Read Online ASSASSINATIONS AND CONSPIRACIES (True Crime) by Rodney Castleden - Free Book Online Page B
Authors: Rodney Castleden
Ads: Link
tendencies were disastrous for a public figure, let alone a king, in an age that was both strongly anti-semitic and strongly homophobic. They also made him even less popular with the Church.
Of the monastic chroniclers Peter of Blois was the most critical. He blamed many of the problems on Bishop Ranulph of Durham, whose advice William acted upon. It was Ranulph who was the cruel extortionist and the woeful oppressor of the kingdom, rather than William. William was criticized for holding ‘in his own hands’ the archbishopric of Canterbury, four bishoprics and 11 abbeys; he was ‘keeping all these dignities for a long time for no good reason whatever’, taking all the income from these vast estates.
Peter painted a dark picture of England under William and Ranulph. ‘Holiness and chastity utterly sickened away, sin stalked in the streets with open and undaunted front and, facing the law with haughty eye, daily triumphed.’ It was a godless England afflicted by alarming portents. ‘There were thunders terrifying the earth, lightnings and thunderbolts most frequent, deluging showers without number, winds of the most astonishing violence, whirlwinds that shook the towers of Churches . . . fountains flowing with blood, mighty earthquakes, while the sea, overflowing its shores, wrought infinite calamities to the coasts.’ These phenomena, which today most people would blame on natural causes, were implicitly God’s warning voice telling England that William was a very bad king.
In the climate of general dissatisfaction with the William Rufus regime it was easy for Robert, William Rufus’s elder brother, to gain support at his expense. Robert Curthose had inherited the dukedom of Normandy, not the English throne, from their father. Almost inevitably, there was mounting rivalry between the two brothers over the throne of England, which must have appeared the greater prize. Many of the barons were ready to support Robert as a replacement for William as king. There was a rising of the barons in 1088, just one year after William came to the throne; it was organized by his uncle, Bishop Odo of Bayeux, who wanted to replace William with his brother Robert. But William proved to be strong, ruthless and purposeful enough to crush it. There was another rising of the barons only seven years later, in 1095.
William Rufus was a very strong king, in that he was able to fend off major rebellions and maintain control. Under the circumstances, it is a great tribute to his strength of purpose that he remained on the English throne a full ten years. He was able to defeat King Malcolm III of Scotland and replace him with a client-king, the Saxon, Edgar Atheling. He in effect gained control of the entirety of his father’s legacy when his brother Robert wanted to join the crusade. Robert mortgaged the Duchy of Normandy to him, leaving him in charge of Normandy (as well as England) during his absence.
When Robert went off to fight in the First Crusade in 1095, William used the respite to secure the borders with Wales and Scotland. He built Carlisle Castle and a chain of forts along the Welsh border to stem the raids on marcher barons by Welsh brigands. His barons continued to complain about the high level of taxation, and in particular they complained to William’s younger brother, Henry, who had been waiting ever since their father’s death to seize his brother’s throne if an opportunity arose.
William never placed any trust in his barons, which is possibly why he never won their loyalty, and he never trusted his brother Henry. Perhaps he had good reason. We have to remember that it was Henry who suggested the hunting trip in the New Forest. But why did William agree to ride off into the New Forest with the brother he profoundly distrusted and a band of noblemen upon whose loyalty he knew he could not depend? He must have known that any one of them could have killed him at any time. Or did he trust in the magic aura of kingship?
Of the monastic chroniclers Peter of Blois was the most critical. He blamed many of the problems on Bishop Ranulph of Durham, whose advice William acted upon. It was Ranulph who was the cruel extortionist and the woeful oppressor of the kingdom, rather than William. William was criticized for holding ‘in his own hands’ the archbishopric of Canterbury, four bishoprics and 11 abbeys; he was ‘keeping all these dignities for a long time for no good reason whatever’, taking all the income from these vast estates.
Peter painted a dark picture of England under William and Ranulph. ‘Holiness and chastity utterly sickened away, sin stalked in the streets with open and undaunted front and, facing the law with haughty eye, daily triumphed.’ It was a godless England afflicted by alarming portents. ‘There were thunders terrifying the earth, lightnings and thunderbolts most frequent, deluging showers without number, winds of the most astonishing violence, whirlwinds that shook the towers of Churches . . . fountains flowing with blood, mighty earthquakes, while the sea, overflowing its shores, wrought infinite calamities to the coasts.’ These phenomena, which today most people would blame on natural causes, were implicitly God’s warning voice telling England that William was a very bad king.
In the climate of general dissatisfaction with the William Rufus regime it was easy for Robert, William Rufus’s elder brother, to gain support at his expense. Robert Curthose had inherited the dukedom of Normandy, not the English throne, from their father. Almost inevitably, there was mounting rivalry between the two brothers over the throne of England, which must have appeared the greater prize. Many of the barons were ready to support Robert as a replacement for William as king. There was a rising of the barons in 1088, just one year after William came to the throne; it was organized by his uncle, Bishop Odo of Bayeux, who wanted to replace William with his brother Robert. But William proved to be strong, ruthless and purposeful enough to crush it. There was another rising of the barons only seven years later, in 1095.
William Rufus was a very strong king, in that he was able to fend off major rebellions and maintain control. Under the circumstances, it is a great tribute to his strength of purpose that he remained on the English throne a full ten years. He was able to defeat King Malcolm III of Scotland and replace him with a client-king, the Saxon, Edgar Atheling. He in effect gained control of the entirety of his father’s legacy when his brother Robert wanted to join the crusade. Robert mortgaged the Duchy of Normandy to him, leaving him in charge of Normandy (as well as England) during his absence.
When Robert went off to fight in the First Crusade in 1095, William used the respite to secure the borders with Wales and Scotland. He built Carlisle Castle and a chain of forts along the Welsh border to stem the raids on marcher barons by Welsh brigands. His barons continued to complain about the high level of taxation, and in particular they complained to William’s younger brother, Henry, who had been waiting ever since their father’s death to seize his brother’s throne if an opportunity arose.
William never placed any trust in his barons, which is possibly why he never won their loyalty, and he never trusted his brother Henry. Perhaps he had good reason. We have to remember that it was Henry who suggested the hunting trip in the New Forest. But why did William agree to ride off into the New Forest with the brother he profoundly distrusted and a band of noblemen upon whose loyalty he knew he could not depend? He must have known that any one of them could have killed him at any time. Or did he trust in the magic aura of kingship?
Similar Books
