Submitted by AutoModerator t3_y4m4lb in history
Blueblade867 t1_isfajh1 wrote
With royal inheritance only one heir can ascend to the throne, usually the eldest male. Has it ever happened(or how frequent) where a ruling royal family had one of their own heirs killed so another may rule instead?
Ex, killing an older son so the younger will have the right to be heir instead?
jezreelite t1_isftttm wrote
Royals and nobles killing their relatives over titles was extremely common. Just for example:
- Yaropolk I of Kiev ordered the assassination of his brother, Oleg. The third brother, Vladimir the Great, fled to Scandinavia and then returned with an army and had Yaropolk killed.
- Ioannes I Tzimiskes assassinated his maternal uncle, Nikephoros II Phokas, with the help of his uncle's wife and some disgruntled generals.
- Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah is suspected to have been assassinated on the orders of his half-sister, Sitt Al-Mulk.
- Fernando I of Castile killed his brother-in-law, Bermudo III of León, in battle and then claimed the Leonese throne in right of his wife.
- Sancho II of Castile was probably assassinated on the orders of his siblings, Urraca of Zamora and Alfonso VI of León.
- Boleslaus I, Duke of Bohemia has been long-suspected of ordering the murder of his older brother, Wenceslaus (the subject of the carol, "Good King Wenceslaus".)
- Andronikos I Komnenos ordered the murders of his cousin's two children, Alexios II Komnenos and Maria Porphyrogennete Komnene (and a lot of others) to make himself emperor.
- István IV of Hungary was poisoned by supporters of his nephew while besieging Zemun.
- Arthur of Bretagne was likely killed on the orders of his paternal uncle, John I of England.
- Albrecht I of Germany was assassinated by his nephew, Johann Parricida, who was aggrieved that his uncle had not given him any land.
- Edward II of England ordered the execution of his cousin and enemy, Thomas of Lancaster. He was later deposed by his wife and disgruntled barons and probably secretly killed in prison.
- Joanna I of Naples was deposed and later murdered by her second cousin and nephew by marriage, Charles of Durazzo. Charles then tried to claim the Hungarian throne from another cousin, Maria of Hungary, but was assassinated on the orders of her mother, Elizabeta Kotromanić.
- Pedro I of Castile was personally murdered by his half-brother and enemy, Enrique de Trastámara.
- Richard II of England was deposed by his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke, and then likely killed later in prison on Henry's orders.
- Henry VI of England was deposed by his distant cousin, Edward IV, and eventually murdered in prison.
en43rs t1_isfcdj2 wrote
It's not what you asked, but it's similar enough that I think we should mention it. A similar practice is associated with the Ottoman Empire for a very simple reason: up until the 17th century the Empire (like many Muslim states at the time) did not have a clear succession rule beyond "be a member of the dynasty". Any child could inherit... which led to civil war. So in the mid 15th to the late 16th century it was the legal for the new sultan... to execute his brothers (at least those that could challenge him). After enough public outcry the practice was abolished and a proper succession order was made around 1600, after that the eldest son inherited the throne... the others were imprisoned (in a golden cage, but still) to prevent any trouble.
CurlyDee t1_isfexwr wrote
The Two princes in the Tower disappeared without a trace and were believed to have been killed by their uncle who became king in their places.
Thibaudborny t1_isfrwz6 wrote
We don’t know - Richard III might have had them killed, someone might have killed them to please Richard, maybe they just died due to other reasons. We don’t know.
Controversial_lemon t1_isfx91i wrote
Maybe we will be able to piece it together soon, apparently King Charles has allowed DNA analysers to analyse two bodies in the royal crypts which are suspected to be the kids.
[deleted] t1_isffjz3 wrote
[deleted]
RiceAlicorn t1_isg9cz1 wrote
Just wanted to point out that the premise of your question is slightly off.
The tone of your question implies that a person in power (currently ruling) would kill one of their heirs. This was unnecessary, given that they could change the heir if they wanted or could adjust the rules regarding succession. After all, the ruler is ruling, so unless they were just puppet rulers, they had power to adjust things to their desires. For the most part, something like "King Bob killed his eldest son just because he wants his second son to rule" wasn't really a thing. He could figure out a way to make it so without killing people.
One quite recent example of this is currently reigning Salman of Saudi Arabia. Upon rising to the throne, the Crown Prince title (heir to Saudi Arabia's throne) was transferred to Salman's half brother Muqrin. Soon thereafter, Salman transfered the title to one of his nephews, Muhammad. After Muhammad was arrested and charged with treason, the title was then transfered to Salman's son Mohammad.
Instead, the deaths of heirs for heritage-related reasons (like adjusting who would inherit the throne) were mostly done by those who weren't ruling. People who couldn't change the rules and appoint the ruler they wanted. See the above list posted by someone else for a ton of instances for when, why, and how these deaths happened.
Blueblade867 t1_isgy3ik wrote
Thank you, a very thorough answer!
shantipole t1_isgbi7l wrote
The practice of splitting the kingdom between sons (e.g. Charlemagne's heirs) was intended to prevent conflict because of there being only one heir to the throne. And, in other areas where primigeniture wasn't the rule (Holy Roman Empire, Poland, Ottomans, etc) it just wouldn't happen.
In addition, you did have cases where the ruling king (or queen) set their preferred candidate as heir, which was then ignored after death (the events leading to the Anarchy in England being a good example).
In extreme cases, the ruling king could have disqualified a disfavored heir by forcing them to join a monastery, disinheriting them for some reason, or possibly trumping up a charge against them, but I can't think of an example offhand better than Justinian having Belisarius blinded, which is only barely applicable.
Thibaudborny t1_isfryq7 wrote
No, not in that strict sense.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments