What do you think?
Rate this book
The English Monarchs
William Rufus
William II, better known as William Rufus, was the third son of William the Conqueror and England’s king for only 13 years (1087–1100) before he was mysteriously assassinated. In this vivid biography, here updated and reissued with a new preface, Frank Barlow reveals an unconventional, flamboyant William Rufus—a far more attractive and interesting monarch than previously believed. Weaving an intimate account of the life of the king into the wider history of Anglo-Norman government, Barlow shows how William confirmed royal power in England, restored the ducal rights in France, and consolidated the Norman conquest.
A boisterous man, William had many friends and none of the cold cruelty of most medieval monarchs. He was famous for his generosity and courage and generally known to be homosexual. Licentious, eccentric, and outrageous, his court was attacked at the time by Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, and later by censorious historians. This highly readable account of William Rufus and his brief but important reign is an essential volume for readers with an interest in Anglo-Saxon and medieval history or in the lives of extraordinary monarchs.
A boisterous man, William had many friends and none of the cold cruelty of most medieval monarchs. He was famous for his generosity and courage and generally known to be homosexual. Licentious, eccentric, and outrageous, his court was attacked at the time by Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, and later by censorious historians. This highly readable account of William Rufus and his brief but important reign is an essential volume for readers with an interest in Anglo-Saxon and medieval history or in the lives of extraordinary monarchs.
745 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1983
10 people are currently reading
258 people want to read
About the author
Frank Barlow
26 books9 followersA Fellow of both the British Academy and the Royal Society of Literature, Frank Barlow was Emeritus Professor of History at the University of Exeter, where he taught from 1953 until his retirement in 1976. He was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 1989 for his contributions to historical scholarship.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
March 9, 2019
It is a hope that a popular press will one day stir through the remains of history and piece together a life of William II however incomplete such a portrait could be. The end of the 11C was not a time of meticulous documentation, the Domesday Book is remarkable because of its comprehensive ambition. Anyway good old William appears to be an interesting fellow, likely gay and not having a heartfelt embrace of the faith or the church. Much like many other coronation situations, the passed over siblings revolted and the shifting loyalties of the barons prevented the results from being anything mundane. Expansionist designs in Wales and Scotland fit many a monarch’s whiteboard wishlist though the outcomes weren’t as hoped. The Yale series has hopes of hefty times being the standard. These circumstances force the author to digress into discussions on wage scales and the siphoning of funds from monastic houses. This should have been a 180 page survey.
Oh well.
Oh well.
June 23, 2014
"He thought that William was a worldly man, addicted to carnal pleasures and pride, and having no fear of God; but he admitted that if he had not been so ungodly and puffed up with the pomp of kingship, he would have been of a truly royal disposition."
Thus is the story of William Rufus, the second oldest surviving son of William the Conqueror. Known as a bit of a man's man, Rufus was more comfortable with those that swung a sword than holy endeavors. While he was seen by the clergy as a sodomite (no practical evidence exists), bolstered by the fact that he failed to produce a marriage or any offspring complicating his reign even more; he was highly successful on the field of battle which he financed by not filling bishoprics in assorted counties thus allowing the throne to collect the revenue instead of the church. Furthermore, his constant bickering with the future saint Anselm over the archbishopric of Canterbury furthered an image of a man that cared little for the church. Rufus surrounded himself with those he trusted, men of military might that could also properly manage his affairs of state. Rufus took to England immediately upon his father's death, not even staying for the funeral. His ascension and coronation went as expected and he only had a small rebellion (largely instigated by his brother) to deal with. Once solidified as the King, Rufus then set is aims to reuniting his father's territory, which meant setting sights on the county of Normandy. Normandy had been left to his older brother Rufus who despite being liked by the many counts in the duchy, was ineffectual at containing them and ruling the duchy, thus opening the door for Rufus's meddling. Through a rather confusing series of events, Rufus was against his brother, and then on his side, allowing for the purchase of the duchy to finance Roberts mission on the first crusade, something Rufus was hoping he would not return from (Robert at this time had no heirs either, and in the event of his death, the duchy would have gone to Rufus.) In any event, Rufus's short reign ends rather dramatically with a hunting accident and Henry (the youngest son of the conqueror and with Rufus at the time) flees back to take the throne as Rufus is hastily buried, some have speculated with the shaft still in his chest, thus ending his thirteen year reign over England. While certainly a tragic accident, the church used it as a means to condemn his earthly works and that he was punished with death for the insolence of his life that was devoid of the seriousness conviction. From there Henry continued in his endeavors to rule both the kingdom of England and Normandy, which is extensively delved into in Henry I (Hollister), the next in the series.
