The Death of Kings Trivia Quiz

Answer: William I

William the Conqueror took the English throne in battle in 1066 and much of the remainder of his reign was spent leading his armies from the front. By 1087, however, William had gained considerably in girth in a very short period of time, and this obesity proved to be a significant factor in his demise.

As William attacked and burned the town of Mantes, his horse took fright at the flames and threw him against the iron pommel of his saddle; rupturing the skin and causing a fatal injury. Death was not instantaneous - William was taken to Rouen where upon examining the king's urine his physicians "declared that death was imminent" (Matthew Paris, "Chronica Maiora"), although it took a further ten days for him to die.

According to former surgeon and medical historian, Clifford Brewer, the details that the chronicles of the day provide suggest two probable causes of death; that the saddle damaged the king's diverticulitis (a probable cause of his increased girth), perforating the bowel; or, given the proclamations of the physicians on examining the king's urine, that the injury was to the perineum, causing a ruptured urethra.

The latter injury would have left the king able to pass only "a small quantity of bloodstained urine" and the surrounding tissues would likely "become necrotic and possibly even gangrenous... without skillful surgical repair the condition is invariably fatal in ten to twenty days" ("The Death of Kings", Clifford Brewer).

Whatever the ultimate injury, William's body did not get treated with respect after death. With the nobles fearing a struggle for power on William's passing, they all fled the death bed to return to their possessions, leaving William at the mercy of his servants who plundered his chamber, leaving his body naked on the floor. Further indignity came at the funeral when the attendants tried to cram William's body into a coffin that was too small and the body burst.

Answer: Charles I

Charles was tried on a charge of high treason and high misdemeanour and despite refusing to acknowledge the right of any court to sit in judgment upon him and refused to plead, he defended himself with vigour and a fair degree of skill. However, given the nature of the court, there was little doubt about the forthcoming verdict and on 27th January 1649 it was duly delivered: guilty. The sentence was passed by Judge John Bradshaw, President of the Parliamentary Commission, that Charles "shall be put to death, by the severing of his head from his body."

The execution took place in front of the Banqueting Hall of the Palace of Whitehall on 30th January. Charles arrived for his execution early in the morning, dressed in two shirts as he did not wish for any shaking due to the cold to be misconstrued as fear. He was made to wait for several hours whilst Parliament passed a bill preventing his son Charles, the Prince of Wales, from automatically being declared King upon his father's death.

At 2pm, Charles was finally asked to ascend the scaffold and was met by his executioner who, in an attempt to obscure his identity, wore a false beard and hair. Once the King was in position on the block and gave the signal to proceed, the executioner struck a single clean blow to remove his head.

Though there are several candidates who have been named as Charles's executioner, the identity of the man who wielded the axe is not known for certain. On the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, several people were convicted for regicide for their part in the King's death but no-one was convicted for striking the fatal blow.

Answer: Edward VI

Edward was the long-awaited and much cherished son of King Henry VIII and Jane Seymour. After the death of Edward's mother a few days after his birth, Henry went to great lengths to protect his son and the male succession of the Tudor line. Edward was sent away from the royal court in the summer months to the country to ensure he was kept safe from infection and illness. Any of the prince's attendants who visited London were quarantined before they could attend the prince again and any who fell ill were dismissed.

Despite this, and despite having been a healthy and robust young boy in his early years, Edward developed a serious illness at the age of four which caused extensive weight loss and left him weak. Clifford Brewer in "The Death of Kings" suggests that it is likely that the illness in question was tuberculosis, a disease that was endemic in the Tudor family.

A susceptibility to tuberculosis remained with Edward for the remainder of his life and, according to 'The Death of Young King Edward VI' (G. Holmes, F. Holmes, and J. McMorrough, "New England Journal of Medicine" 2001), when he contracted measles in late 1552, the disease that had lain dormant in his system for so long was resurrected. By June 1553, Edward's doctors admitted that his life was beyond saving as the king was too weak to fight the disease. Despite his physical ailments, Edward retained enough of his mental faculties to name his successor as Lady Jane Grey ahead of his half-sister, Mary I in order to maintain the Protestant reformation in England.

