Was William Rufus Gay?

Following the conquest of England in 1066, William the Conqueror established Norman rule in England. When he died in 1087, Norman rule in England passed to his son, William Rufus, his second-oldest surviving son. William II was apparently given the nickname Rufus, for he had red hair. Rufus is often identified as the “first gay King of England”. But is this a true statement? How do we know if William Rufus was gay?

Terminology

First of all, it is important to establish that the term gay did not have the same connotations as it does in today’s society. Today we understand gay to refer to someone’s sexuality and their lifestyle, feeling same sex attraction and perhaps cohabiting or living a married life with someone of the same sex, just as a heterosexual person would with someone of the opposite sex.

A gay lifestyle was not an option for medieval people. Marriage between two people of the same sex was inconceivable to the medieval mind. When medieval people discussed their gay contemporaries, they were not referring to their lifestyle, but rather their sexual preference or the sexual acts they undertook with someone of the same sex.

Sodomy

Same sex sexual acts were often referred to as sodomy. However, this term, when applied, does not automatically refer to someone who experience same sex attraction. Rather, it referred to any sexual act that did not result in procreation. Therefore, people of the opposite sex could commit sodomy, as could married couples. This is why we must exercise caution when we see the term sodomite applied to an individual.

However, there are occasions in which the term sodomy is seemingly applied to a man who engages in sexual acts with other men. But medieval people did not apply the term gay to these men, nor were they describing same sex relationships as we would understand them today; their focus was on the sexual acts as deviant, as a threat to the natural, established order.

Marital Status

It is difficult to define someone’s sexuality from 900 years in the future, and we should be careful not to draw assumptions. When considering William Rufus’ sexuality, scholars often point out that Rufus remained unmarried and thus cite this as an indicator of his sexual preference for men.

However, Rufus’s unmarried status may have had nothing to do with his sexual preference at all. Indeed, many kings were undoubtedly homosexual, yet they married women nevertheless to produce heirs and continue their dynasties. These men then undoubtedly enjoyed homosexual relations with other men. Thus, sexual preference had little to do with duty and fulfilling a particular societal role.

If Rufus were homosexual, he probably remained unmarried for entirely different reasons. Primarily, he had learned lessons from the experiences of his father. William the Conqueror married Matilda of Flanders in his early twenties. The couple went on to have a succession of children, as many as 9 in total and 4 sons, 3 of whom survived him. As the eldest sons entered their twenties, William was still only in his forties. These sons desired power, wealth and lands, yet they were beholden to their father, still a relatively young man.

In particular, the eldest of William’s sons, Robert Curthose, desired a share of his inheritance during his father’s lifetime, which led to a series of wars within the Norman family. Rufus may have delayed any inclination he had toward marriage for fear of the same fate lest he should sire a brood of sons as a young man. Rufus was approximately 43 years of age when he died in 1100, and it is conceivable that he had every intention of marrying. Indeed, a contemporary of Rufus, Godfrey of Bouillon, ruler of Jerusalem, died in the same year and was himself only 40 years of age when he died. Like Rufus, he struggled to establish himself in a newly founded and won kingdom, and marriage may have been postponed whilst more pressing matters took priority.

There is evidence to suggest that Rufus, whatever his sexual preferences, did propose marriage to Edith-Matilda of Scotland, the future bride of his younger brother, Henry I.

The Evidence

We must now consider where these accusations of Rufus’ sexual inclinations originated. Historians have pointed to two near-contemporary accounts, although both were written in the twelfth century and some years after Rufus’ death, to suggest that Rufus had homosexual inclinations. One of these accounts was written by the monk Orderic Vitalis:

“[Following the death of William the Conqueror] effeminates set the fashion in many parts of the world: foul catamites, doomed to everlasting fire, without restraint pursued their revels and surrendered themselves to the filth of sodomy…They parted their hair from the crown of the head to the forehead, grew long and luxurious locks like women, and longed to deck themselves in long overtight shirts and tunics…”

Orderic Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History (written between 1114 and 1141)

Orderic’s account does not explicitly mention Rufus in this account; Orderic is offering an account of those who attend Rufus’ court, in essence, the men who surrounded Rufus. The obvious implication would be that Rufus participates in such behaviours; however, this is not explicit. Direct criticism of the King was a risky business, even if he had been dead for four decades. Orderic uses the word sodomy to refer to the vice he is condemning these men for, yet, as noted above, this could mean any number of things.