It's obviously much more complex and robust than the above but works in summarization. A lot of the content is covered in the preceding volume William the Conqueror and subsequent Henry I, but it's an important and interesting tomb for those interested in the often forgotten William Rufus, another thread in the tapestry, more dots connected. Barlow, in the introduction, claims that he first offered a course study of William Rufus as a bonus, something extra for his students and that over time, the course work for that developed into a very well put together biography that examines his life, appointments, and often tumultuous relationship with the church.
Barlow himself is a very accomplished career as a historian. Prior to the war, he had served several posts at Oxford and St. Johns Universities. After the war he spent most of his time teaching and running the department at Exeter. Overall he published 14 books and lived to the age of 98.
Definitely worth it for those with serious inquiry to the subject matter of England in the middle ages.
3.5 if I am getting technical, rounding down because this is a bridge gap between The Conqueror and Henry I. I would surmise that 2/3 of the information about his reign is given in the proceeding and subsequent books. While excellently written and deep, it wasn't essential.
Thus is the story of William Rufus, the second oldest surviving son of William the Conqueror. Known as a bit of a man's man, Rufus was more comfortable with those that swung a sword than holy endeavors. While he was seen by the clergy as a sodomite (no practical evidence exists), bolstered by the fact that he failed to produce a marriage or any offspring complicating his reign even more; he was highly successful on the field of battle which he financed by not filling bishoprics in assorted counties thus allowing the throne to collect the revenue instead of the church. Furthermore, his constant bickering with the future saint Anselm over the archbishopric of Canterbury furthered an image of a man that cared little for the church. Rufus surrounded himself with those he trusted, men of military might that could also properly manage his affairs of state. Rufus took to England immediately upon his father's death, not even staying for the funeral. His ascension and coronation went as expected and he only had a small rebellion (largely instigated by his brother) to deal with. Once solidified as the King, Rufus then set is aims to reuniting his father's territory, which meant setting sights on the county of Normandy. Normandy had been left to his older brother Rufus who despite being liked by the many counts in the duchy, was ineffectual at containing them and ruling the duchy, thus opening the door for Rufus's meddling. Through a rather confusing series of events, Rufus was against his brother, and then on his side, allowing for the purchase of the duchy to finance Roberts mission on the first crusade, something Rufus was hoping he would not return from (Robert at this time had no heirs either, and in the event of his death, the duchy would have gone to Rufus.) In any event, Rufus's short reign ends rather dramatically with a hunting accident and Henry (the youngest son of the conqueror and with Rufus at the time) flees back to take the throne as Rufus is hastily buried, some have speculated with the shaft still in his chest, thus ending his thirteen year reign over England. While certainly a tragic accident, the church used it as a means to condemn his earthly works and that he was punished with death for the insolence of his life that was devoid of the seriousness conviction. From there Henry continued in his endeavors to rule both the kingdom of England and Normandy, which is extensively delved into in Henry I (Hollister), the next in the series.
It's obviously much more complex and robust than the above but works in summarization. A lot of the content is covered in the preceding volume William the Conqueror and subsequent Henry I, but it's an important and interesting tomb for those interested in the often forgotten William Rufus, another thread in the tapestry, more dots connected. Barlow, in the introduction, claims that he first offered a course study of William Rufus as a bonus, something extra for his students and that over time, the course work for that developed into a very well put together biography that examines his life, appointments, and often tumultuous relationship with the church.
Barlow himself is a very accomplished career as a historian. Prior to the war, he had served several posts at Oxford and St. Johns Universities. After the war he spent most of his time teaching and running the department at Exeter. Overall he published 14 books and lived to the age of 98.
Definitely worth it for those with serious inquiry to the subject matter of England in the middle ages.
3.5 if I am getting technical, rounding down because this is a bridge gap between The Conqueror and Henry I. I would surmise that 2/3 of the information about his reign is given in the proceeding and subsequent books. While excellently written and deep, it wasn't essential.