Answer: John

John was at war with the barons at the time of his death, having chosen to ignore the Magna Carta with the Pope's dispensation. The barons were supported by the forces of Louis, Dauphin of France, whom they proposed as John's successor on the English throne.

John, possibly already suffering from dysentery, fell ill after a banquet (described by Matthew Paris as "disgustingly" gluttonous) held in the midst of a march towards the French forces in London. After a sleepless night, John attempted to continue towards London in the morning but was unable to mount his horse due to "fever and burning pain" (Paris's "Chronica Maiora"). Following this initial collapse, John took a few days to die - between four and six - enough time for him to name his son, Henry, as his successor.

Clifford Brewer, in "The Death of Kings", suggests that the time it took for his illness to progress indicates that the king probably suffered an acute medical emergency, such as the perforation of a gastric ulcer, which would have led to peritonitis and subsequently, in a few days, to death.

Another possibility is that John was poisoned. As he travelled towards London, John was gaining support from barons who had grown dissatisfied with Louis, so it was in Louis's interests that John never made it back there. Poison could have been administered via the cider of which the king partook at the banquet, which could have masked the taste.

Despite John's death, Louis was unsuccessful in his attempts to take the English throne as the barons switched their allegiance to the newly crowned Henry III.

Answer: William II

That the arrow was the cause of the death of William II (popularly known as Rufus) is not disputed but the questions of how and why are open to debate. As Rufus was a king 'hated by almost all his people' according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, there were many who would have wanted him dead.

The near-contemporary chronicles all named the hunter who fired the fatal shot as Walter Tyrrel, a Frenchman known for his supreme skills in archery. According to Hulme's Chronicle, Tyrrel was "impatient to show his dexterity", leading him to fire at a stag which had started in front of him. In doing so, "the arrow glanced from a tree, struck the King in the breast, and instantly slew him."

Fearing reprisals for his act of accidental regicide, Tyrrel fled and, according to Hulme, "joined a crusade in an expedition to Jerusalem, a penance which he imposed upon himself for his involuntary crime."

The accidental nature of the fatal shot is brought into question by the presence in the hunting party of Rufus's brother, Henry, who stood to benefit from William's death. In an act that to some appeared pre-meditated, he raced to Winchester to take control of the treasury, leaving the dead king's body to be discovered by locals. He proclaimed himself King Henry I the following day and was crowned in London two days later.

The timing of Rufus's death was also convenient: his elder brother, Robert, Duke of Normandy, had a strong claim to the throne, despite William and Henry having agreed to inherit each other's lands and titles in the event of either's death, but at the time of William's death Robert was away on the First Crusade and unable to stake his claim.

Notably, in the first years of Henry's rule, members of the house of Clare, the family into which Walter Tyrrel had married, were rewarded with the see of Winchester and the abbacy of Ely.

Answer: Edward II

Whether the story of the poker is accurate is, as so many details in the death of kings, open to considerable debate. The contemporary accounts make no mention of it and indeed do not contend that the deposed king was murdered, although it is likely this was in due deference to the new rulers, Queen Isabella and her lover, Roger Mortimer.

Edward II was almost certainly murdered on the order of Isabella and Mortimer and it was chronicler Geoffrey le Baker who first recounted the tale of the poker more than twenty years after the event, long after Edward III had claimed power for himself, banishing Isabella and executing Mortimer.

Baker was a proponent of the cult of Edward, a cult that proposed the king for veneration and sainthood. The idea of his being a martyr and suffering an agonising death was useful to their cause, and given that Edward's body had been displayed after his death to demonstrate no external injuries, the story of the internal damage "through the intestines and into his wind-pipe... (so that no visible mark would be left to be seen by any friend of justice)" was one that fitted their claims perfectly.

Many historians however believe that, given Edward's clear displays of favouritism, the story of the poker was concocted as a commentary on the King's sexuality.

Answer: Richard II

Richard II's successor, Henry IV was successful in preventing any details about Richard's death becoming public knowledge and very little is known now of how it came about. Richard had been forced to abdicate in 1399 and died in his prison at Pontefract Castle in February 1400. On the balance of probabilities, many historians suggest that he was murdered.

