CHARLES II’S SECRET QUEEN? Who was Lucy Walter? England’s secret queen | Who did Charles II marry?

Who was LUCY WALTER and was she Charles II’s secret wife and the woman who should have been Queen of England? If so, that would mean that Charles II’s son by her, James, Duke of Monmouth, was legitimate and the rightful heir to the throne after his father’s death in 1685, rather than his uncle, James II. The question of whether these two ever wed is therefore of critical importance.
Born in around 1630, Lucy was a Welshwoman who had made her way to France by 1648 where she became the mistress of Charles, Prince of Wales (as he was then). In 1649 she gave birth to their only child together. That same year Charles became the titular King of England, after the Parliamentarians executed his father, Charles I and abolished the monarchy. Over the next nine years the new King Charles and Lucy (who also went under the aliases Lucy Barlow and Lucy Barlo) had a fraught relationship as their romantic entanglement ended and Lucy became the mistress of several other men and moved around Europe, even ending up a prisoner in the Tower of London at one point. The King eventually removed their son from her care in 1658 and Lucy was dead by the end of the year, having supposedly confessed just before her end that she had married Charles.
Less than two years later Charles regained the throne in 1660, brought his illegitimate son to England and married Catherine of Braganza in 1662, but the couple had no children. This left his brother, James, Duke of York, as heir to the throne. He had converted to Catholicism however and there was therefore great interest in making the Protestant Duke of Monmouth heir in his place. This could only be accomplished if the boy was legitimate and for that, Charles and Lucy would need to have been wed before his birth. Charles however, always denied that he had married Lucy, despite the fact that it would have solved his problem of having no legitimate children. Was he telling the truth though? What evidence is there that he and Lucy married and was there really evidence of this secret royal wedding in a mysterious black box? In today’s Stuart history documentary from History Calling, we find out.
Amazon storefront: www.amazon.com...
Instagram: / historycalling
Patreon: / historycalling
OTHER VIDEOS YOU MIGHT LIKE:
THE STUARTS PLAYLIST
• The Stuarts
ROYAL WOMEN PLAYLIST • Royal Women
WHAT HAPPENED TO CHARLES I’S CORPSE?
• WHAT HAPPENED TO CHARL...
HOW JAMES II LOST THE THRONE
• HOW JAMES II LOST THE ...
WAS EDWARD IV A BIGAMIST?
• Was Elizabeth Woodvill...
LEARN MORE:
[FREE] Robin Eagles, ‘The Mystery of the ‘Black Box’ and the ‘true’ heirs of Charles II’ at
thehistoryofpa...
GEAR USED
DJI Drone: amzn.to/38h1vXr (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/39hROZm (US LINK)
Go-Pro Hero 10 camera: amzn.to/3EPIK9U (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3rTWScL (US LINK)
GoPro 3-Way 2.0 (Tripod/Grip/Arm): amzn.to/37CdC1r (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3vaVxjU (US LINK)
Memory Card: amzn.to/36QvcOQ (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3KeLZZs (US LINK)
Microphone: amzn.to/3MFtoaK (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3rYtjH8 (US LINK)
THUMBNAIL: Lucy Walter: Abbotsford, The Home of Sir Walter Scott accessed on ArtUK. Charles II: The Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0
NB: Links above may be affiliate links. This means if you make a purchase through one of these links, I earn a small commission. It in no way affects the price you pay.
Creative Commons licenses used see creativecommon...

[@HistoryCalling]

Do you think Charles married Lucy and why? Let me know below and remember to check out my Patreon page at www.patreon.com/historycalling and my Amazon storefront at www.amazon.com/shop/historycalling

[@edithengel2284]

No, I don't think Charles married Lucy. In addition to the lack of concrete evidence that any such marriage took place (as you've described), Lucy does not appear to have been the type of woman who, like Anne Boleyn, might have withheld sexual favors until she was married. Nor was Charles the type of man who would have tolerated that behavior had she engaged in it. He simply would have found a more compliant lady.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, that's true. I also think he would have had a 'plenty more fish in the sea' attitude.

[@jeannelynskey6946]

Yes I think they were married when they were really young. I read the book...

[@aliceingoryland]

James has a lot of nerve talking smack on Lucy. We see you James 😒

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, none of the Stuart men were especially generous to the ladies in their lives. There were al of double standards.

[@titanscerw]

Even Jedi Knight and King Charles I before going to exile on Tatooine!? I just love that performance by Mr. Guiness

[@LKMNOP]

​@@HistoryCallingWell, I don't think Charles II treated Lucy badly. He gave her money He acknowledged their child and gave their child a title. Or maybe I should say he didn't treat her badly going by the ways of the time.

[@gillsinclair6927]

They're Stuarts.... what do you expect? Treacury at its finest.

[@marycaine8874]

it seems that quite a lot of men talked smack about Lucy, I don't know why you single out James for opprobrium.

[@watchforsmiles]

Lucy Walter has always fascinated me. My favorite historical character. Most people never heard of her. The castle she grew up in, Roch, is now a bed and breakfast and I hope to go there someday. Thank you for doing a story on her.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, it's a pity she isn't better know. It was quite a life. You've put me in the mood to go to Roch now too :-)

[@stephencarrillo5905]

👏👏👏 Welcome back from holiday, HC! I doubt Charles would have married Lucy, not so much because she was a woman of "no good fame" and was "a beautiful strumpet" but because of his status and ambition. My feeling is that her affairs were motivated by self-preservation as her options were limited. As always I love the multilayered historical portraits you provide us. Well done (again)!

[@HistoryCalling]

Thanks Stephen. I agree. I don't think Charles was silly enough to make such a lowly marriage given the position he was in in the 1650s. His hand was one of the few cards he had to play while he was in exile. Yes, I completely agree that Lucy was motivated by self-preservation. She couldn't get a regular job after all.

[@lfgifu296]

Oooh I have always wondered about that… I haven’t yet watched it, but even if James Duke of Monmouth didn’t believe that his parents has been married, he wanted the throne.

[@HistoryCalling]

He sure did. His grisly fate and his thoughts on his parents' marriage status are both discussed in the video :-)

[@lfgifu296]

@@HistoryCalling I still feel bad for him- that execution rivals that of Margaret Pole (of course, she was innocent, but I’m talking about the actual execution)

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, both were horrific, even by the standards of the day. :-(

[@beth7935]

You always pick such interesting topics! I've never thought Charles married Lucy, & you've really shown what a preposterous idea it is. It was great to learn more about Lucy & Monmouth, even though they didn't have the happiest lives. I agree Charles was a very contradictory character- as you said, cheating on Catherine was ok, but ditching her wasn't, & fathering illegitimate children was ok, but abandoning them to starve wasn't. He was a lot more complex & interesting than just "the Merry Monarch".