July 24, 2021
This biography of William II is still the standard study of an often overlooked and usually underrated king, whose reign between 1087 and 1100 is too readily regarded as a brief, indistinct, and unremarkable interregnum between those of his father, the Conqueror, and his brother, Henry I, to whom he is by many unfavorably compared. However, as Frank Barlow shows, William Rufus (a posthumous appelation associated with his ruddy complection and temper more than hair) was an important king in himself, consolidating the achievements of his predecessor and paving the way for his successor, whose administrative reforms too often obscure how similar his means of governing were to his brother's.
The prevailing image of William II is heavily dependent upon the moralistic characterisations of him as libertine, associate of depravity, and persecutor and despoiler of the Church, but Barlow debunks the most serious of these charges. William may not have been the model of uxoriousness that was his father, and it is true he never married - although as he died aged 40, marriage remained possible if a suitable candidate emerged, perhaps Edith who was to marry Henry I - and had no heir, but there is no conclusive evidence that he was homosexual or that his naturally homosocial court was especially depraved (his brother may have presented a more conventional face, but still fathered many children upon his multiple mistresses).
As to the Church, the charges relate primarily to his exploitation of episcopal and abbatical vacancies and his imposition of clerical aids, but these were necessitated by the financial demands of his defensive and offensive military campaigns and the funds he needed to buy the mortgage of Normandy when his elder brother joined the First Crusade in 1096-99, and to the breakdown of his relationship with Anselm, the saintly archbishop of Canterbury, which resulted in the latter's exile. It is this latter, particularly as told by the archbishop's chaplain and partisan biographer, Eadmer, which raised the most monastic ire, but this was as much a clash of personalities as a dispute over secular and spiritual jurisdiction. William had appointed Anselm after becoming seriously ill in 1093 after keeping Canterbury in his own hands after the death of the more worldly Lanfranc, and came to regret his choice as soon as he recovered. Anselm had resisted his appointment for the very reasons that caused his problems with the king, but once in office he sought to bolster the authority of his archdiocese and to serve as William's spiritual adviser, but this was not to the liking of a ruler who was only conventionally religious and regarded the Church as both source of patronage and bulwark of royal authority. Whatever the faults of William regarding the Church, conventional as they were, and he remained a patron of ecclesiastical houses if not a founder like his father and brother, the error remains a personal one, rather than political or ecclesiastical, in his choice of an archbishop at a time of weakness with whom he was unable to work since their views were so different at a time of Gregorian Reform and towards the end of the Invenstitute Contest, when William's traditional royalist attitudes towards the Church were being superceded. And, in view of the benefits that accrued at a time he was duke of Normandy in locus and engaged in military operations in and beyond the duchy borderlands, Anselm's exile and the taking of Canterbury into royal hands, were at least financially advantageous, even necessary, for William.
Although administrative historians are impressed by the achievements of Henry I, a product of the records that have survived, William's government remained effective and efficient in England, if, perhaps, more personal, and conducted through a small group of trusted advisers who could act as justiciars de facto on his behalf and in his absence, the most notorious of whom was Ranulf Flambard. But as Barlow shows, the attacks upon Ranulf after the king's death were no different from those commonplace against a fallen minister who was clearly a skilled administrator of the king's will, and that William's exploitations were not beyond those of his fellow Norman kings, while Henry I, who renounced these in his coronation charter, soon went back upon his commitment once he was sufficiently secure, and was arguably more economically rapacious than his brother, although less open to ecclesiastical censure through his restoration of Anselm and his greater willingness to fill episcopal and abbatical vacancies.
William II was a succesful king, leaving his realm in comparative peace and unity to his brother, and in his thirteen years as king further secured the achievements of his father, extending Norman rule in the north and in relation to Scotland, although less successfully in Wales. He was a strong, confident king, whose recorded, blunt but pertinent sayings make not unattractive, and he may well have achieved much had he lived, continuing to outshine his brother Robert and perhaps presiding over similar administrative changes to those of Henry. At the end, Barlow deals comprehensively with the circumstances of William II's death in the New Forest, and all in all paints a valuable portrait of a competent and successful Anglo-Norman king in a well written and sourced biography.
