WI: Charles and Camilla go on to have children after their marriage?

WorstOfHumanity

I have seen threads positing their having children when they were both young to stir controversy either with the Queen or Diana, but what if they did so after their real world marriage?

Say after their engagement announcement in February 2005, the two use their considerable resources to source top of the line IVF treatment. As a result, Camilla falls pregnant and we end up with:

Princess Elizabeth - b. December 25th, 2005​
and​
Princess Mary - b. December 25th, 2005​
​
I had twins due to IVF having a much higher likelihood of multiple birth - The two would be coming up for their 18th birthday in a few months, incidentally.

How would this shake up the structure of the royal family, and perhaps people's view of Charles, Camilla and their pairing?
 
Last edited:

Lalli

That would cause lot of debate. Not idea how it would end. Probably people anyway are eventually fine altough not really greatly accepting idea such old people getting children. Some might are too worried that many other people on their 60's begin to attempt to get children. That has already happened in some countries but now we talk very famous people.

On line of succession there has not affect expect that Andrew and everybody after him go two spots down on the line of succession.
 

Anarch King of Dipsodes

In 2005, she was 58. So no viable ova. She could become pregnant only by IVF with a donor ovum. And they weren't going to do that, not even if Charles desperately needed an heir. For one thing, the child would be quasi-illegitimate, as its genetic mother would not be married to him.
 

Declan

I would say Charles's divorce, and thus marriage to Camilla, should be moved up to 1993. This is for making this ATL practical.

In 2005, Camilla was 57 years old. Even with the most advanced technology, the odds are very low of conceiving.

As for effects of this, it would cause the view of the public on Camilla to be mixed for the time while she is pregnant at least.
 
Last edited:

WorstOfHumanity

Anarch King of Dipsodes said:
In 2005, she was 58. So no viable ova. She could become pregnant only by IVF with a donor ovum. And they weren't going to do that, not even if Charles desperately needed an heir. For one thing, the child would be quasi-illegitimate, as its genetic mother would not be married to him.
Click to expand...
Declan said:
I would say Charles's divorce, and this marriage to Camilla, should be moved up to 1993. This is for making this ATL practical.

In 2005, Camilla was 57 years old. Even with the most advanced technology, the odds are very low of conceiving.

As for effects of this, it would cause the view of the public on Camilla to be mixed for the time while she is pregnant at least.
Click to expand...
The oldest mothers that have used IVF were 73 years old, and there have been a few of that age - so to say a mid-late 50s pregnancy with the foremost minds in the field surely being consulted is impossible is a little nihilistic in my opinion
 

Lalli

Declan said:
I would say Charles's divorce, and this marriage to Camilla, should be moved up to 1993. This is for making this ATL practical.

In 2005, Camilla was 57 years old. Even with the most advanced technology, the odds are very low of conceiving.

As for effects of this, it would cause the view of the public on Camilla to be mixed for the time while she is pregnant at least.
Click to expand...

Even in 1990's would be almost too late for Camilla to become pregnant with natural ways. If OP wants that happening best solution would be that allow Charles and Camilla to marry already in 1970's. Then she could certainly bring children.

Sekhmet_D said:
What incentive would there be for them to have kids at that age?
Click to expand...

Very true. That wouldn't be pracitcal and it would has uncertain consueqences to get children on that age. Many elder people marry but they don't even think that them should have children, speciality if they have already such from earlier marriages.

And even if Charles would lost his children on some tragic accident, he hardly feels need to get heirs since even if you go back to Elizabeth II, her had already other children and grandchildren.
 

Ranchoth

Anarch King of Dipsodes said:
In 2005, she was 58. So no viable ova. She could become pregnant only by IVF with a donor ovum. And they weren't going to do that, not even if Charles desperately needed an heir. For one thing, the child would be quasi-illegitimate, as its genetic mother would not be married to him.
Click to expand...

The record for oldest age confirmed pregnancy via natural conception was actually 59.

Almost a freak occurrence, but, hey...black swans are half the fun of alternate histories, right?
 

naraic

Anarch King of Dipsodes said:
Nope; originally it was a condition that she would only be Duchess of Cornwall or whatever, but the family (the Queen, really) liked her better after several years of showing she really understood the job and was committed to it. So she is now Queen.
Click to expand...
You mean Elizabeth wanted to bail out Andrews civil suit for having sex with a child. Charles threatened to protest in the media and a deal was done.

Or at least that's the rumours going around. The deal could be all rumours.

Both happened in February 2022. Andrew's settlement and Queen Elizabeth making a speech saying that Camilla should be Queen.
 

ECavalier

naraic said:
You mean Elizabeth wanted to bail out Andrews civil suit for having sex with a child. Charles threatened to protest in the media and a deal was done.

Or at least that's the rumours going around. The deal could be all rumours.

Both happened in February 2022. Andrew's settlement and Queen Elizabeth making a speech saying that Camilla should be Queen.
Click to expand...
I love the way you started out correcting Anarch by saying the Queen wanted to bail out Andrew’s civil suit over claims he slept with a 16 year old and struck a deal with Charles as though it was fact, then rowed back and admitted it was a rumour below even the tabloids in the next sentence. Possibly the quickest motte and bailley I’ve ever seen!
 
Last edited:

CaptainCalvert

The Wooksta! said:
The Daily Mail reading Saint Diana crowd would go into a meltdown that would rival Fukushima.
Click to expand...
That would be a sight worth seeing.

I never understood the St Diana thing, and the Mail doesn't come top of my reading list, but this could also be a bit of an event for those with very different views.
 

Declan

Xenophonte said:
Question their marriage isn't a morganatic one? Cause, if so it, IMO, would render any kind of speculation moot...
Click to expand...
No it would not be deemed morganatic. The whole "marry at your level" norm hadn't been a thing with the British royal family for decades at that point.

But there is the issue with Queen approving of it. If it occurs when the OP suggests, no problem would exist since the POD hasn't occured yet.

But if, as I have suggested, Charles' marriage gets pushed back, it's harder to say.
WorstOfHumanity said:
The oldest mothers that have used IVF were 73 years old, and there have been a few of that age - so to say a mid-late 50s pregnancy with the foremost minds in the field surely being consulted is impossible is a little nihilistic in my opinion
Click to expand...
That's an exception.
IVF relies on fertilizing multiple ova and selecting the most viable for implantation, and thus the pregnancy.
As such, when the main issue is that the woman is past menopause, the probability of success is very low.
Ranchoth said:
The record for oldest age confirmed pregnancy via natural conception was actually 59.

Almost a freak occurrence, but, hey...black swans are half the fun of alternate histories, right?
Click to expand...
Yeah, but it's still extremely rare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top