[@HistoryCalling]

Thanks Beth. Yes, he is very interesting. The Stuarts get overlooked sometimes because they aren't deemed as 'sexy' as the Tudors, but they're just as worthy of study in my opinion.

[@beth7935]

@@HistoryCalling Absolutely! I admit I struggle to find James II, William, Mary & Anne very interesting, but they're still worth learning about, & ofc I end up finding _some_ things interesting. And I'm much more likely to actually learn new stuff than if the topic is Henry VIII & his wives... James IV & I, Charles I & Charles II though? Bring it on!!

[@bjh107]

Deadbeat dad may not have looked great on his resume

[@terryroots5023]

What a story! Lucy had a life worthy of any tabloid, she packed a lot into her short life. I am pretty sure Charles was not married to her, but the 17th Century mischief makers look to have been as comfortable with alternative facts as our current ones.

[@HistoryCalling]

Indeed they were :-) They were so desperate for a Protestant heir, they were ready to fake one.

[@edithengel2284]

Thank you for the usual clear and thoughtful video; such an interesting question to consider. But one objection: I can't think Charles would have encouraged Lucy to go to England before his restoration, especially allowing her to take with her his son. Her incarceration in the Tower was predictable, Ir would have been a dangerous place for the boy, considering the imprisonment of his young aunt and uncle. To me it seems as if Lucy might have undertaken the journey either impulsively or out of desperate need for funds, in any case thoughtlessly in regard to her children. It's a good thing Cromwell didn't think they were married!

[@HistoryCalling]

You might well be right. I wish we had more information on that particular episode. I agree she'd very lucky Cromwell didn't think she was the Queen. She'd have been toast!

[@LKMNOP]

You make an extremely good point that I think others overlook, that Cromwell had no problem with her. Cromwell was very crafty and he had no problem with getting rid of anything that stood in the way of his ruling the country. If he didn't think they were married, they weren't married.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, I think that's often overlooked too. He'd shown he had no problem locking up and even killing the Stuarts. I don't think he would have let her and her son go if he'd seen them as a legitimate threat.

[@mosaics2024]

For an alternative life of Lucy Walter, the novel The Child from the Sea by Elizabeth Goudge tells her story beginning in childhood through her death. It is a beautiful novel, romantic but not sentimental, and is deeply spiritual though not religious. It is a love story in which Lucy isn't a prostitute but his lover. Goudge kept to the known facts, but tells the story from a very different point of view, making those facts mean something other than what historians and those around Charles claim. It is very interesting and beautifully written by a novelist who was extremely popular a few decades ago. It was one of my favorite books when I was young for a lot of reasons, including its details of Charles's life in exile.

[@agatha6999]

I was convinced she was not the moment you said Lucy did not claim to be his wife, with how her story went I assumed she would've used that card whenever possible. Though to be fair I was already suspicious of this story based on what I know about Charles II and his wife since as you put it, despite cheating on her many MANY times, he honored their marriage and ensured she got her rights as his wife, I don't see how he could be that honorable with one marriage but be completely callous with another

[@tykat12]

Lovely video as always! It's tragic that his desire for the crown cost him so dearly. His tutors are partially to blame for sure, shame on them.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, Monmouth wasn't the brightest spark in the fire I think and the reality of his situation should have been better explained to him as a child instead of filling his head with nonsense that ultimately got him killed. None of his half-siblings ever tried anything so foolish.

[@LKMNOP]

​@@HistoryCallingIt could be that his tutors recognize that he wasn't that bright and put the ideas in his head because they were hoping to reap benefits if he actually did get the crown.

[@lfgifu296]

What do you think of Charles II? Both as a monarch and person, as always :)

[@HistoryCalling]

Good monarch, not an evil person but not a good husband.

[@Lisette777]

@@HistoryCalling I think many a monarch of any country in those times would have been better spouses if they had had a right to marry the person they really loved, and not a politically convenient chess piece of noble blood! Just saying 😁Thanks for another cracking good video deep dive! Really enjoyed that. Charles II is (was?) one of my fave kings.

[@LKMNOP]

Although I like your videos on the Tudors, I really like that you're delving into the rest of English history. Everybody talks about the Tudors, and although you bring out facts and others don't, nobody talks about anyone else. Thank you very much!

[@HistoryCalling]

Thank you. I would much rather have a greater balance of the Tudors and other history, but frustratingly it's hard to get people to watch other things much of the time. Even videos on very famous history (like Titanic) absolutely bomb sometimes for no apparent reason.

[@LKMNOP]

@@HistoryCalling That's a very valid point. Most people only want to hear about the Tudors or Charles I. It's sad when people don't like to expand their knowledge. Of course, I could just be weird. Lol

[@SimpleDesertRose]

I honestly don't see them being married. Considering she already had been the mistress several times over before she ever became mistree to a future king. I feel that Lucy would have thought it would be more beneficial to be a king's mistress instead of wife. She would have enjoyed an elvated status at court and plenty of wealth without the responsibility of being queen.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, I can't see there ever have been a wedding either. As for Mary I, she was much too religious to ever be a mistress I think.

[@LEredridinghood]

Love it when the wonderful HC goes hard for the facts + insistence on primary data. Another great job!!

[@HistoryCalling]

Thank you. Yes, my motto is 'show me the evidence'. I totally should have been a lawyer :-)

[@losingmymind611]

Charles II is really fascinating and it's a shame there's not more media dedicated to the Stuart era. It's easily as interesting as the Wars of the Roses and Tudor era.

[@HistoryCalling]

I totally agree. I remember in the early 2000s there was a great show about Charles starring Rufus Sewell. I wish they'd repeat it. It was brilliant (apart from at the start when they showed the young Charles II under the scaffold when his father was executed, but other than that). Helen McCrory was a deliciously villainous Lady Castlemaine as well.

[@beth7935]

@@HistoryCalling I LOVE that show!! And yes, Lady Castlemaine was evil! Great acting all round- Rufus was a great Charles II, & the dude who played Monmouth was good too.

[@michelerasor3932]

I keep thinking that one portrait of Charles !!, looking directly at the viewer, looks like Robert Downey Jr. in a Cavalier's wig.

[@selinapersaud7629]

To be honest, it seems like Charles was a relatively good man by the standards of the day. It seemed that he was really good to his children, and to Catherine. Yes, he was notoriously unfaithful to her, but maybe he did love her. Not the kind of love to want to have sex every night, and stay loyal, but maybe in his own way. After all, George Ii loved Caroline, but he was notoriously unfaithful. After all, as you say, Charles is no Henry viii.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, Charles is a bundle of contradictions. Not a great husband and yet loyal when it mattered most and unwilling to sell Catherine out just to suit himself. It's that same streak of loyalty which makes me believe him when he said Monmouth was illegitimate. It would have been so much easier to say he'd married Lucy, but he didn't.

