William Rufus (c. 1058–1100) is unusual among English kings in that his sexual predilection is a topic of debate. For most monarchs there is no debate. Historians viewing the past through a heteronormative lens assume that its inhabitants were attracted to the opposite sex. Where there is evidence of any alternative form of desire which threatens the stability of the dominant model, scholars have been less ready to make space for it. A double standard is created, in which heterosexuality is superimposed on historical figures without a moment's thought, while other identities are contested. We see this double standard at work among historians who assume that William the Conqueror, for example, preferred to have sex with women, but who build arguments to counter the suggestion that his son preferred to have sex with men. In a recent biography of Rufus for Penguin English Monarchs, John Gillingham dedicated a chapter to demolishing the argument that Rufus was homosexual. He concludes: ‘None of this is to say that Rufus was not homosexual. But if he were, there is no evidence for it. Too many historians … have simply inherited a lurid tradition and embellished it.’ In response, it must be observed first that there is no evidence that Rufus was ‘heterosexual’; and second, that there is evidence in early sources that Rufus presided over a court characterised by sexual activity between men, and that his court was exceptional in that regard. Although the testimony comes from critics, it should be taken seriously because it is consistent, specific, contempo rary, and understated – as though Rufus's critics were holding back from saying the worst that could be said (from their perspective). Since the import of this evidence has not been recognised, I will tease it out from the tangle of threads which have led previous historians in different directions.

The source material cited in this debate derives largely from the monk-historians Eadmer, writing in 1109 x 1114, William of Malmesbury, writing c. 1125, and Orderic Vitalis, in a section of his Ecclesiastical History, written c. 1133–5. Among various criticisms of Rufus and his court, they claim that the king surrounded himself with effeminates who liked to have sex with men. Rufus's Victorian biographer, E.A. Freeman, treated their claims seriously, as did Frank Barlow. Subsequent historians have been more dismissive.