Perhaps William's biggest failures were not to have a favourable contemporary biographer who could have preserved a better record of his rule and thereby allowed him the greater historical prominence he deserves, and to have reigned at a time when traditional royal control of the Church was soon to be superceded by the spiritual-secular condominium which was to extend from the 1122 Concordat of Worms into the fourteenth century and the emergence of national churches, and whose clerical advocates were to write censoriously of Wiliam Rufus and his times. But, in Barlow at least, William II has found a fair minded biographer to restore his reputation.
The prevailing image of William II is heavily dependent upon the moralistic characterisations of him as libertine, associate of depravity, and persecutor and despoiler of the Church, but Barlow debunks the most serious of these charges. William may not have been the model of uxoriousness that was his father, and it is true he never married - although as he died aged 40, marriage remained possible if a suitable candidate emerged, perhaps Edith who was to marry Henry I - and had no heir, but there is no conclusive evidence that he was homosexual or that his naturally homosocial court was especially depraved (his brother may have presented a more conventional face, but still fathered many children upon his multiple mistresses).
As to the Church, the charges relate primarily to his exploitation of episcopal and abbatical vacancies and his imposition of clerical aids, but these were necessitated by the financial demands of his defensive and offensive military campaigns and the funds he needed to buy the mortgage of Normandy when his elder brother joined the First Crusade in 1096-99, and to the breakdown of his relationship with Anselm, the saintly archbishop of Canterbury, which resulted in the latter's exile. It is this latter, particularly as told by the archbishop's chaplain and partisan biographer, Eadmer, which raised the most monastic ire, but this was as much a clash of personalities as a dispute over secular and spiritual jurisdiction. William had appointed Anselm after becoming seriously ill in 1093 after keeping Canterbury in his own hands after the death of the more worldly Lanfranc, and came to regret his choice as soon as he recovered. Anselm had resisted his appointment for the very reasons that caused his problems with the king, but once in office he sought to bolster the authority of his archdiocese and to serve as William's spiritual adviser, but this was not to the liking of a ruler who was only conventionally religious and regarded the Church as both source of patronage and bulwark of royal authority. Whatever the faults of William regarding the Church, conventional as they were, and he remained a patron of ecclesiastical houses if not a founder like his father and brother, the error remains a personal one, rather than political or ecclesiastical, in his choice of an archbishop at a time of weakness with whom he was unable to work since their views were so different at a time of Gregorian Reform and towards the end of the Invenstitute Contest, when William's traditional royalist attitudes towards the Church were being superceded. And, in view of the benefits that accrued at a time he was duke of Normandy in locus and engaged in military operations in and beyond the duchy borderlands, Anselm's exile and the taking of Canterbury into royal hands, were at least financially advantageous, even necessary, for William.
Although administrative historians are impressed by the achievements of Henry I, a product of the records that have survived, William's government remained effective and efficient in England, if, perhaps, more personal, and conducted through a small group of trusted advisers who could act as justiciars de facto on his behalf and in his absence, the most notorious of whom was Ranulf Flambard. But as Barlow shows, the attacks upon Ranulf after the king's death were no different from those commonplace against a fallen minister who was clearly a skilled administrator of the king's will, and that William's exploitations were not beyond those of his fellow Norman kings, while Henry I, who renounced these in his coronation charter, soon went back upon his commitment once he was sufficiently secure, and was arguably more economically rapacious than his brother, although less open to ecclesiastical censure through his restoration of Anselm and his greater willingness to fill episcopal and abbatical vacancies.
William II was a succesful king, leaving his realm in comparative peace and unity to his brother, and in his thirteen years as king further secured the achievements of his father, extending Norman rule in the north and in relation to Scotland, although less successfully in Wales. He was a strong, confident king, whose recorded, blunt but pertinent sayings make not unattractive, and he may well have achieved much had he lived, continuing to outshine his brother Robert and perhaps presiding over similar administrative changes to those of Henry. At the end, Barlow deals comprehensively with the circumstances of William II's death in the New Forest, and all in all paints a valuable portrait of a competent and successful Anglo-Norman king in a well written and sourced biography.