[@selinapersaud7629]

To be honest, I didn’t know there was this much information on her. Thanks for sharing it. History really can be a wonderful thing.

[@HistoryCalling]

Me neither until I went searching for it. She was a fascinating figure though. Who knows what kind of mayhem she would have wreaked if she'd only lived a little bit longer. Glad you enjoyed hearing about her :-)

[@annmoore6678]

I do not believe they were married for all the reasons you have so clearly stated. Obviously, Charles hoped eventually to gain the throne, so he knew perfectly well that he would need to wait until he could make the most advantageous royal match possible, so that he could ensure the right of succession. I agree that it's really to his credit that he remained loyal to his wife, even though the match remained childless. Thank you for this very interesting account of the lives of Lucy Walter and her son. I wonder, did the Duke of Monmouth eventually acquire some sort of education after he was removed from the care of his mother?

[@HistoryCalling]

Thanks Anne. He did have some education, but his handwriting for instance was always pretty lousy. I don't think he ever quite made up for those lost early years.

[@R.J._Lewis]

Charles II's sense of "honour" was very strong, but also very different from today's sense of honor.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, he's quite a contradiction. He took no issue with cheating on his wife with wild abandon and forcing her to have his mistress under her nose all day, yet he wouldn't admit to a marriage which hadn't occurred in order to pull a supposedly legitimate child out of the hat. A psychologist would have a field day with him.

[@annmoore6678]

Regarding the comment that Stuart History was deemed "less worthy" by Americans. I don't think that's the case. In fact, I took a course on Stuart history at Harvard as part of my undergraduate degree. I think it's just rather complicated and perhaps Americans began to focus more on their own colonial history as it played out during that time period. (Although, of course, what was happening in England definitely played a part in who emigrated to the colonies at any given time period. Some of my English ancestors are first recorded in Massachusetts around 1626, while another family line showed up in Maryland later in the 17th century. Both protestant, but probably running away from different political climates at different times.) History departments in this country really tend to focus on American history from the 17th century on.

[@HistoryCalling]

That's interesting. Perhaps it's just covered less in schools and more so at universities? I can't fault American institutions for wanting to teach their own country's history of course and I appreciate that there isn't time to look at everything.

[@xxxAmpere]

Oh, I think you might mean my comment? Perhaps others said the same thing though. I agree with your thinking here and actually came back to clarify my original comment some. I was thinking more of K-12 education (our mandatory schooling from ages 5-18 for those outside the US.). I think we covered the Stuart’s a little more when I took AP Euro in high school but I expect not everyone gets access to that kind of class. I’m also from the Philadelphia area so I got a lot do the revolutionary era history burned into my brain more so than anything else haha.

[@beastieber5028]

Good evening to history calling from Bea

[@HistoryCalling]

Hi Bea. Hope you're in the mood for some Stuart scandal :-)

[@simon112]

Charles certainly earnt the name the merry monarch, and from what I know and read about him he was never married to Lucy Walter, thank you as always HC such thorough research as you always do superbly. 👍😊

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, I'm sure he was a breath (or rather a blast) of fresh air compared to the Parliamentarians. The ability to hold Christmas again would be enough for me to be loyal to him :-)

[@simon112]

@@HistoryCalling indeed HC he had quite a few faults but he was a good father to his many children and stayed with his wife when he could of divorced her, thank you again HC stay well and have a great week. 😊😊

[@joykoski7111]

Thank you for this. Another character that is of great interest to me (You are on a roll...lol) I don't think they were legally married, however, I do think Charles loved her dearly. Monmouth was quite the character all on his own. I originally read of these events in a Jean Plaidy book. Of course the author's romantacized telling of the tale was much lovlier than the actual documented version. Even with the book being fiction, Ms Plaidy also never supported the marriage theory,

[@HistoryCalling]

Thank you. I can't see them being married either, but I think Charles did love her for a time (he doesn't seem to have been able to love any woman on a permanent basis mind you. He was what we'd now call 'a player').

[@benjamintillema3572]

This "black box" fiasco reminds me a lot of the "baby in the bed pan" (which you already covered) just a few years later. Like a lot of propaganda, a story does not need to be based in reality to catch on when people are incentivized to believe it. Emotion is a lot more powerful reason, after all.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, I totally agree. Some people are so focused on what they want to believe, that no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway them, no matter how ludicrous the fantasy they're buying into is. I see it here in the comments under my videos all the time. I show very strong evidence of something, but I get a lot of people who just don't want to hear it.

[@elisabethhopson5639]

Sorry, not a shred of real evidence and lots of denials by the King. Nope, no way was Lucy his wife. Monmouth probably knew it all along, but it was so much to his great advantage to keep telling people that he was legitimate. Money talks. If he had kept quiet, he would have had a better life. Such is the lure of Monarchy. 👑

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, I think so too. If Monmouth had been wiser he'd have done as his half-siblings did; led the life of a super wealthy royal b-----d and lived for many decades longer.

[@SavageDarksider-sw7rp]

If you were A queen during this time period; which would you do: Take multiple lovers or take married ?

[@HistoryCalling]

Marriage. Assuming you weren't married to Henry VIII, there was less chance of a scandal that you would lose your head for.

[@happycommuter3523]

Your videos just get better and better! I learned so much from this one.

[@HistoryCalling]

Thank you very much. I certainly hope they do :-)

[@historybuff7491]

I don't think they were married. The most telling is that Charles did not legitimize his son upon becoming king. Lucy was dead by two years, so he could easily remarry. There would not have been a problem with his marriage to any European princes, at that time. The only flaw in this, is that many European Monarchs marry their daughters to gain a grandson on another throne, but the lack of that would not have affected too many offers of marriage. That Charles still denied the marriage tells all.

[@timefoolery]

How interesting! I don’t seem to know enough about the Stuarts so I really appreciate this bit of juicy royal gossip!

[@HistoryCalling]

They're a really interesting family. I think the Plantagenets and Tudors just pull so much of the limelight that the Stuarts and Hanoverians get overlooked a lot of the time.

[@raumaanking]

Would you ever consider a Natalie Wood unsolved case and the mystery of her mysterious death and the conspiracy theories surrounding her death or again would it be a copy right to get the pictures thanks

[@HistoryCalling]

It's the same answer that I gave to your other query re the Manson murders really. I'm honestly not ever going to be interested in covering much 20th/21st century history.

