The high risk of being a monarch has been a well-known fact since Shakespeare’s time. However, a recent study conducted by a Cambridge professor has provided the first statistical analysis to support this claim. Manuel Eisner, a criminology specialist, examined historical data on the deaths of 1,513 European monarchs between 600AD and 1800AD to highlight the dangers of being a king.
From Charles I’s execution in Whitehall 352 years ago to the torturous death of 12th-century Byzantine emperor Andronikos I Komnenos, being a king has always been a perilous occupation. During the research, Eisner discovered that the mortality rate of monarchs due to violence was over 700 times more significant than their subjects. Additionally, the most at-risk groups of young black American men and those living in drug-riddled areas of Mexico had seven times less chance of violent death than kings.
Statistically, almost a quarter of monarch deaths over a 1,200-year period were bloody and caused by murder. Rarely was there random assassination, mainly when the murders occurred, it was due to rivals for the throne. Eisner commented that he was surprised at the sheer volume of violence perpetrated. He added that the toll of 15% of outright murders was higher than the homicide rate for the world’s most troubled areas or the threshold for major combat among soldiers.
Eisner’s research showed that almost all Scottish kings between the 9th and 11th centuries were killed in dynastic feuds. Similarly, all seven Norwegian kings in the first half of the 12th century, and 14 out of 15 kings of Northumbria in the 8th century were killed. Even popes were not immune, and Pope John XII was allegedly murdered in his lover’s bed by her husband.
Although regicide began to diminish over time as succession lines and legal codes became more stable, it has not entirely disappeared. Today’s political leaders have assumed much of the risk. Eisner plans to publish his findings soon.