Perhaps William's biggest failures were not to have a favourable contemporary biographer who could have preserved a better record of his rule and thereby allowed him the greater historical prominence he deserves, and to have reigned at a time when traditional royal control of the Church was soon to be superceded by the spiritual-secular condominium which was to extend from the 1122 Concordat of Worms into the fourteenth century and the emergence of national churches, and whose clerical advocates were to write censoriously of Wiliam Rufus and his times. But, in Barlow at least, William II has found a fair minded biographer to restore his reputation.
September 15, 2025
“Young men rivalled women in the softness of their bodies, walked with mincing steps and as they moved revealed their thighs. They chose to remain weak and effeminate, and, conquerors of the chastity of others, they took little care of their own. A band of effeminates and a flock of harlots followed the court, so that the court of the king of England was more a brothel of catamites than a house of majesty.”
For my next history read I deviated from my plan of tackling the Hanoverians and ended up rewinding to read William Rufus by Frank Barlow. My previous reading on the Conqueror's son has been limited to William II: The Red King by John Gillingham which was a much slimmer volume. Barlow's text is part of the Yale English Monarchs series and profiles one of the lesser-known monarchs in English history. William II ruled for only 13 years (1087-1100) before being mysteriously assassinated. He is notable for his generosity, a warm spot between William I and Henry I, and for likely being a homosexual.
I’ve read other volumes in the Yale English Monarchs collection, I was anticipating this book to be on the drier side, and I was correct in that assumption. William Rufus is broken down into eight chapters and an epilogue across 400+ pages, so it certainly felt like a bit of a challenge pushing through at times. Reconstructing the life of an individual from the 11th century presents quite a challenge, for both the author and the reader, so this book is often filled with information which at times leaves you searching for the subject. This information about other prominent players and the cultural norms, however, is critical to building a deeper understanding of William Rufus and the era in which he existed. For someone like me who is more at home in the late Plantagenet and Tudor eras, this was quite helpful.
As it turns out, William II was quite the interesting man. Many were eager to deride him as a ruler lacking in morality and piety and he had a contentious relationship with the church. Personally, I find the idea of the great, grumpy, ginger bear and his band of demon twinks fabulous, but then again, I’m not Anselm. Reading through the text it’s apparent that while William Rufus could be ill-tempered and capricious, he wasn’t quite as cruel William the Conqueror or Henry I. Barlow concludes that, “the importance of the reign of Willam Rufus is that is prevented the reign of Robert Curthose and also assured the reign of Henry I.”
Ultimately, he was efficient and an effective military later who may have drained the church’s coffers when necessary, and in that way he is no use worse than any other medieval monarch. The difference is that contemporary sources are largely tempered by judgment of his personal morality, judgment that was only strengthened by the search for meaning in the nature of his death. As a result, William II remains a bit of a mystery, an often-overlooked interregnum between two much more notable reigns, but Barlow’s text pulls back the curtain as far as it can.
April 9, 2019
I just finished this book, and I should have had a glass of wine to celebrate.
It was an excruciating read! I have also read the author’s book on William the Conqueror, which was a good read.
This book was written as though the author was paid by the name! It was inconsistent in its construction and development.
If I was reading this biography as my first venture into the Kings of England I would give up the hobby. I will not go into the details of Williams life, others have done that before me, and better then I could in any case.
My argument with this author, and specifically this book, is that the details are so hidden within the endless references to sub-characters in this history as to make it difficult to discern what William was doing during his reign, when, how, or why.
I am hopefully moving on to Henry I story, and I will look much more carefully at the reviews of his biographer’s before I make my purchase.
My suggestion is either find another author to read this story or settle for the condensed versions available.
It was an excruciating read! I have also read the author’s book on William the Conqueror, which was a good read.
This book was written as though the author was paid by the name! It was inconsistent in its construction and development.
If I was reading this biography as my first venture into the Kings of England I would give up the hobby. I will not go into the details of Williams life, others have done that before me, and better then I could in any case.
My argument with this author, and specifically this book, is that the details are so hidden within the endless references to sub-characters in this history as to make it difficult to discern what William was doing during his reign, when, how, or why.
I am hopefully moving on to Henry I story, and I will look much more carefully at the reviews of his biographer’s before I make my purchase.
My suggestion is either find another author to read this story or settle for the condensed versions available.