[@shellyraymond4337]

​@@HistoryCallingI would love to learn some Scottish history. Especially about "Bloody" George McKenzie and the whole mess with the Covenanters. There is an area adjacent to Grey Friar's Cemetery where the Covenanters prison was and where many people were killed. Bloody George is entombed in that cemetery

[@HistoryCalling]

I have some Scottish material already if you're interested. There's a video on the Scottish crown jewels and a couple on Mary, Queen of Scots too.

[@shellyraymond4337]

@@HistoryCalling I have watched all of your videos, some multiple times!

[@raumaanking]

Hi history calling hopefully you never minded their just suggestions obviously it’s up to you what you decide but yeah Sharon Tate is so beautiful I don’t know if you know this but one of the members was out of prison a month ago I believe it’s scary and apparently 4 years ago Sharon Tate sister on an interview said that everytime she goes sees Sharon Tate grave Charles Manson supporters would jump out of the bushes and tress and say to her she should die which is horrifying RIP Sharon Tate

[@HistoryCalling]

No, no. I don't mind at all. I just think you might have better luck if you suggested things like that to something like a true crime channel. I think those kinds of topics would be more in their wheelhouse, that's all. I hadn't heard that quote from Sharon Tate's sister, but it's awful if it's true :-(

[@lfgifu296]

Well, ngl, I’d argue that, from Queen Anne on, none of the monarchs should get the throne, but religious fights prevented it

[@BeeKool__113]

I absolutely love all the detail and research that go into each of these videos. They are always so engaging and I walk away with some new knowledge. With the facts presented, it seems rather unlikely Charles II wed Lucy. Thus, making their son the heir. It does seem that Charles did love his many children and dotted upon them. As always, another fantastic video! Enriched in a wealth of knowledge and highly entertaining. ❤❤❤

[@HistoryCalling]

Thank you. :-) Yes, he was a good Dad by the standards of the day, although Monmouth could perhaps have benefitted from a little less indulgence. It might have saved his life in the end.

[@BeeKool__113]

@@HistoryCalling I 100% agree.

[@sarahwatts7152]

It's kind of amazing how much people now want to believe the bogus stories of history

[@Lassisvulgaris]

Maybe some people. History is not an exact science, but depending on sources. Some sources are more reliable than others, but one must consider that they may be biased. So being critical, may help distiguish facts from fiction.... However, as you state, many will only believe what they want. One example is Holy Books. No evidence is required to believe them. "Holy Book says...." is sufficient....

[@HistoryCalling]

Tell me about it. I spend so much of my time trying to find polite ways to tell people they're talking rubbish. Ultimately though, some people don't want to be disabused. I can put all the evidence under the sun in front of them and they'll still tell me I'm wrong. In those cases, you just have to walk away. Some people are simply too far gone to be helped.

[@jeannelynskey6946]

The Child From the Sea by Elizabeth Goudge is a historical novel based on Lucy Walter

[@LKMNOP]

Yes they were married. And by the way, I have this bridge for sale... But seriously, if she had the marriage certificate as the black box story claims, she would have been waving that all over the place when Charles became king.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, I think had she had any real evidence it would have been widely known about too. I think she was just a bit of a chancer (which one could also say about her son).

[@emilybarclay8831]

How does a three year dead corpse wave anything? I agree with your point, but she was dead for years when Charles became king

[@edithengel2284]

@@emilybarclay8831 Charles became king (de jure) in 1649 upon the death of his father. Lucy was still alive at that time, though no longer so when Charles was restored in 1660.

[@Moebian73]

It's time, it's time, it's time for some true soap opera juicy multi layered ol Britty history from the best story teller, H.C.! *crowd goes wild* Good job HC. :)

[@HistoryCalling]

Haha, thank you. I hope the video is worthy of such a nice comment.

[@Moebian73]

@@HistoryCalling It is. Your videos appear as I'm having my afternoon coffee so I'm always very upbeat, as you can tell. :)

[@xxxAmpere]

We don’t really learn about the Stuarts in the U.S. (we tend to skip right from Elizabeth to George III) so this was very interesting! It does sound like there was no chance they were ever married. It’s funny, in regards to his sisters “wife” comment that honestly doesn’t strike me as odd only because I have quite a few friends who will refer to a long term partner as their spouse for convenience sake.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, it's funny how some history is deemed less worthy of being learnt than other material. I wonder who decided that the Stuarts and the early Hanoverians weren't worth looking at? Yes, I hear 'wife' and 'husband' being used for convenience too, without being literally true.

[@gillsinclair6927]

The Stuarts were nothing to be proud of.

[@653j521]

@@HistoryCalling If that is true about it being deemed less worthy, which I haven't found to be the case.

[@xxxAmpere]

@@HistoryCalling In some fairness to whoever decided on what we studied, I think the start of the Stuart Monarchs is the point in history that they start teaching us about the “colonial era” of U.S. history. So it’ll be something like “the colonies were doing these things and experiencing these other things. Oh, meanwhile in England Charles I was deposed. Meanwhile in Virginia…” You get a little more if you take a non-U.S. focused history class. It is funny what European/English history we are or are not taught from this era though. I was an adult before I learned that George the III was not, as I thought, the son of George II!

[@losingmymind611]

​@@HistoryCallingI didn't even know how the Hanoverians came to the English throne at all until I started watching creators like you and Lindsay Holiday. What a succession mess from dynasty to dynasty.

[@alyssagrube452]

Hello! I am finishing my BA in history and have to write a 30 page historical research paper about anything I want. I am very interested in English History, particularly War of the Roses to the Elizabethan Era, Henry VIII and his wives, and the English Reformation. I am really struggling to pick a topic that will be feasible for 30 pages and have good sources. Any advice?

[@k.stacey7389]

I’ve always found it amusing that a monarchy founded by an illegitimate son absolutely freaked out whenever one was brought up as a possible successor to the throne.

[@HistoryCalling]

I know. I wonder what William the Conqueror would have made of it all. Mind you, I think Elizabeth I was illegitimate (and so did her Dad) and she was one of the best monarchs England ever had.

[@edithengel2284]

@@HistoryCalling By the standard of illegitimate children, Elizabeth hardly seems illegitimate at all. Henry made and unmade his marriage to her mother, but at least her parents were married by Henry's rules when she was born, and for two years after. Can't be said of many other illegitimate children, including poor Monmouth.

