The birth of a son to Charles II

Furthermore, when Charles II dies, would his son be crowned in Scotland as well as London, or simply have one coronation? Furthermore, do both Parliaments grant the King money or just the one?
 
Furthermore, when Charles II dies, would his son be crowned in Scotland as well as London, or simply have one coronation? Furthermore, do both Parliaments grant the King money or just the one?
The monarch is crowned in the two separate countries but were paid by the single government, due to the English government controlling all the money since Scotland signed over all its debt over.

Another question hanging over Charles III, is what to do with his father's bastards? His father, King Charles II, had fathered numerous illegitimate offspring by his many mistresses whom he acknowledged.

Also with Isabel Luísa of Portuga, she was the presumptive heir to the throne of Portugal between 1668 and 1689, so the English government would not want to marry her off fearing that the power they already share with Scotland, will have to be split again with Portugal, so would want to wait for Peter II of Portugal to have another heir, and between the birth of Prince John of Portugal on 22 October 1689 and her death of small poxs on 21 October 1690, only leaves a single year for her to travel to England, be acquainted and married, to then produce a heir.

What about marrying him off to a proud and Protestant, Her Serene Highness Duchess Sophia Charlotte of Brunswick-Lüneburg (Hanover), who is great-grand daughter of King James I, via his daughter Princess Elizabeth of Scotland who married Frederick V, Elector of Palatine.

Here would be my royal family.

Charles II of England (b.1630: d.1685) m. Catherine of Brazanga (b.1638: d.1705) (a)

1a) Charles III of England (b.1668: d.1722) m. Sophia Charlotte of Hanover (1668–1705) (a), Magdalene Graham* (b.1684: d.1747) (b)

1a) Charlotte, Princess Royal (b.1685) m. Louis, Le Petit Dauphin (1682-1712)

2a) Charles Stuart, Prince of Wales (b.1688) [Future Charles IV]

3a) Princess Elizabeth Stuart of England (b.1694)

4a) Princess Sophia Stuart of England (b.1696: d.1700)

5a) Prince Stuart, Duke of Kintyre (b.1698)

6a) Stillborn Girl (c.1705) - Died during the child birth with mother.

7b) Princess Catherine Stuart of England (b.1706) m. Christian VI of Denmark (1699-1746)

8b) Prince Frederick Stuart, Duke of Clarence (b.1705: d.1719)

9b) Miscarriage (c.1707)

10b) Prince Henry Stuart, Duke of Gloucester (b.1710) [named after his lost uncle]

11b) Princess Mary Stuart of England (b.1712) - William IV, Prince of Orange (1711-1751)

[*] James Graham, 3rd Marquess of Montrose
 
Okay interesting, and what about Charles II's son being raised at Ludlow as head of the Council of the Marches, is that still usable do you think or was it null and void by that point?

Furthermore if you had to chose between naming Charles's son and heir Charles or Robert, which would you go for?
 
Okay interesting, and what about Charles II's son being raised at Ludlow as head of the Council of the Marches, is that still usable do you think or was it null and void by that point?
I doubt the royal family would allow a member of their family to be raised in the hands of parliamentary, especially with Charles II knowing that his younger sister, Elizabeth Stuart, died as a prisoner of Parliament during the English Civil War.

Even when King James II converted religions, Princess Mary and Anne were not taken awaya but simply moved to their own establishment at Richmond Palace, where they were raised by their governess Lady Frances Villiers, with only occasional visits to see their parents at St. James's or their grandfather Lord Clarendon at Twickenham

Furthermore if you had to chose between naming Charles's son and heir Charles or Robert, which would you go for?
Robert became a very unpopular name among the Stuarts, if you don't want to use the common "Stuartian" names such as:
- Charles
- James
- Henry
- John
- Alexander

Then there are these surprise treats:
- James II named his 4th son, Edgar
- Alan, after a relative in the Darnley region
- Andrew, after the Patron Saint of Scotland
- Murdock
- David
- Walter
- Arthur

Also regarding his illegitimate siblings some already had titles others might be sent off to the church
But would the family fear an up rise from one of these bastards? Similar to the OTL Monmouth Rebellion?

Monmouth might become a figurehead for Whigs
I could defenitly imagine James Scott (and maybe some other illegitimate brothers) working their way up the Whig party banner but only after a few years of showing off his skills as a dedicated commander
 
I doubt the royal family would allow a member of their family to be raised in the hands of parliamentary, especially with Charles II knowing that his younger sister, Elizabeth Stuart, died as a prisoner of Parliament during the English Civil War.

Even when King James II converted religions, Princess Mary and Anne were not taken awaya but simply moved to their own establishment at Richmond Palace, where they were raised by their governess Lady Frances Villiers, with only occasional visits to see their parents at St. James's or their grandfather Lord Clarendon at Twickenham


Robert became a very unpopular name among the Stuarts, if you don't want to use the common "Stuartian" names such as:
- Charles
- James
- Henry
- John
- Alexander

Then there are these surprise treats:
- James II named his 4th son, Edgar
- Alan, after a relative in the Darnley region
- Andrew, after the Patron Saint of Scotland
- Murdock
- David
- Walter
- Arthur


But would the family fear an up rise from one of these bastards? Similar to the OTL Monmouth Rebellion?


I could defenitly imagine James Scott (and maybe some other illegitimate brothers) working their way up the Whig party banner but only after a few years of showing off his skills as a dedicated commander

Okay interesting, I think Arthur would be a good one, harkens back to the legends of old, and could be seen as a beacon of hope.

Arthur Stuart, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, Earl of Chester and Carrick (b. 3/5/1668)

So was Ludlow a Parliament establishment by then, and not a royalist possession?

Oh aye, there will be a Monmouth rebellion, simply because the man seems like he's the sort to rebel regardless. A few of his half brothers might join him.
 
With Charles II having a son, would things such as the Popish PLot and the Rye House plot still occur do you think?
 
Top