WI Charles II had a legitimate son?

WI Charles II had been succeeded by a Protestant son rather than a Catholic brother? And WI the son had all of his father's canny political sense and then some? No need for a Glorious Revolution. No William and Mary. But then what?
 
well then, if Charles's son (i'll call him Charles III) is not Catholic on any level unlike Charles II who become a catholic as he lie dying, then it's an unending line of Stuarts, the loss of power of the crown will be slower, (no Glorious Revolution, no Sir Robert Walpole ect.) and i'm unsure if England and Scotland (or Ireland) will merge and if they don't what that would look like in the age of Parliament
 
It's hard to predict this one - as for every canny Charles II the Stuart's also had a tendency to throw a few rather less canny ones! Charles II's nack was to tend to rule with Parliament rather than fight it and he was already far more limited in scope than his father - once the genie was out of the bottle it would have been hard to put it back in. So much will depend on the character of your future Stuart monarchs and a lot on who the future Charles III marries (a catholic princess would have been almost impossible given the furore James II's second marriage caused when he was heir to the throne) assuming he is born in the 1660's then he is going to be still relatively young when he succeeds which gives Parliament a slight political edge. I would suspect that the rate of change would be slower and would take up much of the 18th century. Ironically court life might not be that different (however romantic the stuarts sometimes seem to modern writers) as there's still going to be a strong demand for protestant consorts which is naturally going to mean a parade of protestant fertile german princesses arriving in England in pretty much the same way as it did under the Hanovarians.
As to union that's a very dicey issue - it was James VI and I who first used the style King of Britain rejected by parliamentarians incidentally and it was he who first proposed Union - rejected by the English Parliament but if my memories correct not by the Scots - it was thrown up time and time again after personal union in 1603 - with European title inflation in the 18th and 19th Centuries I am sure the monarch would have ended up either King or Emperor of Great Britain (rather like keeping up with the Jones') whether that would have lead to political union is a different matter there were financial advantages to the Scots that they tend to forget when discussing their "great betrayal" and as the Union was a late one *unlike say Wales* they effectively retained their own church, their own law, and their own education system unlike in say the growing Russian Empire where russification of acquired territories was high on the political agenda.
 
And then there would be no William of Orange? Is this what we're talking about?

People who launch successful invasions of Britain are always called William. Or Aulus Plautius.

:)
 
There would be a William of Orange (technically, there are eight of them, and that's only counting the ones that ruled) but he wouldn't have any influence in England and remain a stadtholder. He might or might not have still married Mary, as she's not as close to the person on the throne in this TL. If he married someone else in this timeline, and he did have kids, it might've been an interesting Dutch alternate history, too, as well as an English one.
 
William married Mary because she was close to the throne but also because Charles II wanted to ensure that there was a Protestant succession (or at least defuse the mistrust engendered by James's Catholicism. Marrying his niece to a staunchly Protestant prince did that.
 
William married Mary because she was close to the throne but also because Charles II wanted to ensure that there was a Protestant succession (or at least defuse the mistrust engendered by James's Catholicism. Marrying his niece to a staunchly Protestant prince did that.

:confused: um Charles II become Catholic on his death bed, married a Catholic, Fought Tooth and Claw to keep James the line of succession
 
You're right, but I should have realized it's a moot point. If Charles had a Protestant son to come after him, it wouldn't matter in the least who William or Mary married. It would matter a great deal who the son married. A Catholic Queen--after Henrietta Maria and Catherine--wouldn't have been a good idea. :eek:
 
Given the relationship between the Dutch and Britain the marriage might still have gone ahead - the succession wasn't necessarily assured only one male heir born in the mid 1660's say still unmarried at the time Charles was looking for suitable husband's for his nieces - Mary would still have been third in line and would have still be eligible just not quite as obviously eligible.
 
Top