Charles II has legitimate heir

In otl the 'merry monarch' notoriously fathered many illegitimate children. However his wife did not give birth to a surviving child.

That meant that his heir was James II, who refused to hide Catholicism and was not tolerable to the establishment. Hence 'The Glorious Revolution' (or Dutch coup and invasion if you prefer)

Had there been a son or even a daughter for Charles clearly they would have got the Throne.

Does this weaken Parliament in the 1700s?

Is the Church or England less oppressively established than in OTL (which had laws limiting not only Catholics but other Protestants)?
 
That meant that his heir was James II, who refused to hide Catholicism and was not tolerable to the establishment. Hence 'The Glorious Revolution' (or Dutch coup and invasion if you prefer)

It wasn't simple English anti-Catholicism so much as James II open desire to turn England into a Absolutist state modelled on Louis XIV's France or Habsburg Spain (that in popular opinion was strongly associated with Catholicism) that laed to the Revolution.

Does this weaken Parliament in the 1700s?

Massively. Charles II towards the end of his reign after the Exclusion Crisis and the Rye House Plot were defeated was probably the most powerful Stuart ever to reign. His treasury was full and thanks to economic growth his revenues were sufficient to support the court and a standing army. The Whigs were completely shattered and had had a number of their leading lights executed for treason and he had successfully packed Parliament by calling in the borough charters and rigging the electorates to ensure firm Royalists would be elected.

Is the Church or England less oppressively established than in OTL (which had laws limiting not only Catholics but other Protestants)?

More oppressive than OTL. With no Glorious Revolution the Clarendon Code enacted after the Restoration will continue in force and there will be no Act of Toleration which effectively legalised Protestant non-conformism.
 
Top