You are hereForums / Mysterious Britain / Folklore and Legends / William Rufus

William Rufus


12 replies [Last post]
Ian Topham's picture
Ian Topham
User offline. Last seen 3 days 4 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 22 Jul 2008

Was William Rufus the victim of a hunting accident, a political murder or killed as part of a Pagan ritual where he took the role of the ‘Sacrificial King’ or ‘Divine Victim’?

Mauro
User offline. Last seen 2 years 42 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Rufus

If I remember correctly the same thing was alleged about the famous Charles Walton case by Margaret Murray. Robert Graves, as much as I find him an extremely good writer and a competent researcher, was seemingly obsessed with the "Divine Victim" idea.
As for poor King William I personally believe he was either victim of a hunting accident (a more common happening than we may think) or was murdered by one of the many persons he wronged in his lifetime. Despite the recent historical attempts to rehabilitate his figure (see John Gillingham's William II for example ) he was deeply unpopular at the time. He was a good general, though he lacked his father's tactical and strategical genius, but made himself deeply unpopular with the Church, the great nobles on both side of the Channel and even the commoners. In fact the heavy taxes he levied to finance his brother's partecipation to the First Crusade may well have the straw that broke the camel's back.
As you can see there was no shortage of persons who had more than a passing interest in seeing him dead.

__________________

"Louhi spoke in riddled tones of three things to achieve: find and catch the Devil's Moose and bring it here to me. Seize the Stallion born of Fire, harness the Golden Horse. He captured and bound the Moose, he tamed the Golden Horse. Still there remained one final task: hunt for the Bird from the Stream of Death"

-Kalevala, Rune XIII-


Ian Topham's picture
Ian Topham
User offline. Last seen 3 days 4 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Rufus

I have even found a comment that relates to the Biddenden Maids being somekind of anomalous omen concerning the accidental death/muder/sacrifice of Rufus.

forester
User offline. Last seen 4 years 45 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 5 Nov 2008
Rufus Stone

I live about 3 miles from the site of Rufus' death and every year I go to the site in the early evening in the hope of seeing his ghost which is reputed to appear and walk to Winchester following the route of his body in 1100. Sadly, I cannot report ever seeing the ghost but every year at exactly 9pm (BST!) at least one deer will appear in the clearing. It is quite spooky . . . .

My son and I are planning on doing the Purkis Walk on the anniversary of the death starting at about 9pm which is supposed to be the time that Purkis found the body. We were going to do it this year as it was very conveniently on a Saturday (not have to go to work the next day!) but the weather forecast was horrible (and, indeed, it did pour with rain overnight)

There are several things to ponder relating to the death though:

1. Why did Purkis walk all the way to Winchester with the body when the King's hunting party came from Castle Malwood which is only about 15 - 20 minutes walk away. Why not just take him there?

2. Why did Tirel go all the way across the Forest to get a ship to France? Southampton - bigger port/more ships etc - is much closer?

Ian Topham's picture
Ian Topham
User offline. Last seen 3 days 4 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Rufus

I heard that there is a new theory out suggesting the Rufus Stone is in the wrong place and that the King was found many miles from there. If this is the case it may explain the movements of Tirel and Purkis. I may also explain the lack of movement for the ghosts.

I also found a mention of an illigitimate son of Rufus who suffered a near identical fate. It was suggested he had been used as a sacrifice first to see if they could avoid killing Rufus.

Personally though I find it rather telling that his youngest brother was ready and able to usurp the brother that was actually next inline to the throne. He must have had a plan in place surely.

Lee Waterhouse
User offline. Last seen 4 years 49 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 11 Oct 2008
William Rufus

Just an observation here, the year was 1100 only 34 years after Will the 1st conqured England. There would have been a lot of hatred towards Will II as im assuming he was a Norman, why couldnt the assasin (thats if he was murdered) be a local Saxon ? Were there any Saxon Lords on the hunting trip ? Or... was Walter a Saxon who despised his "freind" enough to commit murder away from the hunting party, sort of like the two Sgt's in Platoon. But as Ian mentioned, his youngest brother was there and what better way to climb the slippery pole than to get rid of the man standing on your head.