[@k.stacey7389]

@@HistoryCalling I don’t know about Elizabeth, because every child born there after her, up until today, is as legitimate as she was per the church of England’s rules. As long as the parents were married by the birth it was pretty much universally accepted as legitimate. Especially considering the binding ramifications of a betrothal. Elizabeth was just born as the rules were being reestablished. The same thing a generation prior would have been illegitimate, and in the following generations wouldn’t even be questioned. But I have also always thought Catherine was lying through her teeth about her marriage to Arthur, mostly because she proved later how being queen meant EVERYTHING to her, no matter what. But I do wonder what William would have thought about the Beaufort children, the whole Edward V/Richard III situation, Henry VIII’s son Henry FitzRoy. Hell, don’t even have to go that far forward. Henry I had plenty of illegitimate sons, and Robert FitzRoy being his successor could have saved the country a rather devastating civil war. There’s tons of examples. Wonder if he’d be “best man for the job should get it!” or “the line of MY dynasty should be as legitimate and unbroken as possible!”

[@sanakimchi88]

@@k.stacey7389 the church of englands rules don’t count 💀 that was Henry’s sham “church” set up so he could divorce and murder as he pleased. Not legimate at all and universally considered a joke

[@ns-wz1mx]

wow i’m so late, but loving it nonetheless! i love learning about topics i never knew anything about, i’m unsure if i’ve ever heard of her till now *shame*. But with that i come into it with an unbiased mind and with the evidence you’ve provided, It sounds to me like they were never married. i think it would’ve been much more widely known as fact if they had been even if it was tried to be kept as a secret. excellent video HC!

[@keiththorpe9571]

I tell ya, Charlie there just made a right and proper mess of everything with all his sleeping around. You needed a score card to keep track of all his bedmates, and a spreadsheet to keep straight all of his illegitimate offspring.

[@HistoryCalling]

Absolutely. There are so many people around today who are descended from him and not one of them is from his wife (Catherine that it, just in case anyone thinks I mean Lucy)!

[@keiththorpe9571]

@@HistoryCalling No kidding, I'm probably descended from him in some roundabout way. Seems women got pregnant by him when he just walked into the same room they were standing in. Only woman he couldn't knock up WAS HIS QUEEN! 😂

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, it is ironic isn't it (though just for the sake of being thorough, Catherine did conceive, but tragically suffered two or three miscarriages. I can't remember the exact number off the top of my head).

[@653j521]

@@keiththorpe9571 Look at Victoria's "wicked uncles"!

[@chrisbanks6659]

Hello again. Did you miss me? LOL. Had a great time north of the border for a couple of days and with family in Norwayshire. Am back now. Catching up on sleep & work - in that order. Looking forward to this over the weekend sometime. Thanks as ever 😊

[@HistoryCalling]

Welcome back! Glad to hear you had a good holiday. Go have a good sleep :-)

[@stephencarrillo5905]

Welcome back, young man! You're right to prioritize sleep over work. 😉

[@chrisbanks6659]

@@stephencarrillo5905 At my age, it's a luxury I can't afford to be without now. 🤣

[@stephencarrillo5905]

@@chrisbanks6659 🤣 Right there with you!

[@vivalapita8484]

4:51 you're trying to find evidence that the current monarch is a genetic pretender, 1 they know 2 they know 3 of course they know

[@stephentuthill4598]

Indeed, the Rightful Heir now lives in Australia.

[@michelerasor3932]

There is a lovely fictional treatment of this matter, The Child from the Sea, by Elizabeth Goudge. It posits that Lucy and Charles met years early, when he was fleeing from Cromwell after his fathers defeat, and then she followed him to Europe. Fanciful, but it is a lovely book.

[@judithstrachan9399]

I think this might have been the book I read. In that, the author said Charles tricked Lucy into being “married” by a friend pretending to be a priest. It was a long long time ago, so I’m not sure. I don’t remember much more, except that she supposedly only sold her body to survive & to provide for her son/children.

[@LKMNOP]

I think we should get a petition up to get History Calling's phrase "do a Henry the 8th" into the OED. Anyone else want to sign that petition??

[@HistoryCalling]

Haha, I'm not sure they'd allow it but thanks for the thought :-)

[@BeeKool__113]

I just came from the channel's video on Isabel Nevelle where the History Calling Narrator mentioned King Edward III and his many sons in reference to the beginnings of the War of the Roses. And, they said,"In your face, Henry VIII." 😂😂😂 It gave me a good little giggle. ❤

[@theresalaux5655]

I don't think he was married to Lucy.😊

[@HistoryCalling]

Me neither. I think Charles was more savvy than that and was holding out for a foreign princess.

[@sdl1ishappy]

Very interesting stuff. I doubt Charles married her, but I do think their son told everyone who would listen that they were married and he may have even believed it. And I think the guy would have made a pretty good king, too.

[@HistoryCalling]

It's interesting to speculate what sort of King Monmouth would have made. He wasn't well educated and was rather spoilt, but he might still have been able to pull it off.

[@sdl1ishappy]

@@HistoryCalling I think I revealed that I don't think that bar was that high during the Stuart era for a king. He might have prevented some of the strangeness post-Charles would be a better way of putting it.

[@redemptivepete]

I've been struck before by the similarities between Edward IV and Charles II but I doubt even Edward would have been dumb enough to marry Elizabeth Woodville had they met when he was in exile. Arguably Charles's position was more parlous certainly longer lasting. A visit to the Stuart staterooms at Windsor Castle reinforcedthe status conscientiousness of the times. Charles had three bedrooms where people of different ranks were allowed. Nell Gwynne wasn't even allowed in the castle! You rightly highlighted the gender based double standards but there's no way Charles would have married this woman and thrown away his marriageability which was his best card.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, I can see some similarities in the ways in which they had to fight for their thrones and their fondness for the ladies. I love Windsor Castle. I'm only sad that you aren't allowed to take pictures inside it, or in St George's Chapel. I always have to show the same outside footage when I mention it.

[@katherinecooper6159]

It would be interesting to time travel back to the time of Charles and see if he ever did marry her. It is hard for me to say whether or not they were married without more information.

[@HistoryCalling]

Ah, the mantra of every historian - 'if only we could just go back and check' :-) I feel your pain Katherine.

[@robertalpy]

It's odd. Some claim that Harold Godwinson was the last legitimate king under the system of electing kings. Others say Richard III the last King to die in battle and the last Plantagenet king was the last legitimate monarch. Others that the Stuart's were the last legitimate line. Though The British recognized The Stuart line, they now do not and favor the glorious revolution under a Dutch invader....oddly. But since it's their country I'd take their word for it. It se3ms there's no less than a dozen people at any given time who make spurious claims to royalty.

[@HistoryCalling]

I know. It is bonkers sometimes. It just shows, the monarch is the person who can get the throne and hold onto it. the correct bloodline is just a bonus. Regarding the Stuarts/Hanoverians, if it helps, the legitimate Jacobite Stuart line died out anyway, so the Hanoverian (and subsequent) claims are sound enough nowadays.