Eadmer also offer criticism of the men at Rufus’ court, and, like Orderic writing later, he does not explicitly refer to Rufus’ behaviour.

“Now at this time it was the fashion for nearly all the young men to grow their hair long like girls; then, with locks well combed, glancing about them and winking in ungodly fashion, they would daily walk abroad with delicate steps and mincing gait. [Anselm spoke out against] the most shameful sin of sodomy…lately spread abroad in this land which has already borne fruit all too abundantly and has with its abomination defiled many.”

Eadmer’s History of Recent Events in England (1122)

Eadmer, noting the change in hairstyles among the young Norman men of Rufus’ court, associates the change in fashion with sodomy. In doing so, Eadmer seeks to feminise these young men, thereby using gender as a weapon against them. However, it is far more likely that the men at Rufus’ court grew their hair long, as fashion dictated and considered it a sign of masculinity.

Rufus’ reign was relatively peaceful, at least in comparison to that of his father. The frequent use of helmets probably necessitated shorter haircuts. Rufus’ men likely grew their hair long as the opportunity was afforded to them, an opportunity not afforded to their fathers. Furthermore, Orderic Vitalis and Eadmer were monks; the fashions of the court were foreign to them. Perhaps they were not best placed to offer observations on contemporary fashion – whoever asked a monk for fashion advice?

Wider Criticism of his Kingship

These criticisms regarding the men of Rufus’ court were part of wider criticism regarding Rufus’ reign. Rufus’ reign was marred by his conflict with Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Eadmer was in the service of Anselm and wrote a biography of the Archbishop from where these accusations of sodomy at Rufus’ court seemingly found their origin. Rufus was the major villain in Eadmer’s work, the nemesis of the godly Anselm, whose feud with the King endured until the latter’s death.

Eadmer portrays Rufus as a blasphemer, a mad king and a poor ruler. Apparently, Rufus ridiculed the trials of ordeal overseen by the Church. When 50 men were found innocent by the ordeal of hot iron, Rufus exclaimed:

‘What’s this? God’s a just judge? Damn him I say who believes that after this! I swear by — and — [Eadmer suppresses the words] that from now on matters that can be bent by any man’s nod shall be brought before my court, not God’s.’

Eadmer’s History of Recent Events in England (1122)

And so it could be argued that for Eadmer, the accusations of sodomy within Rufus’ court were part of a larger criticism of his kingship, used to illustrate how this ungodly man was unfit for office, thereby justifying Anselm’s part in the feud.

However, there is evidence to suggest that Eadmer was concerned with sodomy on the whole and took steps to eradicate it. Anslem had asked Rufus to convene a council to tackle the recent rise in sodomy, however his request was denied. It wasn’t until 1102, two years after Rufus’ death, that Henry I, Rufus’ younger brother and successor, permitted Anselm to convene this council known as the Synod of Westminster, which tackled not only the issue of sodomy, but also other issues within the Church. Perhaps Henry was eager to disassociate himself with Rufus’ alleged or otherwise homosexual preferences; indeed, he went on to father at least 20 illegitimate children. Henry may have wanted to ‘prove’ his conventional sexual inclinations lest he come under the same scrutiny as Rufus.

Was William Rufus Gay?

With no known illegitimate children, no wife to speak of, many have concluded that William’s sexual preference was not conventional in medieval terms. That he was homosexual. However, the evidence for this comes from twelfth-century sources, which are problematic in themselves. Clerics were offering their observations on Rufus’ court through the lens of monasticism, which cannot necessarily be taken at face value.

What is evident is that Rufus made enemies within the Church, and those enemies decided to tarnish his reputation with accusations associated with homosexuality at court. Thereby suggesting that Rufus’ court, and by extension, Rufus was ‘unnatural’. Gender and sexuality could be weaponised to bring down one’s opponent.

We will never know what Rufus’ sexual inclinations were, but his case offers a wonderful example of how accusations such as those made by Orderic Vitalis and Eadmer can create an everlasting impression.