If the future king charles is an adulterer?
July 7, 2010 - 10:00 am
we know by his own admission that prince charles was shagging camilla befire he married Dianna i believe as the future head of the protestant church he should be tarred and feathered and then deported to siberia along with that whore camilla
Yes he is. Whatever he did before he met Diana was the business of no one, but himself but, after he committed himself to marrying her, he should have remained faithful to her, instead of shafting that hideous horse look alike at every opportunity. Why inflict him upon the Siberians, what have they ever done to you? Send him to u.s.a, where adultery is the national pastime and where he would not stick out, unlike his ears.
July 7th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Please report to the Tower forthwith.
References :
July 7th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Check a dictionary. Shagging someone else, who is not herself married, before you get married is fornication, not adultery.
Then learn some history. Throughout history one of the privileges of being King has been to roger your way through the ladies of the court, and one of the duties of the Queen Consort, throughout history, has been to put up with this in a dignified fashion. Diana wanted to be Queen, but without being prepared to carry out the a Queen’s duties – not only this one, but many others.
References :
July 7th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
What was the question?
References :
July 7th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
It would be a complete mockery of the Christian faith if Prince Charles on becoming King became Defender Of The Faith and Head of the Church of England. As you say Syntinen Laula the Royal Family through out history have always done as they wanted to and got rid of those that caused a threat to them. Hence Diana was done away with.
References :
All history books.
July 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Why – if you read your history books all the kings and their sons were doing the same thing.
References :
July 7th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Not to excuse adultery and fornication with married women, but British history is filled with princes and kings who had mistresses. We frown on that sort of thing now, but if heirs to thrones and monarchs had been automatically sent off to Siberia for sexual shenanigans in the past, there would no longer be a monarchy. Which, of course, some people wouldn’t mind.
And I do believe that Diana herself was involved with at least two married men. For someone who publicly (and justly) complained about her husband’s behavior, she didn’t seem to have a problem with pursuing other women’s husbands.
References :
July 7th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Actually, he is an adulterer. He admits to "shagging" Camilla after he married Diana.
References :
July 7th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
My dear Mitzie, let you not get your underwear in a twist. Dear old Charles is following a long line of adulterers dear girl. It is absolutely de rigueur for a future King. It was Henry VIII who conferred himself as head of the Church of England, simply because he wanted to get his end away with Anne Boleyn.
References :
July 7th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
He is, he enjoyed his adultery much more than his infancy.
References :
July 7th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Yes he is. Whatever he did before he met Diana was the business of no one, but himself but, after he committed himself to marrying her, he should have remained faithful to her, instead of shafting that hideous horse look alike at every opportunity. Why inflict him upon the Siberians, what have they ever done to you? Send him to u.s.a, where adultery is the national pastime and where he would not stick out, unlike his ears.
References :
July 7th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Good opinion.
Good luck on trying to make it pass muster…see, most of the kings of Britain, and many other countries, have been adulterers.
And, it’s not the "Protestant Church", but the "Church of England"….don’t lump all the rest in, they don’t follow whatever the Anglican Church says.
References :
July 7th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
He is an adulterer not simply a fornicator because HE was married at the time. They were having an affair during their marriages. That said, have you seen the state of the Church of England? Compared to many of it’s clergy Charles is an innocent and a saint. I think an autocratic adulterer who talks to plants and wants to be Camilla’s tampon would make a very suitable head of such a sordid organization.
References :
July 7th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Yes,he was.The couple repented their transgressions before the Church commitment service.
What Charles did is quite common,not just with monarchs,but with commoners as well.No human being on this earth is perfect.Judge not lest you be judged.
References :
July 7th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
There have been very few kings or princes in English history who were not adulterers. if every monarch who committed adultery was deported there wouldn’t be many left.
And he isn’t the future head of the Protestant Church. he is the future head of the Church of England, a church that was originally created by an adulterous monarch (Henry VIII).
References :
July 7th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
As an adulterer, Charles has behaved like the vast majority of British royalty. I am so tired of people whining about his adultery. Yes, it was bad. Move along. The majority of marriages involve cheating at least once. It’s a common error.