As far as the sacfrice goes, i'm sure there were still pockets of resistance around against the christian church and would still belive in the old ways. Or maybe even the church had him done in, Mauro mentions he had upset the church and they didnt like that sort of thing, look what happenend to the knights templar...

Mauro
User offline. Last seen 2 years 42 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Rufus

The Anglo-Saxon resistance against the Normans and their allies is a too-often forgotten chapter of history which is recently coming to light. May I suggest English Resistance by Peter Rex? A very fine book (non-fiction) on the matter.
But as I said, William Rufus was deeply unpopular.
As was common for rulers of the time he interferred with the Church's internal affairs, but he much exacerbated this with his openly declared hatred for Anselm of Bec, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by stalling bishop nominations for years to an end in order to appropriate the revenues.
He made himself hateful to the great Norman baronage, which supplied his entire military strength, on both side of the Channel in virtue of his grinding taxation and fearful punishments for rebels. Today we might assume that a rebellious baron was to be tortured, imprisoned etc but back then a noble, even a rebellious one, was to be treated differently from a commoner. Usual punishment for rebellion was paying a heavy fine, humiliation in front of the king, ceding part of your lands to the Crown etc with exile being reserved for the losing side in succesion issues. Harming a noble, even a rebellious one, outside of the battlefield was an issue not to be taken lightly. William tortured and imprisoned many nobles and a least one of them, William of Eu, was blinded and castrated according to the revolting Byzantine customs the Normas had picked up during their wars in Sicily and Apulia.
Finally there was the issue of grinding taxation for commoners. The Domesday Book was written for taxation purpose and England, despite a considerably smaller population than France or the Holy Roman Empire, had much greater fiscal incomes. There was much resentment over this issue and, as I said before, the large tax imposed in 1096 to finance Robert Curhose's, William's brother, partecipation to the First Crusade was particulary resented.
As I said before there was no lack of people who wanted him dead. And the fact that most clerical chroniclers, like Abbot Suger and William of Malmesbury, openly talk about this murder as an "Act of God" give a good measure of the hatred he generated.

__________________

"Louhi spoke in riddled tones of three things to achieve: find and catch the Devil's Moose and bring it here to me. Seize the Stallion born of Fire, harness the Golden Horse. He captured and bound the Moose, he tamed the Golden Horse. Still there remained one final task: hunt for the Bird from the Stream of Death"

-Kalevala, Rune XIII-


forester
User offline. Last seen 4 years 45 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 5 Nov 2008
Rufus

Is it also significant that Richard, another brother of Rufus, also suffered a hunting accident in the Forest in 1084 (gored by a stag, apparently)? Was Henry quietly killing off his siblings in order to inherit? He certainly claimed the throne with rather indecent haste . . . . and, as others have said, Rufus, for various reasons, was not popular.

Re the recent theory that Rufus was actually killed elsewhere. The theory I came across was that he was killed at Througham, right down on the coast. However, this seems unlikely as it is documented that the King was staying at Castle Malwood and assuming the story re Purkis is correct, there has been a Purkis family in Minstead (where Castle Malwood is) since before the Conquest. It would have been a very long ride from Minstead to Througham and there is no historical evidence of a hunting lodge in that area although there are several documented sites of other hunting lodges throughout the Forest.

Lee Waterhouse
User offline. Last seen 4 years 49 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 11 Oct 2008
William Rufus

Heres a good bit of info regarding the English resistance to the Normans.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/3532/resist.htm

It doesnt go as far as 1100 though, but is a good read.

wombat
User offline. Last seen 5 years 2 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Nov 2008
William Rufus

Year ago I read that William Rufus was killed because he had made advances to another noble. i.e. killed because he was a homosexual. Has anyone ever seen anything about this?

__________________


Ian Topham's picture
Ian Topham
User offline. Last seen 3 days 4 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Rufus

Not heard that one before Wombat, though I believe he was single.



Share/Save

Navigation

Recent comments

Featured Site