WI: Charles II has a legitimate heir

So, WI Queen Catherine of Braganza, Charles II's wife, had managed to carry a child to full term and produce a healthy son? Obviously the history of England would have been greatly altered, as we wouldn't see a Glorious Revolution, which means we won't get a Bill of Rights anytime soon.
The power of the Crown would also probably be strengthened, especially if Charles dissolves his Parliament and rules with out them for a number of years as he does in OT.
I'm thinking that England may end up like Sweden during the seventeenth century, with an absolutist monarch after all (and with the horrors of the Civil War fresh in everyone's mind, who is to stop it?).
Then there's the alliance with France to consider and its implications...

What does everyone think? I'd love a discussion...
 
Does Charles II still converts on his deathbed?
If the child comes under the influence of Catherine de Braganza he has heavy chances to become a Catholic and History continues as OTL...
 
So, WI Queen Catherine of Braganza, Charles II's wife, had managed to carry a child to full term and produce a healthy son? Obviously the history of England would have been greatly altered, as we wouldn't see a Glorious Revolution, which means we won't get a Bill of Rights anytime soon.

No bill of rights? When are you imagining this child being born? Because the child's age is really, REALLY important in how things would proceed.

The power of the Crown would also probably be strengthened, especially if Charles dissolves his Parliament and rules with out them for a number of years as he does in OT.

This again depends on the age of the child.

I'm thinking that England may end up like Sweden during the seventeenth century, with an absolutist monarch after all (and with the horrors of the Civil War fresh in everyone's mind, who is to stop it?).
Then there's the alliance with France to consider and its implications...

I don't think that this is in the cards. Although Parliament was willing to lay down to Charles II I think it was because Charles was not a Catholic and he seemed to be willing to play by the looser set of rules that Parliament had layed out. Basically, although Parliament was not a participant in Charles' government, neither did he attempt to force the kind of change that James II sought. So it was a more benign neglect.

If Charles II child is still a minor when Charles II dies, I would expect to see the child seized from Catherine and raised by Parliament. There is no way that the Parliament would allow Catherine to raise the child, she is foreign and Catholic, which mean she is NOT going to be the Queen Regnant or even Regent for her child (boy or girl by the way? What was the male/female split among Charles II's acknowledged bastards?)

I don't think that post-English Civil War there was a possibility of absolutism. The Parliament had established that it was stronger than the King, and there really was no way back. James II attempted to impose absolutism and was duly exiled. Parliament basically was in charge of deciding who was to be king after they chopped Charles I's head off. They choose Charles II, kicked out James II for William and Mary, and then choose the Hanovers once the Stuarts died out.
 
No bill of rights? When are you imagining this child being born? Because the child's age is really, REALLY important in how things would proceed.

This again depends on the age of the child.

(boy or girl by the way? What was the male/female split among Charles II's acknowledged bastards?)


Well, Endymion suggested a healthy son, so we can discuss the possibilities involving a male heir. For the age, the last time Catherine was pregnant IOTL was in 1669, so maybe we could use this year. Charles' son would be 16 when his father dies in 1685 (assuming he dies the same year as IOTL).
 

Thande

Donor
Providing he made the right noises about being Protestant, the Stuarts will probably cling on to the throne. (Tony Jones did this quite well in Gurkani Alam, which ends up with an Anglo-Danish union). Which is ultimately a bad thing for English ambitions in the world, probably. And, of course, no Great Britain.
 
Providing he made the right noises about being Protestant, the Stuarts will probably cling on to the throne. (Tony Jones did this quite well in Gurkani Alam, which ends up with an Anglo-Danish union). Which is ultimately a bad thing for English ambitions in the world, probably. And, of course, no Great Britain.

Could this lead to a new civil war between Parliament and Royalists?
 
Providing he made the right noises about being Protestant, the Stuarts will probably cling on to the throne. (Tony Jones did this quite well in Gurkani Alam, which ends up with an Anglo-Danish union). Which is ultimately a bad thing for English ambitions in the world, probably. And, of course, no Great Britain.

The colonies in New England and Virginia were already founded, and New Amsterdam was already conquered. I think Jamaica was also already an English possession. So the seeds had been sown for Anglo-French rivalry.

I think the situation in England was basically that the King could dictate policy, but it was within a set of rules. If the King went outside these bounds (like James II) then Parliament would overthrow him. I think that economically things were trending towards Parliament, since this POD would not appear to in any real way hinder increasing trade (which I think was influenced more by things like Dutch decline than English policy), and thus increasing wealth among the classes that were elected to the Commons.
 
Top