Marriage and Issue
Main article: Descendants of Charles I of EnglandCharles was father to a total of nine legitimate children, two of whom would eventually succeed him as king. His wife also had two stillbirths.
| Name | Birth | Death | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Charles James, Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay | 13 May 1629 | 13 May 1629 | Stillborn. |
| Charles II, King of England, Scotland and Ireland | 29 May 1630 | 6 February 1685 | Married Catherine of Braganza (1638–1705) in 1663. No legitimate issue. Charles II is believed to have fathered such illegitimate children as James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, who later rose against James VII and II. |
| Mary, Princess Royal | 4 November 1631 | 24 December 1660 | Married William II, Prince of Orange (1626–1650) in 1641. She had one child: William III of England |
| James VII and II, King of England, Scotland and Ireland | 14 October 1633 | 16 September 1701 | Married (1) Anne Hyde (1637–1671) in 1659. Had issue including Mary II of England and Anne of England; Married (2) Mary of Modena (1658–1718) in 1673. Had issue. |
| Elizabeth, Princess of England | 29 December 1635 | 8 September 1650 | No issue. |
| Anne, Princess of England | 17 March 1637 | 8 December 1640 | Died young. |
| Catherine, Princess of England | 29 June 1639 | 29 June 1639 | Stillborn. |
| Henry, Duke of Gloucester | 8 July 1640 | 18 September 1660 | No issue. |
| Henrietta Anne, Princess of England | 16 June 1644 | 30 June 1670 | Married Philip I, Duke of Orléans (1640–1701) in 1661. Had legitimate issue. Among her descendants were the King Louis XVI of France, also executed by beheading, the kings of Sardinia and Italy, and the post-Stuart Jacobite Pretenders (although they do not actually uphold their claim to the British throne). |
Read more about this topic: Charles I Of England
Famous quotes containing the words marriage and/or issue:
“Either marriage is a destiny, I believe, or there is no sense in it at all, it’s a piece of humbug.”
—Max Frisch (1911–1991)
“Take away from the courts, if it could be taken away, the power to issue injunctions in labor disputes, and it would create a privileged class among the laborers and save the lawless among their number from a most needful remedy available to all men for the protection of their business interests against unlawful invasion.... The secondary boycott is an instrument of tyranny, and ought not to be made legitimate.”
—William Howard Taft (1857–1930)