Royal murders


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Rebecca123

Newbie
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
4
City
Tel Aviv
Country
Israel
Hello,
I'm doing some research and need to find out some statistics on deaths in the Royal family.

Specifically: How many members of the Royal family were killed/murdered by other members of the Royal family?

More recent examples are better, but anything throughout history is relevant. Please help me find as many examples as possible!

Thanks,
Rebecca
 
Hi Rebecca, Which royal family are we talking about? There are several, you know! If it's the British, all the suspicious deaths I know of occurred during medieval times and earlier. (Because this was before the Scottish and English thrones were joined these were Kings of England, not Britain.)

The Princes in the Tower. Edward V and his younger brother Richard. Kept prisoner by their uncle Richard (later King Richard III) and presumably murdered on his orders, around June-September 1483. George Duke of Clarence, Richard III's older brother, was believed to have been killed in the Tower of London, on his brothers' orders.

William Rufus, King William II. He was killed by an arrow in a hunting accident in the New Forest in August 1100. It may have been an accident, but it was regarded as suspicious at the time, and his brother Henry lost no time in arranging a quick coronation for himself, as Henry I.

Edward II seems to have had homosexual leanings and was also regarded as a weak King . He was held prisoner in Berkeley Castle, Gloucestershire, after his estranged wife and her powerful lover Roger Mortimer forced his abdication in favour of his young son. Edward's murder was arranged by Mortimer, by means, it was said, of a hot poker thrust into his bowels, in September 1327.

Richard II was imprisoned by the forces of Henry Bolingbroke (future King Henry IV) and was forced to abdicate in 1399. It is believed that Richard was starved to death in Pontefract Castle in the early months of 1400. There's no evidence of physical murder, but he was killed by neglect.

Henry VI was involved in several rebellions in his reign and was twice deposed during the Wars of the Roses. Henry suffered from mental problems. He was believed to have been stabbed to death in the Tower of London while a prisoner there in May 1471. It's not known who his killer was. It was probably someone acting on the will of the Yorkist King, Edward IV, who replaced Henry on the throne.
 
Last edited:
Yes, sorry! I am referring to the British Royal Family.

Thank you very much for your reply, and for the list of examples you gave. Do you think this is a fairly comprehensive list of cases? If you can think of any others, please do let me know.

All the best,
Rebecca
 
The Ptolemies and many roman dynasties were notorious for killing within the family
 
Rudolf, Crown Prince of Austria
He had a suicide pact with his mistress Mary vestera , but some people say it was murder ......
 
Thanks WreathOfLaurels and sm1939. I'm specifically interested in the British Royal Family for my research (I should have said that in the initial post!).
 
Were you also asking about royal murderers?

In that case the present prince of Venice, Vittoro Emmanualle may count. He shot a german tourist when he was vacationing near either Capri or Sardinia. He was cleared in the French courts and the death was deemed an accident, but given his antics and general bad character, questions have been raised. That is one example from the present time. *

Also the massacre of the royal family of Nepal by the then crown prince.

* Ok i admit that one is really manslaughter but still counts as a killing with questionable motives...
 
Mary Queen of Scots was executed for treason on the orders of her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I of England, in 1587 at Fotheringay Castle.
 
There was also Prince Eddy...eldest son of Edward VII.
Officially, he died of influenza, but there have been rumors for years. He was even suspected of being Jack the Ripper.

(An interesting mystery concerning his death is Goodnight, Sweet Prince by David Dickinson).
 
Last edited:
I don't know about 'officially' dying of influenza. I thought it had turned to pneumonia in the latter stages? He died surrounded by members of his family, his fiancée, her parents and several clergymen and doctors. That would be a bit difficult to fake.

It would have been impossible for Eddy to have been the Ripper. On one occasion when the Ripper struck in the East End of London, Prince Eddy was up in Yorkshire, staying in barracks with his fellow officers and attending a banquet. On another he was staying at Birkhall for a shoot, with, among others, Prince Henry of Prussia, and had lunch with his grandmother Queen Victoria. On the last, Eddy was at Sandringham for celebrations on his father's birthday.
 
Last edited:
I know it is very unlikely because of where they are buried to happe but They need to do some research on those young skeletons found hundreds of years ago.
 
Last edited:
Agree. I think it's rather sad that now that DNA is in common use there can't be another scientific look at these bones. But the officials in charge of Westminster Abbey have consistently said No.
 
Good grief I don't see what hurt.It would potentially solve a historical mystery ,put the issue to rest And it is not as if they have to wreck the Abbey to get at at them.
 
Wow this is really great information! Thanks everyone, and keep it coming!
 
I know it is very unlikely because of where they are buried to happe but They need to do some research on those young skeletons found hundreds of years ago.
The chances of the bones in the urn being the sons of Edward IV are virtually nil if the report of where they were found is accurate: ten feet beneath the foundations of a solid stone staircase that was built more than two hundred years before they were born. It took a team of men several days to demolish that staircase when the bones were found during the reign of Charles II. There is no way that the boys could have been buried beneath that staircase without it being dismantled - and no one in 1483 ever mentioned such a thing. Over 300 people lived in the Tower full-time in 1483 and hundreds more were in and out of it every day. (The Tower was a royal palace, armory, mint, etc. in 1483 and not yet a notorious prison - THAT happened under the Tudors.) Someone would have seen something, told Henry Tudor to curry favor, and there would have been no later mystery. The fact that the Tower was built on top of a major Roman cemetery makes it far more likely that those bones were already over a thousand years old before Edward IV's sons were even born.:whistling:
 
Last edited:
IIRC I read an article that said they already did the DNA on the skeletons found under the stairs and they were determined to not be the King's sons.


LaRae
 
That makes sense and they would not have buried the boys right there anyway but got them removed and hauled far away ASAP.
 
IIRC I read an article that said they already did the DNA on the skeletons found under the stairs and they were determined to not be the King's sons.


LaRae
Not yet. Permission has to be given by The Queen as well as the Abbey, and the Abbey won't give theirs; "what would we do with the bones if they're not royal?" was one answer...:ohmy:
 
Learn from them what we can and then give them a respectful reburial ?
 
The last time the bones were examined was the 1930's and then, so I read, they were replaced higgledy piggledy back in urns, to be forgotten about. I disagree that they couldn't be the Princes. Yes, there were many people living at the Tower and yet those boys disappeared after a certain date as quickly and quietly as if they had never been, at a time when Richard and his minions were in full charge of the place where they were kept in captivity. The stairs were in a very private part of the Tower used by King Richard for private prayers, and led to his Chapel.

I think there's a good chance they are the remains of Edward V and Richard York, (when they were found in the 17th century there were reportedly scraps of velvet found with them, a material that was unknown to the Romans, plus what are the chances of these particular Roman bones being of two children of exactly the same age range as the missing boys) but we shall never know if it's left to the Abbey authorities.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom