Relational Graph Convolutional Networks (RGCNs) are commonly used on Knowledge Graphs (KGs) to perform black box link prediction. Several algorithms, or explanation methods, have been proposed to explain their predictions. Evaluating performance of explanation methods for link prediction is difficult without ground truth explanations. Furthermore, there can be multiple explanations for a given prediction in a KG. No dataset exists where observations have multiple ground truth explanations to compare against. Additionally, no standard scoring metrics exist to compare predicted explanations against multiple ground truth explanations. In this paper, we introduce a method, including a dataset (FrenchRoyalty-200k), to benchmark explanation methods on the task of link prediction on KGs, when there are multiple explanations to consider. We conduct a user experiment, where users score each possible ground truth explanation based on their understanding of the explanation. We propose the use of several scoring metrics, using relevance weights derived from user scores for each predicted explanation. Lastly, we benchmark this dataset on state-of-the-art explanation methods for link prediction using the proposed scoring metrics.