[@cynthiat6505]

Yeah, no. And Thomas Cromwell; total creep. Poor Monmouth, he just didn’t want to be a bastard. Lucy had no other way to live as she had become accustomed to. All so sad.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, it must have been tough for Monmouth to be so close to the throne and yet so far. His tutor did him no favours putting ideas in his head about being King. All those ideas did was get him killed.

[@keicoohashi-n8b]

I doubt Charles would have married Lucy also I was fascinating the history of the Restoration period. I would like to know more about Duke of Monmouth and another illegitimate children of Charles II. Thanks for your video.

[@helgaborek3290]

Thank you so much for this video. I've read a bit about Charlea II and his mistresses and children, but this video was much more in depth and very educational. Edit: I have just checked the descendants of Monmouth and interestingly his many times great granddaughter married into BRF.

[@HistoryCalling]

You're welcome. Do you mean Princess Diana, which someone else mentioned too?

[@helgaborek3290]

@@HistoryCalling no, Lady Alice Montague Douglas Scott, daughter of 7th Duke of Buccleuch, she was married to Henry, Duke of Gloucester, brother to George VI. Current Duke of Gloucester is her son.

[@MichelleBruce-lo4oc]

Hi, awesome live history video I enjoyed it. How are you? I'm doing well. Have a great day see you next video 😊

[@HistoryCalling]

Thanks Michelle. I'm good thanks. Just wishing it was 10 degrees warmer here in the UK at the moment. I'm tired of summer rain :-(

[@happysolitude2422]

Love love the 'side character ' stories ❤❤

[@HistoryCalling]

Me too :-) It's a shame more isn't known about Lucy.

[@SavageDarksider-sw7rp]

Good evening to you. Did you know, Empress Elizabeth of Russia,unlike, Mary I of England took extra lovers when she couldn't find A foreign husband. Do you think she should have dud the same ?

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, I knew about the Empress. No, I don't think that would have been wise for Mary. :-)

[@SavageDarksider-sw7rp]

@@HistoryCalling Hm, I don't like Empress Elizabeth of Russia.

[@HistoryCalling]

You wouldn't want to mess with any of the Russian royals. They make Henry VIII look like a kitten.

[@robertflury3349]

I just found your content and I'm really enjoying it. It seems a little light on James the first, any reason? I always found him really interesting

[@HistoryCalling]

Me too actually, but it's a struggle to get people to watch anything that's not about the Tudors or the Wars of the Roses. Even the videos on Mary, Queen of Scots underperformed :-( I'll keep trying though.

[@robertflury3349]

@@HistoryCalling King james wrote the daemonologie. Maybe people will be into witchcraft. Are you saying that even the Edwards won't sell?

[@Elvertaw]

Thanks! For all you do. Really enjoy your channel

[@HistoryCalling]

THANK YOU SO MUCH ELVERTAW for such a kind donation to the channel. I'm really glad you enjoy the content :-)

[@michaelwhite8031]

I had two ancestors called Durston who were officers who fought for Monmouth at the battle of Sedgmoor, they were hanged after the battle by judge Jefferies.

[@susannahdyro9518]

This is the first time I am reading about lucy very interesting there is so much we don't know 😊

[@jitaamesuluma9730]

Basically, who cares, even though I descend from him, not just one son over looked , he had no legitimate kids that lived , I also descend from his brother james, on another line, or rather same line , different parent

[@dianallewellyn9859]

As always interesting and informative! 😊

[@kazoolibra7322]

Very interesting story, but Lucy's life was so sad!! I don't think she was the wife of Charles..... just doesn't make sense.

[@653j521]

I don't see this as sad. She wasn't very smart but beautiful and used her assets to sleep her way to the top, which she managed to do in such a difficult time for royalty and not get beheaded, although according to the king, she did get the usual incurable disease of those who slept around. The king was kind to her despite her trying to manipulate him, and did well by her son. He got the chop but that happens when you try to take the throne and fail. They didn't mess around then when the charge was treason. Compare that to the women in Henry VIII's life for sad.

[@HistoryCalling]

It's certainly sad that she died so young, though I take the point of the commenter below that she arguably did the best she could with what she had.

[@lianefehrle9921]

I don’t think they were married but the boy does look like him

[@HistoryCalling]

Oh yes, he really does. I don't doubt his paternity for a minute. Those Stuart genes were strong.

[@titanscerw]

New vidya from you, goes public. Me: *already watching* I'm not addicted, honest, guvna! :) +][+

[@HistoryCalling]

Haha, thank you. There are worse things than being a history nerd. Don't worry, you're in good company :-)

[@titanscerw]

Oh, I trust you on that :) I am a hoplologist and see history mostly via the lens of struggle, but your videos helps to give more perspective in to lives of certain pivotal persons of those days and their relations thus adding depth to my idea about those times our Ancestors lived through. Well researched and beautifuly presented material. Thank you

[@od1452]

Charles is an interesting packet of actions . His support for family is a trait I have to admire. .. While Other actions ,I don't. I suspect he was always a secret Catholic. ( No insult intended ) ... Monmouth .. may have been told by many "in the know" that he was a secret heir and no doubt many an Anti Catholic Would be King Maker wanted him to believe his mom was really pure and married. His death is disturbing.... one wonders if it could have just been a "Bad Day " for the Ax man..... but one would think a competent dispatcher would be carefully found. .. could that be planned ? One would think not as I'm sure most present would be horrified. I didn't know all that about Lucy ... thanks for informing me.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, Charles's psychology is really interesting. I'm sure an analyst would find him a fascinating subject. Maybe the executioner just got a bit nervous or wasn't well trained? I would imagine it's hard to really practice in an occupation like that. You have to actually learn on the job.

[@Marcus51090]

1:12 I really do think the original London Bridge is a lost landmark. Arhh Oliver Cromwell, the not a king, de facto absolute monarch lol, I really don’t know why he’s looked on favourably by history, he was a tyrannical religious zealot not a single tear was shed I’m sure when he died. When did actual divorce come into play? 1700s? I know marriage as we know it today with signing the Marriage documents etc was born in the mid 1700’s but I’ve never about divorce I do love these woman in history videos

[@HistoryCalling]

The rules differed from Scotland to England, but in Scotland I think you could get a divorce in the mid-1500s. In England, it was the 1670s. Divorce was still extremely rare and expensive though. Very few of them occurred until the 20th century.

[@653j521]

@@HistoryCalling Did the popes ever grant divorces/annulments?

[@emo7636]

It's funny how books tend to skip over Lucy and go straight to the more scandalous affairs of Nell Gwynn and Barbara Palmer.

