Of William I’s (1066-1087) sons, William the II (1087-1100) was a better king than his younger brother Henry I (1100-1135). William I’s was the first Norman king to rule England. He split his heritance between his three living sons. Robert received the rule of Normandy, William II received England and Henry I received five thousand pounds. In early medieval England a good king was a heroic soldier and a strong leader who was fair but enforced the law. It was also important that they were Christian and unsinful. William II “The Rufus”-because of his red face or temper, was true to himself and what he believed in while Henry I “Beauclerc”-because of his high level of education, was a brutal and selfish king, not only to his people, but also …show more content…

Although the Chronicles would suggest that everyone liked the way Henry I’s judges enforced his laws and punishments, even the men on the receiving end. This most certainly would not have been the case.

When William II died in 1100 on the second of August, in a hunting incident in the New Forest, he was struck by an arrow that was shot by his companion Walter Tirel. [4] Tirel fled in fear of being convicted of murder and Henry also left the hunting party to claim the English throne. The rest of the members also left leaving the kings body to be found by some peasants living nearby who took his body to Winchester Abby in their cart. [1] The death of the king was ruled an accident at the time but it has since been thought that Henry I asked Tirel to kill the king so he could claim the throne. This is just another example of Henry I’s brutal nature, even towards his own brothers.

Later Henry I insisted that his daughter, Matilda, was to become the ruler of his kingdoms. [2] He was the first king to do this and his followers did not feel the same about this. Although today we could say that Henry I was trying to path the way into today’s world, where woman and men are equals. But in 1135, Britain was not ready to accept orders from a woman and would not have