmesbury, given under the sub-heading 'Appearance' - sorry! I did this because the previous version of this quotation differs markedly from what I found Wm. of M. to say. If the previous version is from a text by Wm. of M. which is unknown to me, then apologies (just covering my bases here!) - but, if not, then the information removed by me would have to be viewed as a fantastical distortion (I love the part about his 'eyes of changeable colour, speckled with flecks of light'!), and tendentious with regard to William II's sexuality. Though the previous version of this quotation was added by Mississippienne, in edit 11104317 of 23:10, 7 March 2005, I suspect that this may in fact have been a confused, but innocent, quotation of H. Montgomery Hyde's The Love That Dared not Speak its Name: anyone? I know I should check it myself, but this would be unusually difficult, for reasons that I won't bore you with... Nortonius (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)