September 13, 2021
Frank Barlow’s biography of William Rufus is the second book of his that I have read for this project. Originally published in 1983, it was his second (and final) contribution to the “English Monarchs” series, following on his biography of William’s predecessor, Edward the Confessor. Given how excellent I found his study of Edward’s life, I approached this one with high expectations, which Barlow met in every respect.
For the rest of my review, click on the link:
https://www.bestbritishbios.com/2021/...
For the rest of my review, click on the link:
https://www.bestbritishbios.com/2021/...
December 13, 2020
A little overzealous with the constant list of who was present at what writs, but I guess it is to be expected, when clear pictures of these people are incomplete, or not extant.
February 10, 2014
An interesting reassessment of Wm II, traditionally seen as a "baddy" but Barlow sees him as a rather successful king, militarily and administratively. Had he lived longer history may have been much kinder to him. Barlow compares him favourably with his father the Conqueror who preceded him and his successor, his brother, Henry I. England was surely lucky to have Rufus as King rather than his elder brother, Robert, something of a disaster as Duke of Normandy.
Rufus got a generally bad press from contemporary clerical writers who resented what they saw as his ill use of the Church.His relations with the church were not helped by his Archbishops of Canterbury, Lanfranc and particularly Anselm. The latter would probably have tried the patience of Kings with far greater reserves of it than Wm Rufus. Power struggles between monarch and church were largely inevitable. Clerical chroniclers made much of Rufus'profanity. Whores of both sexes seem to have prospered at his court and he never married. Mystery surrounds his death in the New Forest - he was killed by an arrow shot by his fellow hunter and friend, almost certainly an accident.
In his preface Frank Barlow refers to writing the book at a time when "complete history" was the vogue, it's certainly a long book and I found I had to skip much of the material which related to Normandy, surrounding territories and the plethora of nobility jockeying for power.
Rufus got a generally bad press from contemporary clerical writers who resented what they saw as his ill use of the Church.His relations with the church were not helped by his Archbishops of Canterbury, Lanfranc and particularly Anselm. The latter would probably have tried the patience of Kings with far greater reserves of it than Wm Rufus. Power struggles between monarch and church were largely inevitable. Clerical chroniclers made much of Rufus'profanity. Whores of both sexes seem to have prospered at his court and he never married. Mystery surrounds his death in the New Forest - he was killed by an arrow shot by his fellow hunter and friend, almost certainly an accident.
In his preface Frank Barlow refers to writing the book at a time when "complete history" was the vogue, it's certainly a long book and I found I had to skip much of the material which related to Normandy, surrounding territories and the plethora of nobility jockeying for power.
January 29, 2014
Seeing that this edition is the definitive biography of William Rufus it justifiably gets 5 stars. It can be said that William was both a man of his time by his chivalry a true warrior/King and a man ahead of his time by his disdain for The Church and for that matter God himself.
All the evidence points to the fact that at the very least Rufus was bisexual, added to the fact that both himself and his Court was populated by long haired 'sodomites' it is little wonder that after his demise whilst hunting in The New Forest by a misfired arrow that The Church saw this as 'the will of God', in response to his lifestyle and treatment of The Church. Rufus was not the monster that he has often been portrayed by History and was certainly less despotic than his Father William I, and his younger brother Henry I who succeeded him.
All the evidence points to the fact that at the very least Rufus was bisexual, added to the fact that both himself and his Court was populated by long haired 'sodomites' it is little wonder that after his demise whilst hunting in The New Forest by a misfired arrow that The Church saw this as 'the will of God', in response to his lifestyle and treatment of The Church. Rufus was not the monster that he has often been portrayed by History and was certainly less despotic than his Father William I, and his younger brother Henry I who succeeded him.
March 5, 2014
For large parts of this book it was blatently obvious that Barlow didn't have too many sources to draw from. But in stead of being content with what he had and write a kick ass biography about William Rufus, he started drawing on a lot of other, practically irrelevant sources and write half biographies of a ton of other people, making the book very, very confusing and hard to get through. I was half a sleep by the end of it.
August 31, 2015
contains lots of useful information
April 9, 2017
Finished this months ago, forgot to update. A seminal academic work on William Rufus that to a habitual text book reader like myself reads like a novel. Excellent.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews