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] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

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Although not directly stated in historical documents (it very rarely is, historians are traditionally heterosexist) William II was famous for his debauchery and his long standing disagreement with Archbishop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)

Contents 1 Bribing the English 2 Infobox 3 Fakelore? 4 Third son? 5 Not history

[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)