Compared to many of Charles ancestors, he’s positively saintly. At least has hasn’t left dozens of illegitimate children in his wake, nor pressured women into his bed that did not want him, nor taken a different lady every night.
References :
July 7th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
We are not talking about the whole protestant church here, merely the Church of England, which believes almost anything these days. It’s coped with adulterous kings in the past. Do you not know anything about King Charles II, the "merry monarch", who while never managing to produce a legitimate child of his own, fathered quite a few by his mistresses? Many of his illegitimate sons were given dukedoms and that is the source of many of the dukes in the Peerage of England today.
The real point here is that adultery with the monarch, his wife or with the heir to the throne puts the royal succession into doubt and it is punishable by life imprisonment under the Treason Act 1351. Until the death penalty was abolished in 1998, it was punishable by death. Proving it is almost impossible, however, unless a child results who can be DNA tested for parentage, though Henry VIII managed to get two of his wives framed for it when he got bored with them and that’s how they "legitimately" got tried, convicted and beheaded.
References :
July 7th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Okay I’m American and don’t pay attention to England’s news and stuff that much but I thought Prince Charles would never be king and prince William would take the throne to be the king when queen Elizabeth dies or gives up the throne not prince Charles. Thats just what I thought I might be confused with something else though
References :
July 7th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
all royal family are hypocrites and self -serving people.
1 Future king is adulterer but his mother as a head of church close eyes on it.
2. when Tony Blare lied about Iraq again queen was calm. of course not her children were forced to go their amd mothers lost their children.
and more with monarchy we still have class division onto aristocrat and commoners.
they live on taxes and do nothing for people.
References :
July 7th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Are you serious, the king who set up the Church of England, Henry VIII, did so in order to legitimize his adultery and the vast majority of Kings since then have all had mistresses, with the exception of George III, George V, George VI and Edward VIII who only reigned for 11 months.
James I is believed to have had homosexual affairs, Restoration of Apethorpe Hall, undertaken in 2004–08, revealed a previously unknown passage linking the bedchambers of James and George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham.
Charles II through his affairs with Nell Gwyn, Barbara Villiers, the Duchess of Portsmouth and Louise de Keroualle he fathered several children.
James II kept a variety of mistresses, including Arabella Churchill and Catherine Sedley, and was reputed to be "the most unguarded ogler of his time.
William III throughout his marriage had one acknowledged mistress, Elizabeth Villiers.
George I preferred the company of his mistress to his wife, Melusine von der Schulenburg, by whom he had two daughters in 1692 and 1693.
George II George II had had an illegitimate son, Johann Ludwig, Graf von Wallmoden-Gimborn by his mistress Amalie von Wallmoden, Countess of Yarmouth. The most famous of his mistresses was Henrietta Howard, Countess of Suffolk, who was one of his wife’s Caroline’s ladies of the bedchamber.
George IV Soon after he reached the age of 21, fell in love with a Roman Catholic, Maria Anne Fitzherbert, who was a widow, the couple contracted a marriage on 15 December 1785 at her house in Park Street, Mayfair. Legally the union was void as the King’s assent was never requested. However, Mrs. Fitzherbert believed that she was the Prince of Wales’s canonical and true wife, holding the law of the Church to be superior to the law of the State. For political reasons, the union remained secret and Mrs. Fitzherbert promised not to publish any evidence relating to it. George IV then committed bigamy by marrying Caroline of Bruswick.
William IV, from the early 1790s until 1811, William lived with his mistress, the actress Dorothy Jordan. They had 10 children who took the surname Fitzclarence.
Edward VII had mistresses throughout his married life.
Both Prince Charles and his wife committed adultery, who he was having sex with before his marriage is of no consequence or are you suggesting that just because a person is in line to the throne they should not have sex before marriage, though what this or anything to do with a person’s sex life has to do with his ability to be King is beyond me.
If every man and woman in the world who committed adultery were tarred and feathered and deported to Siberia it would have the largest population in the world and I doubt there would be enough feathers.
References :