[@HistoryCalling]

I know. I think she has a fascinating tale.

[@Nanno00]

I’m really curious about why the “s” in every word begin in S of the London Gazette article from 1680 18:20 , all look like “F”? Has there been some alphabet change in the past 300 years that I don’t know about? 😊. “S” when used within the middle of the word does look like an actual S.

[@Nanno00]

Answering my own question but leaving it in case anyone else didn’t know. We used to use another character in the alphabet, in print, called “The Long S”. It only applied to lowercase s and seems to have only been if the word had an S in the beginning or middle of the word.

[@clarewalsh7247]

Excellent content and presentation. Part of me thinks he might have gone through a mock ceremony x

[@HistoryCalling]

Maybe, although it's still odd that Lucy didn't make that fact better know if that's what happened.

[@edithengel2284]

Charles was a lady's man, but I don't think he felt he had to resort to trickery to get someone to go to bed with him.

[@christopherTYJ]

Charles and Lucy were never married. Americans walked on the moon. Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. 😊

[@HistoryCalling]

Absolutely :-)

[@Lassisvulgaris]

Last statement is still debatable....

[@christopherTYJ]

@@Lassisvulgaris 😮

[@angelwing3671]

I find it sad that Charles was so keen on defending his brother as a rightful successor, yet his brother certainly didn't extend that family bond onto the Duke of Monmouth. I mean, he certainly didn't have to forgive him for going hard to win the crown but he didn't have to separate his head from his body either. Middle ground people, middle ground 😂

[@edithengel2284]

Charles was defending his loyal, legitimate, next-in-line to the throne brother; James' relationship to Monmouth was not analogous. Monmouth had declared himself king, had led armed forces against his uncle, and promised to be a serious thorn in James' side if imprisoned. (The usual thing: given the unrest caused by James' Catholicism, his opponents would always find Monmouth a convenient focus for rebellion against James.) And what would Monmouth have done with James if the situation had been reversed? Perhaps he would have done the same thing that James did. (Imprisoned kings seem to die soon in mysterious circumstances.) In short, Monmouth was disloyal, illegitimate, not in the line of succession, and extremely dangerous--not the same relationship at all as Charles had had to James. It is really sad that Monmouth was executed; Charles' widow, Queen Catherine, begged her brother-in-law for his life. But James wasn't crazy to think that Monmouth represented a real danger to his crown and perhaps to his freedom, and maybe to his life.

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, he could have taken the middle ground as you say, but I understand what Edith means as well. A living Monmouth would have remained a threat, just as James II and his descendants by Mary of Modena ultimately did after the Glorious Revolution. He was in an unenviable position and if nothing else, we have to concede that it was Monmouth who put him there. Charles II had plenty of other illegitimate children and James II had no problem with them. If Monmouth had followed his half-siblings' example and just led the life of a rich, pampered, illegitimate royal, he'd have been fine. Like Edith, I also wonder what Monmouth would have done with his uncle if he'd won the crown.

[@Hothouse_flowers]

Monmouth would've caused shocking civil unrest if he'd been successful in usurping the crown, legitimate or not, but I find that no matter how one praises Charles for fatherly love, he was a hapless troublemaker Insomuch as having so many women, is always going to cause strife. Charles dosent get My vote never did! Cromwell, oh so noble, NOT! Frankly throughout history I find it hard to actually find a monarch worthy of the position, nothing has changed in 2023!

[@edithengel2284]

@@Hothouse_flowers I don't hold a brief for Charles II, but the having so many women was not really the cause of much strife in itself. One has only to look at the sons of the uxorious and mistress-free George III to see how much strife can be caused by one's own legitimate offspring. I don't think the position of monarch was ever likely to produce great humanitarians; it was never the mission. At least Charles actually was an attentive father, which is more than most monarchs can claim.

[@nancyM1313]

💞👸🏻 👸🏼💞 tfsharing, enjoy your day!

[@HistoryCalling]

Thank you! You too :-)

[@carolinegreenwell9086]

now we need a video on all Charles II's children

[@HistoryCalling]

That's sooo many people. That guy got around! :-)

[@JaRule6]

​@@HistoryCallingmaybe you can do a story about how Princess Diana was descended from Charles II

[@donnicholas7552]

I don't believe Lucy was married to Charles.

[@HistoryCalling]

No, I don't think he was that daft. It would have been a real struggle to present a women with her past as the Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland (Wales being considered a part of England at this point).

[@elyjane8316]

If Charles II and Lucy Walter married, then it was a morganatic marriage. Any children cannot inherit the throne.

[@HistoryCalling]

No, it wouldn't have been morganatic. Charles was of age, unmarried and the King (in name at least) and therefore free to marry whomever he chose, even if she was of much lower rank than he. There were later laws about who senior royals could marry, but they were well after Charles's time. George I might have had a morganatic marriage, but the issue there was that his first wife was still alive.

[@katjack2780]

If it's not a black box, then it's a warming pan...For some reason it seems the rumor mills ground very quickly in the Stuart era. The idea of Popish plots seemed to reach a fever pitch, equal to or even more so than in Elizabethan times. I'm glad you pointed out Charles' sense of honor. But calling him an "absolute cad" otherwise was a bit harsh. Besides the unusual fondness for his many children, he also was unique in actually enjoying the company of women (besides their sexual use) and conversing with them. He treated women as fellow human beings, which is a rare quality in any time.

[@HistoryCalling]

We can agree to disagree on how we view him. My assessment of him as a cad was based on his treatment of his wife with whom I have great sympathy. I nevertheless think he was a good father and not a bad King. Like all of us I suppose, he had layers. He could behave badly in one instance and very well in others. Despite my distaste at his extra-marital affairs, I actually quite like him as a historical figure. I think he was a better person than many of the other monarchs in English/British history.

[@edithengel2284]

@@HistoryCalling It must have been painful for Catherine. It would have been so much better if she had been able to have a living child. Apart from Charles's unfaithfulness per se, to watch a forest of his children grow up around her without having one of her own must have been a kind of personal agony added to the shame and disappointment of not providing an heir which she might well have felt.

[@katherinecooper6159]

Question: and every picture I see of either female or male they have beautifully curly hair. How did they do that? Did they have curlers? RSVP!

[@HistoryCalling]

This is just off the top of my head (no pun intended) but I think they could just wrap their hair up in damp rags at night.

[@judithstrachan9399]

Mostly wigs.

[@MichaelLeBlanc-p4f]

Charles II is my very favourite historical king. His rich fascinating life was full of 'high' adventure of every kind as life went on. Best of all, he was a man . . . A real man & A good man to boot.

