WI: Charles II had legitimate issue?

We're all assuming that Charles II has a son in this thread. But what problems would arise if he only had, say, 2 daughters?

We're going with sons here. Also it would be 4 daughters. All of Catherine of Braganza's pregnancies went threw here. And the only thing that would change is the gender of the monarch. I mean the royal House's name would eventually change when the Queen's child became Monarch but other than that.... nothing I can think of. Though it would be interesting to see who becomes the Queen's consort.
 
A big question is what will be the eventual religion of the Prince ? We can speak easily of him "being brought up protestant". But faith is a very personal thing, and it is certain that Charles's children will make their own choice when they come of age. With a very pious devout and loving Catholic mother , and a father who was not irreligious , but was very pragmatic and tolerant, and a crypto-Catholic himself, it may be questioned whether a "protestant upbringing" would stick . So perhaps the religious quarrels that OTL focused around James of York may merely be postponed?


Yet James' daughters, educated as Protestants by their uncle's command, never budged in their faith. Any reason why it should be different for Charles' own son?
 
Their father was still practicing as an Anglican during their childhood, which may have been of significance.

As I said , faith is a personal choice. Some will choose , when reaching adulthood, to continue in the faith of their childhood. Others will make other choices.

James and Anne Hyde were both raised Anglicans yet both choose Catholicism as adults. Of course, other people will make the reverse choice. My point is that indoctrinating the child is no guarantee that the adult will not reject that indoctrination.

Charles's son might well continue in the Anglican faith. Or he might not . There is no way to guarantee either way
 
Their father was still practicing as an Anglican during their childhood, which may have been of significance.

As I said , faith is a personal choice. Some will choose , when reaching adulthood, to continue in the faith of their childhood. Others will make other choices.

James and Anne Hyde were both raised Anglicans yet both choose Catholicism as adults. Of course, other people will make the reverse choice. My point is that indoctrinating the child is no guarantee that the adult will not reject that indoctrination.

Charles's son might well continue in the Anglican faith. Or he might not . There is no way to guarantee either way

Exactly. And lets not forget another famous example of Catholic conversion from the same era: Christina of Sweden. She was raised in the Lutheran Church of Sweden but later abdicated and converted to Catholicism. You can be raised in any faith your parents (and in this case the state) like but it might not appeal to you once grown. In the case of the Duke & Duchess of York and the Queen of Sweden, Catholicism appealed to them more than their birth faith. Mary and Anne are the opposite. They were devoted to the Church of England and never wavered in that devotion. Hell I remember reading somewhere that Mary II was one of the most active Monarchs in regard to the Church. So it depends on personal faith and what appeals to that person. But hopefully, if Charles III gos Catholic, he'll learn from his uncle and keep it private. He can always here mass from his mother's priests or the priests of a future Catholic bride. However, once that religious genie's out of the bottle it can't be put back in. James learned that the hard way. Or if he is Catholic, I can hope he wouldn't be as zealous as James II.

Personally I always thought that if any Protestant church could reconcile with Catholicism it would be the Anglican Church. It does have the most in common after all.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
^This

The whole reason why the Exlusion Act came to be and why the Whigs supported it was because when they think of Catholic monarchs, they thought of France and how they ruled as absolute monarchs, and this reignited fears of the Stuarts trying to reinstitute an absolutist monarchy (the move that led to the English Civil War and the death of King Charles I.) The Whigs also did not want a Church of England to reconcile with the Roman Catholic Church, even though said aformentioned Church was, while considered Protestant by the European Community, was probably the closest Church to the Catholic line without it being Catholic. I feel that any son of Charles II, if raised Roman Catholic, would try to reassuage the fears by helping to maintain the Parliamentary style of government.
 
Another thought: Would Charles II having legitimate children mean less anti-Catholicism during the later parts of his reign? I mean here James wouldn't be the heir and Catherine, instead of being a barren Queen, would have produced the next generation of Stuarts. So with no exclusion crisis would it be easier for some kind of Catholic/dissenter relief bill/declaration to be passed/accepted?
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
I highly doubt that...somehow I have the strange feeling the Whigs would find another reason to go against the King. Even if the King has a legitimite and Protestant heir.
 
I highly doubt that...somehow I have the strange feeling the Whigs would find another reason to go against the King. Even if the King has a legitimite and Protestant heir.

But here the Whigs would be weaker than OTL. After all their initial power came from the mass hysteria that came from James "coming out" as Catholic. Here that wouldn't exist. Sure James would no doubt still convert and eventually admit his religion, but besides initial shock there wouldn't be a massive public fear, what with 4 persons (4 being the number of potential children Catherine miscarried) between him and the throne. So I wouldn't be surprised if Charles would be able to pull it off in such a scenario.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
But here the Whigs would be weaker than OTL. After all their initial power came from the mass hysteria that came from James "coming out" as Catholic. Here that wouldn't exist. Sure James would no doubt still convert and eventually admit his religion, but besides initial shock there wouldn't be a massive public fear, what with 4 persons (4 being the number of potential children Catherine miscarried) between him and the throne. So I wouldn't be surprised if Charles would be able to pull it off in such a scenario.

Unless dealings or their potential uncle's influence causes those aformentioned 4 to convert to Catholicism...Still. with a weakened Whig Party, we may as well see that such exclusions would not happen. I think it would be beneficial in the long to have a monarch rule regardless of religious orientation.
 
Unless dealings or their potential uncle's influence causes those aformentioned 4 to convert to Catholicism...Still. with a weakened Whig Party, we may as well see that such exclusions would not happen. I think it would be beneficial in the long to have a monarch rule regardless of religious orientation.

Maybe one would convert, a girl who marries into a Catholic Royal Family for instance, but I doubt all four. That's what I was thinking as well. If the Whigs are weakened then anti-Catholicism as a political force would be weakened as well. So best case scenario we could see the monarch's religion cease to be a problem. In the long run that would be the best option.
 
Top