2007-03-08 05:39:21 · 5 answers · asked by Livia Faz 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Yes. James I (James VI in Scotland) was the first Stewart king. Charles I was his descendant, but I'm not sure whether he was his son or grandson. He was the one executed.
Charles II was the son of Charles I. His brother became James II because Charles II had no legitimate children. Plenty of illegitimate ones, though.
James II had converted to the Catholic church, but his daughters Mary and Anne were raised Protestant on Charles' orders. When James remarried to a Catholic princess and had a son, the English people rebelled and invited William of Orange and his wife, Mary Stewart, to rule England. James fled with his infant son and his wife.
William and Mary were co-rulers. They had no children. Their successor was Queen Anne Stewart who had no living children. When she died, that was the last of the Stewart line on England's throne. Parliament invited the Hanovers (George I) to take the throne. They've had it ever since.
"Rock a bye, baby, in the tree-top
When the wind blows, the cradle will rock.
When the bough breaks, the cradle will fall.
Down will come baby, cradle and all."
That poem refers to the infant son of James II. The wind is the gossip about the baby's birth. The bough breaking is the king's death. The last line tells very clearly what will happen to baby when the king dies.
2007-03-08 05:51:43 · answer #1 · answered by loryntoo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, James II, Charles II's younger brother, was also a Stewart, but he was deposed after a very short reign in favor of William and Mary, who were also Stewarts (at least Mary was, as she was James II's daughter). The Last Stewart was Anne, James II's other daughter.
2007-03-08 06:11:33 · answer #2 · answered by Captain Hammer 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Charles II was the last Stewart-King. At least the last official Stewart King. According to his Jacobite followers he should have been succeeded by his son - Bonny prince Charly, to be King Charles III - but William of Orange won the throne at last.
2007-03-08 06:02:52 · answer #3 · answered by Stephen Dedalus 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, Charles II was 4 centuries ago...so I would say yes...after the Tudors. I went to a pub last night in London that was built when he was around!
2007-03-11 09:13:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That would be "Stuart."
2007-03-08 06:50:34 · answer #5 · answered by Beau D. Satva 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