Sibling rivalry was a problem between the two older boys, even if they were willing to accept their father's decision, but it was not the two who started the rebellion. It was the land-owning nobles under them. Some of those nobles owned land on both sides of the English Channel. Facing the possibility that they would have to please two different lords with different demands, they decided the best option for the future of the kingdom was to bring both locations under one rule again, as they were under the Conqueror.
William senior died in September 1087, and around Easter 1088, the rebellion began. It was led by the two arguably most prominent members of William's family: Bishop Odo of Bayeux and Robert of Mortain, the Conqueror's half-brothers. They chose to support the elder brother Duke Robert as the rightful heir to England and Normandy instead of King William II Rufus. There were, however, those who supported William. All the bishops of England as well as the Earl of Surrey and other nobles. Many of the largest land-holding barons supported Robert.
William II proved to be a clever strategist. He promised as much money and land as they wanted to his supporters. For the populace of England, he promised the best law code that had ever been. Then he led his own army against the rebels.
Odo was captured, and Robert, leading forces from Normandy, was blown off-course by bad storms. With the continental reinforcements, many of the English rebels surrendered. Orderic Vitalis recorded the arguments of those barons loyal to William when dealing with those who opposed him:
If you temper your animosity against these great men, and treat them graciously here, or permit them to depart in safety, you may advantageously use their amity and service, on many future occasions. He who is your enemy now, may be your useful friend another time.
What sort of king was William II "Rufus"? I'll tell you next time.