[@emilybarclay8831]

Wouldn’t call someone who spent his entire marriage repeatedly cheating on his wife after she had multiple miscarriages a ‘good’ man.

[@MichaelLeBlanc-p4f]

Charles was good to all the loves in his life . . . As well as to his 16 children.

[@chucknelson1079]

Lucy is a g(several g’s) aunt of mine and she has as interested me.

[@HistoryCalling]

Why do none of my ancestors have such interesting stories?! 😂

[@phoebenorth2759]

I think it's interesting 🤗♥️🏆

[@HistoryCalling]

Thanks Phoebe. It definitely is. It was one of the big talking points of Restoration England.

[@phoebenorth2759]

@@HistoryCalling definitely

[@nathanfisher1826]

Very good! Thank you! Very well laid out argument!

[@HistoryCalling]

Thanks Nathan. She's really quite an interesting character from history. It's a shame more isn't known about her.

[@nathanfisher1826]

Yes I agree

[@philip2595]

I'm convinced, as you usually do. HC what gives with the legs of the two men on the right at 3:34? I've seen this picture before and they seem skeletal or is it just me? BTW thank you for another interesting presentation, enjoyed as always!

[@HistoryCalling]

It's just their Stuart-era boots I think. One must suffer for fashion I guess, even in the 17th century :-)

[@AnnaAnna-uc2ff]

Thank you.

[@HistoryCalling]

You're welcome :-)

[@carlstenger5893]

Fascinating story. Thanks so much!

[@HistoryCalling]

You're welcome. Glad you enjoyed it :-)

[@Heothbremel]

❤❤❤❤❤

[@vivalapita8484]

I enjoy the specific placement of the water marks.

[@lykacastuciano1604]

Please can you do a video on queen victoria. I think you’re a very good KZbinr

[@HistoryCalling]

Thank you. I actually already have one on her coronation if you'd like to check it out? It's in my coronation playlist and my royal women playlist. She's also mentioned in my 'spares who became heirs' video.

[@delia88209]

Happy Friday. Great video. I’m can’t believe that it took 5 chops to cut off James head. I don’t think they were married. Charles was a terrible husband but honored his wedding vows. Have a great weekend

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, his was one of the more gruesome executions (I mean they were all gruesome - that was the whole point after all - but that one was bad even by the standards of the day). Have a lovely weekend too :-)

[@edithengel2284]

He was a little weak on the "forsaking all others" aspect of it.

[@653j521]

@@HistoryCalling Which was why you asked for a French swordsman, and why a guillotine was the better option for the common folk than the first person they could find who would do the job?

[@653j521]

@@edithengel2284 Was that in the royal wedding service then?

[@crysblac4944]

Thanks!

[@HistoryCalling]

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE VERY KIND DONATION CRYSBLAC and apologies for the slow reply (I don't typically check comments during the weekend). I'm glad you enjoyed hearing about Lucy. She's a bit of an overlooked figure.

[@helenvick522]

Thanks

[@HistoryCalling]

You're very welcome. Glad you enjoyed hearing about Lucy.

[@DiddlyPenguin]

That was a very good one. I’m afraid poor Lucy was just a tart. Mind u if u were well born but had no money in those days it was considered not a bad way to go. Monmouth was unlucky in ways he believed what his mother told him & it suited him to think he should be king. That’s a good way to have your head chopped off .

[@HistoryCalling]

Thank you. In fairness to Lucy, I think we'd have to call Charles II a tart as well then as they both had no issue having relationships with lots of people they weren't married to (I know it's a word usually reserved for women, but you know what I mean). Monmouth was indeed unfortunate in having his head filled with ideas about somehow being able to get the crown. If he'd only had the wit to believe his father when he told him he was illegitimate, I suspect he'd have lived a much longer, happier life. The Stuarts really were quite an unfortunate bunch. :-(

[@morriganwitch]

I don’t think so xxx

[@HistoryCalling]

I doubt it too. Oddly, I think Charles was quite honest about that sort of thing and wouldn't have disinherited Monmouth if the boy had been legitimate.

[@morriganwitch]

It would have been an easy solution so no xxx

[@HistoryCalling]

Yes, it would have solved so many problems that I think the only logical reason to say he wasn't married to Lucy was that it was the truth.

[@morriganwitch]

@@HistoryCalling he seemed to be a great dad so truth / integrity was important xxx

[@edithengel2284]

@@HistoryCalling It makes me think of Henry VIII's illegitimate son. If Richmond had lived, I think it was possible that Henry would have tried to make him the heir; he seemed to be moving in that direction. (Even entertaining the thought of marrying Richmond to his half-sister Mary--worse than the Habsburgs!). That might have set a precedent.

[@luannnelson547]

I have a Scottish ancestor who showed up in Charleston in 1716, so I assume he was mixed up in the Jacobite troubles somehow or other. The Stuarts really seem overall to be a pretty awful bunch.

[@HistoryCalling]

I would say they were better than the Normans, Plantagenets and Hanoverians and on a par with the Tudors (with the exception of Henry VIII, who was probably worse than any of them when it came to killing family members). That's merely my opinion though.

[@luannnelson547]

I’m thinking particularly of the Stuart’s role in spreading chattel slavery throughout the British-dominated world. Henry VIII was uniquely horrible, of course. The Normans and Plantagenets were probably not much more awful than any other powerful lords of their eras.

[@tauna8941]

Interesting

[@SurferJoe1]

I still struggle to fathom how a man with >that< hairstyle, title or not, could have such a prolific love life. Women!

[@edithengel2284]

It's a wig. And he looked quite normal for the day. Women found him attractive even when he was a fugitive and an exile, but it really helps to be king. Women? really?

[@SurferJoe1]

@@edithengel2284 Joking.

[@edithengel2284]

@@SurferJoe1 😄

[@gillsinclair6927]

The Stuarts were a treasonous family. As a Scot, this is either a source of pride or an embarrassment. Me, I'm of the second opinion

[@HistoryCalling]

Ah, but weren't nearly all of them treasonous at some point or other. It's only the baddies who were able to get the throne and keep it back in those days.

[@gillsinclair6927]

@@HistoryCalling those were the days indeed. Especially the Celts

[@ruthbeamish8849]

​@@gillsinclair6927And yet I have often wondered what would have happened if the Jacobites had not retreated from Derby but pushed on to London. The Capitol was in turmoil with the King poised to flee. I don't honestly think that a new gang of Stuarts would be worse than the Hanovarians.

[@gillsinclair6927]

@@ruthbeamish8849 I shudder to think.😱 Especially Charlie. Surprisingly, being a Scot, I'm proud to say that my ancestors on both sides were on the winning side at Culloden.