Unlike Edward II, the rumours that circulated after Richard II's death were not about the manner of his killing but about whether he was still alive or not. The root of these rumours seems to lie in the fact that Richard's tomb in Westminster Abbey lay unused, as Henry IV chose to bury his predecessor in relative obscurity at Langley Abbey in Hertfordshire instead. The fact that Richard's dead body was displayed in public before burial failed to prevent rumours that the former king was alive and living as a hermit.

Such rumours had been heard in respect of prior kings; one such legend had Harold surviving the Battle of Hastings and living out his days as a wandering hermit, only returning to England as an old man. The rumour regarding Richard was made flesh in 1406 when a man claiming to be Richard appeared in Scotland. He was recognised as Richard II by the king of Scotland and by Richard's former chancellor, William Serle, but his true identity was believed to be Thomas Ward of Trumpington in Cambridgeshire.

Answer: Edward IV

Edward IV's sudden and unexpected death at the early age of 40 prompted speculation that he may have been poisoned, but there has been no evidence of a violent death.

Henry VI was twice deposed by Edward IV, and his brief reinstatement on the throne in 1470-71 was enough to persuade Edward that he was a danger to his grip on power whilst he was still alive. Conveniently enough, Henry died in 1471. The Yorkist history, "Arrivall of Edward IV", suggests that he died of melancholy whereas Fabyan's, "The Concordance of Histories", which takes a more anti-Yorkist position, suggests that "he was sticked with a dagger by the hands of the Duke of Gloucester [Richard III]".

Richard also had the finger pointed at him for the death of Edward V along with his brother, Richard, Duke of York. Richard had appointed himself Protector for Edward V, who ascended the throne at the age of twelve. However, within two months, Parliament declared the two boys illegitimate and Richard declared himself King, claiming he, not Edward V, was the true heir to the throne.

No sightings of the two boys, held by Richard in the Tower of London, are reported after this point and it has been suggested by many historians, although disputed by many others, that the two were murdered, with Richard III being considered one of the most likely suspects.

Richard III himself was struck down during the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485; a killing that was described in many Tudor chronicles as being an appropriate death for a murderer and a usurper.

Answer: William III

William, already a sick man, having probably contracted tuberculosis, was injured whilst taking his new horse, Sorrel, for a try-out in Hampton Court. Sorrel stumbled over a molehill, and William fell to the ground and broke his collar bone. His bones were re-set by his physician but were soon unknit as the king ignored instructions to rest, insisting on journeying from Hampton to his favoured residence at Kensington.

During his recuperation at Kensington, William contracted pneumonia, possibly due to falling asleep beneath an open window in his private gallery. A swift decline followed and William died at the age of just 51.

He was succeeded on the throne of England by his sister-in-law, Queen Anne but his sudden death was more problematic for the succession in his native Dutch Republic. The office of Stadtholder which he had held for thirty years remained vacant for forty-five years following his death.

Answer: James II

James spent a large amount of his life outside of what was to become his kingdom after escaping from custody during the first English Civil War in 1648. Fleeing via The Hague, James was to serve as a soldier in the cause of firstly the French and then the Spanish kings.

During his time in exile, James had become attracted by the predominant faith of those countries, Roman Catholicism. In 1669 he took the bold step, encouraged by what he perceived to be his brother, Charles II's attraction to the faith, of converting to Catholicism. Far from supporting his choice, Charles declared that James's children were to be made wards of the state, in order to guarantee that they were raised as Protestants.

In 1677, the seeds of his downfall were cast when he condoned the marriage of his daughter Mary to the Protestant Prince William of Orange, at the behest of the king. Twelve years later, the Glorious Revolution saw James deposed in favour of William and Mary after James had fathered a son, a Catholic heir to the throne. James's attempts to regain the throne faltered when, despite popular support in Ireland, William defeated his troops at the Battle of the Boyne, forcing James to flee to France once more.

Weakened by successive bouts of syphilis by this stage of his life, James lived for thirteen years in exile before suffering a stroke whilst at prayer and dying at the age of 67. His body remained unburied after his death, lying in Paris awaiting permission for it to be buried at Westminster Abbey. Unfortunately, this permission was never forthcoming and in the course of the French Revolution of 1789, his coffin was raided and its contents were lost.