In February 1685, King Charles II of England suffered a sudden collapse. This quickly escalated into a severe illness, leading to his death four days later on February 6, 1685, at age 54. The abruptness of his demise fueled widespread suspicions of foul play, particularly poisoning. Given the political climate, an autopsy was performed, a significant and closely scrutinized event for a reigning monarch.
17th-Century Medical Practices and the Royal Autopsy
17th-century medical understanding largely adhered to the ancient Galenic theory of bodily humors. This theory posited that illness resulted from an imbalance of four primary fluids: blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile. Treatments were often aggressive, designed to restore this perceived balance. Physicians commonly employed methods such as bloodletting and cupping. Other interventions included blistering, emetics to induce vomiting, and purgatives to cause bowel movements. These procedures often led to dehydration and further weakened patients, potentially accelerating their decline. The practice of autopsy, derived from the Greek meaning “to see with one’s own eyes,” was gaining traction, particularly in academic settings. For royalty, autopsies served the additional purpose of dispelling rumors of assassination by officially determining the cause of death. King Charles II’s medical team included Sir Charles Scarburgh, who reported on the post-mortem examination.
The Autopsy’s Findings and Official Conclusions
The autopsy of King Charles II, performed shortly after his death, aimed to ascertain the natural cause of his sudden demise. While the original detailed report was lost in the Whitehall Palace fire of 1697, summaries were recorded by his attending physician, Sir Charles Scarburgh. These observations provided the official understanding of the king’s internal state at the time.
Upon examination, physicians noted several findings. In the brain, veins and arteries were unusually engorged. The cerebral ventricles contained a significant amount of serous matter, indicating excess fluid or cerebral edema. The brain substance was also thoroughly saturated with this fluid.
In the chest cavity, the lungs and pleura were firmly adhered together on the right side. The lungs were also described as being “charged with blood,” suggesting congestion. The heart was large and firm, and notably, “quite free from malformation.”
The liver, kidneys, and spleen were livid in color and engorged with blood. The kidneys, in particular, were noted to be impacted in some manner. Based on these observations, physicians concluded King Charles II died from apoplexy, a term then used to describe a stroke. Despite rumors of poisoning, no evidence supporting such claims was identified during the autopsy.
Modern Perspectives and Unanswered Questions
The rudimentary nature of 17th-century medical knowledge limited the understanding gained from Charles II’s autopsy. Modern medical analysis offers several theories regarding his true cause of death, re-evaluating historical symptoms and post-mortem observations. The most widely accepted explanation points to complications from kidney dysfunction, specifically uremia.
King Charles II had a known history of gout, which can lead to chronic kidney damage. The aggressive medical treatments during his final illness, such as bloodletting and purging, would have caused severe dehydration, potentially inducing acute renal insufficiency and accelerating his death.
Another theory suggests accidental mercury poisoning. Charles II maintained a private laboratory where he engaged in chemical experiments with mercury. Prolonged exposure to mercury vapors can lead to kidney damage, convulsions, and organ failure, symptoms consistent with those he experienced. Symptoms like headaches, fatigue, personality changes, tremors, and dental issues, observed in the king’s later years, align with chronic mercury exposure. While some modern interpretations lend credence to this theory, others consider the evidence for mercury poisoning less conclusive.
Although the official cause of death was recorded as apoplexy, or stroke, modern experts debate if this was the sole underlying cause or merely the final event in a series of health problems. The destruction of the original autopsy report further complicates definitive modern diagnoses, leaving aspects of his death open to interpretation. Ultimately, the harsh medical interventions of the era, though well-intentioned, likely worsened his condition and contributed to his untimely end.