Toe in the Water

The Death of William Rufus

The Death of William Rufus

I have long been interested in the strange tale of William Rufus, son of William the Conqueror and king of England from 1087 to 1100. In his lifetime, Rufus was something of an enigma since the chroniclers, all clerics, disliked him for his complete disregard for the morals and customs of the Church and so cannot be relied upon when detailing the events of William’s life. But his death took place in circumstances that are still argued over by the historians.

The story goes that William went hunting in the New Forest with a party of noblemen that included his younger brother, Henry. At some point, William and a noble named Walter Tirel became separated from the main party and continued on their own. Chancing on a couple of stags, they both shot arrows but Tirel’s found not a deer but the king. William fell from his horse and died within minutes.

Horrified at what he had done, Tirel immediately fled, escaping to France and, as far as we know, never returning to England. Although it was said that the arrow glanced off a tree before hitting William, the possibility that this was really planned by the younger brother, Henry, is an obvious alternative view of the event.

Tirel was an accomplished archer and had been given two of the king’s arrows as a recognition of his prowess when the hunting party set out. It seems a little unlikely that Tirel would have been so clumsy as to hit a tree when aiming at a stag. His hasty departure for France is also something to be considered, although we should remember the rather haphazard forms of justice in those days. One can hardly blame Tirel for wanting to avoid any involvement in a trial. Henry was certainly capable of planning the deed, however. He is known to have thrown an annoying aristocrat from a tower.

For me, the most telling fact is a quote from a friend who sheltered Tirel in France. This is often used to reinforce the theories of those who believe that it was an accident, but I think it shows the exact opposite. This is what Tirel’s friend said:

It was laid to the charge of a certain noble, Walter Thurold (the contemporary form of the name Tirel), that he had shot the king with an arrow; but I have often heard him, when he had nothing to fear nor to hope, solemnly swear that on the day in question he was not in the part of the forest where the king was hunting, nor ever saw him in the forest at all.

If Tirel claimed that he was not present when the king was shot, he must be lying. All accounts of the matter are agreed that only Tirel and the king were separated from the main body of hunters. Add to this the fact that Tirel fled on the king’s horse rather than his own, and it becomes clear that his assertion of being elsewhere was nonsense.

Much is made in the accident camp that there are no suspicions raised by chroniclers at the time. But how vocal would they have been with Henry, a man at least as ruthless as his older brother, now on the throne? Good sense would dictate that such thoughts be kept very much to oneself, I think.

It all happened a long time ago and what controversy there may have been has long died down. It may even be said that those Norman kings were so nasty that it hardly mattered which one happened to be on the throne at any given time. But, to me, it seems a romantic and fascinating tale of an event that throws a lot of light on the period. And I am no longer in two minds as to what really happened - Henry wanted to be king and arranged for his brother to be disposed of, I think.


Word Count: 656