European Kings: the Most Dangerous Job in the World? February 15, 2015
Author: Beach Combing | in : Medieval , trackback
Last week’s silly post on royal tennis deaths and flashbacks from Game of Thrones got Beach thinking. We all die, but if you were a European monarch what were the chances that someone would kill you? The weekends are short so Beach limited himself to England. From 1000-1700 there were 43 monarchs: obviously there is some picking and choosing here, couldn’t bear to include the Cromwells or anyone of French or Spanish royal blood in that list and the Aethling also doesn’t appear. Of those 43 there were ten violent royal deaths in seven hundred years: violence here does not take into account rumours of death by poison. But it does include the princes in the tower because let’s face it… And though there is an outside chance that Edward II died far from home, it is surely more likely he faced an unpleasant fate in a Marcher castle? What this means is that if an archbishop put the English crown on your head, there was a 23% chance that your life would end with weapons or garrotes. In some periods the possibility of this was much lower, e.g. the seventeenth century. In some periods it was MUCH higher, e.g. the fourteenth and, above all, the fifteenth century. In short, being an English king was, back in the day, an excellent candidate for worst career in history.
And if you died with violence how did you go? Well, 2 on the list died accidentally (William II and Richard I): was this a violent age or was the English dynasty just unlucky? Two were executed publicly: poor old Lady Jane (pictured trying to find the block) and Charles I. One died in the saddle on the battlefield: Richard III (who had it coming). The rest were essentially assassinated, many in dungeon cells. Their ends were unlikely to have been quick or clinical. Think a sadist with time on his hands and a penchant for blood who knows he’s going to get paid as long as X stops breathing. The awful stories about Edward II’s anus and Edmund in the WC are probably mythical but they express an essential truth.
The death list with obits
Edmund Ironside 1016
William II 1100
Richard I 1199
Edward II 1327
Richard II 1400
Henry VI 1471
Edward V 1483?
Richard III 1485
Lady Jane 1554
Charles I 1649
So here’s the question. What dynasty in Western Europe suffered the most from violent deaths: drbeachcombing AT yahoo DOT com. Beach would guess (but it is nothing more) the Scots or one of the Scandinavian dynasties. In any case, ‘heavy the head that wears the crown’.
15 Feb 2015: Tacitus from Detritus writes in ‘The mortality rate you describe for English monarchs is noteworthy, but their tale is idyllic in comparison to the “barracks emperors” of 3rd century Rome. From 235 to 284 there were 14 of them. And with the possible exception of Valerian* they all died violently. Discussing this on another occasion with one of my archaeology pals I posited that the Twitter feed of a barracks emperor would go something like this: ‘LOL, it’s good to be Imp. Wait, gotta go, someone at the door’. Tacitus
*depends on whether he was just killed by the Persians or really was kept around the royal court to act as a foot stool for a while.
15 Feb 2015: Mike Dash looks east! ‘While there are doubtless any number of contenders for the title of most violent of historical dynasties, there is at least cause for considering one of the longest-running of them all, the Rurikids, who reigned variously over Kiev, Vladimir, Tver and Moscow for 750 years from the middle of the ninth century. With apologies, since you did specify western European dynasties, I append the results a survey I have indulged in on a lazy Sunday afternoon, which I think clearly suggests that ruling a smallish eastern European state in the medieval period, whilst trapped between Poland to the west and the Mongols on the other side, was definitely not good for the health. I identified a total of 42 reigning Rurikid monarchs during the period 862-1598 (there were probably more among many collateral branches, reigning over smaller towns, but this seems a decent sample). The rate of violent death turned out to be 36%, and the details are below:
