Historical romance and happily ever after

I’ve been thinking about what happily ever after in HR means and how it always means marriage and almost always children. But let’s think about era and that marriages were not love matches but arrangements for procreation and financial gain if possible. Sometimes people were lucky to marry for love. Still historical romance requires marriage to have an hea. Why?

What about story like this:

Let’s have a heroine who knows she cannot have children. Maybe she’d been sick that caused infertility, or have an accident that has caused injuries that prevents her ever becoming pregnant. Or she’s a widow after childless marriage. She has made peace with her situation, perhaps she never even much wanted children, she happy doing what’s important her.

In this story she could be part of the aristocracy or not. But unsuitable for the hero who is a titled lord who has to marry to have an heir and spare and there is a lady already picked up for him. And they marry. History is full of marriages like this.

Hero and heroine fall in love, they can be in love with each other before he marries or after. Before makes the story deliciously angsty; her knowing he has to marry someone suitable and him having to marry someone he doesn’t love.

He fulfills his duty which means his wife gives birth to his heir and spare. Hero and heroine takes what ever they can to be together, she knows he could not have married her, while not ideal the most important thing is that they are together. He doesn’t love his wife and his wife doesn’t love him. After having the children, she is free to have affairs if she so wishes. And they don’t have marital relations after the two sons are born.

So would you be okay happy ever after being heroine and hero being in love and together, but not married and no children. Practically people would think heroine as hero’s mistress, but their relationship is based on deep love and mutual respect and they are meant for each other. They are happy. Would you be happy?