Charles II Has Only Female Heirs?

Any idea where this story originates? From what I could find, his first wife (Elizabeth Rogers) was born in 1644, he married her in 1659, she died in 1661 (so 15yo at the marriage, 17/18 at her death). His second wife, Margaret Banaster was all of 10 years old when he married her in 1662, 15 when she died in 1667. Third wife, Frances Therese Stewart was born in 1648 and married him when she was 18yo. He died when she was 24yo. So, if he was derided as "impotent" before he wed Frances, I don't think that could be taken seriously.

Thanks for that snippet of info, I didn't know that the girls were that young. A fifteen year old should be able to fall pregnant, but it's not to say it's a given (I think a lot of guys I went to high school with would've been dads before they graduated had that been the case) - look at Charles II's own mom (married in 1625, but her first kid was only in the 1630s). The only wife he doesn't have an excuse for (where the story of impotence becomes credible) is wife no. 3 then. So he might've gone into the Restoration firing on all cylinders then.
 
How does this sound for husbands for Mary and Elizabeth then:

Mary, Princess Royal (b. 1631) 1m: 1641 Willem II, Prince of Orange (b.1626, d.1650); 2m: 1661 Rupert, Duke of Cumberland, Prince Palatine of the Rhine (b.1619)

[1m.] Willem III, Prince of Orange (b.1650)

[2m.] Charles Maurice (b.1662)

[2m.] Elizabeth (b.1663)

Elizabeth (b.1635) m: 1662 Charles Stewart, Duke of Richmond & Lennox (b. 1639)*

*I was wondering if Mary has a son (technically two), if Elizabeth won't be offered around abroad? I mean, she's getting a bit old for a first time bride, but Richmond's first wife only died in 1661. So if she and Mary are matched at the same time, I'm not sure there's going to be a groom for her. It makes sense that they might wait for Mary to get pregnant before arranging a match for Elizabeth. But if Mary produces a(nother) son on the first go-round, then would Richmond still be regarded as a suitable match for Elizabeth?
 
During the Civil War, Charles I offered Lizzie to the only male line Plantagenet still running around - Henry, 1e duke of Beaufort (who married the Dowager Lady Beauchamp in 1657). If Lady Beauchamp were unavailable, do you think Beaufort would/could press for Charles II to honour this proposal? (Especially in the VERY unlikely event that both he and Lizzie are still unwed by mid-1661.)
 
During the Civil War, Charles I offered Lizzie to the only male line Plantagenet still running around - Henry, 1e duke of Beaufort (who married the Dowager Lady Beauchamp in 1657). If Lady Beauchamp were unavailable, do you think Beaufort would/could press for Charles II to honour this proposal? (Especially in the VERY unlikely event that both he and Lizzie are still unwed by mid-1661.)
Me thinks it's possible.
 
Me thinks it's possible.

Would Beaufort's kids be surnamed Plantagenet in such a scenario? AFAIK OTL the dukes of Beaufort were banned by Henry VII/VIII (although they were still earls of Worcester then) from using the surname Plantagenet. Or would this just be a quirk of future historians (as in designating Capetians Valois, Valois-Orléans, Valois-Orléans-Angoulême, Bourbon)?
 
Would we see a similar exclusion bill to OTL (except here trying to cut a foreign monarch - William III - out of the succession?) I imagine that being the heir apparent to the heir presumptive of a foreign throne could also negatively impact William's standing in the Netherlands, no?
 
Would Beaufort's kids be surnamed Plantagenet in such a scenario? AFAIK OTL the dukes of Beaufort were banned by Henry VII/VIII (although they were still earls of Worcester then) from using the surname Plantagenet. Or would this just be a quirk of future historians (as in designating Capetians Valois, Valois-Orléans, Valois-Orléans-Angoulême, Bourbon)?
They are legitimized branch twice over, so unlikely.
 
Top