The Netherlands spent the entire twentieth century reigned by queens: Wilhelmina, Juliana, and Beatrix.
I do find your perspective interesting, and I suppose I have a different view on what is civilized behaviour. My perspective is that if I am not personally involved with someone, all other things being equal, it is not my business what anyone else does in their bedrooms. This includes politicians and heads of state.
I suppose my perspective could be summed up in a quote by former Canadian Prime Minister P.E. Trudeau, "“The view we take here is that there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.”
I wouldn’t say exactly where a line can be crossed, but it’s probably when, ahem, matters, leave the bedroom. For example, I would have been far more concerned about Edward VIII’s and Wallis Simpson’s political leanings than the bare bones of the affair that they had.
**
jimbeam**[ul]
[li]Edward VII - king from 1901 to 1910[/li][li]George V - king from 1910 to 1936 - Elizabeth’s grandfather who during WWI adopted the family nameof Windsor[/li][li]Edward VIII - became Duke of Windsor and married Wallis Simpson[/li][li]George VI - king from 1936 to 1952 - Elizabeth’s father - who during WWII refused to leave London during the blitz[/li][/ul]
So for slightly over half of the last century there were kings rather than queens.
Also from 1890 to 1967 there were no male members of the House of Orange.
This is a joke, right? If you think Charles is bad with adultery, look up his great-great grandfather, King Edward VII, aka, “Edward the Caressor”. At least Charles was faithful to his one mistress-Edward, or “Bertie” (since his first name was really Albert), had several. In fact one of them, Alice Keppel, was the great-grandmother of Camilla.
Translation: In an era in which shagging around is fashionable like never before, Charles gets ragged on because Di was cute. Had Charles married horseface, he could have tupped whom he liked.
Unless he has something he really should get off his chest now, before the tabloids find out of their own accord.
For about a year in 1952-53, the U.K. had three queens: Queen Mary, widow of George V; Queen Elizabeth, widow of George VI; and the present Queen, granddaughter and daughter of the other two respectively.
There’s also a scene in one of Shakespeare’s historical plays depicting an encounter between three legitimate queens, though the Wars of the Roses had a great deal to do with why so many at once.
There’s a lot of Charles-bashing on this thread, and I note most of it comes from the left-hand shore of the pond.
I have a lot of time for Charles - he was forced into a marriage with a dimwitted, attention-seeking tart when he was in love with someone else, and was cast as the bad guy when it fell apart because the world and its media fell for the “People’s Princess” boloney.
Anyway, TBH very few people in the UK care who is the monarch. Honestly, if you didn’t know there was a monarch you could spend weeks in this country and not realise it. I can’t remember the last time the Queen figured in the news at all over here - the only royals that get any press are the younger generation and their private lives. As far as most Britons are concerned, the UK may as well be a republic with TB as president.
“Tupped” what a super word old boy and one I haven’t seen in years, by jingo!
Mind you for sheer class you can’t beat “Swived”
Toodle pip and all that
Colophon I wish we were a republic but you are so wrong about us wanting TB as president
Last time I asked a Swede that question, the answer I got was “Lucky Bastard”
I didn’t say we want him as a president; I said that as far as the majority of Britons are concerned, he may as well be. Let’s face it, Blair is the de facto head of state - the monarch’s role in running the country seems to consist of rubberstamping the odd bit of legislation and filling the empty spaces on stamps.
Slightly off topic, but it’s tangentially related and it’s been on my mind…
I find it mind-boggling that there was ever a Charles II after the unmitigated disaster that was the first King Charles. Seems to me the name ought to have been taken out of the rotation after that. Charles II was not anywhere near as bad as the first one, but what it seems like a really poor name choice for a future king of England.
Perhaps Charles II deliberately used that name to underscore the fact that, with the demise of the Commonwealth and the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660, he was the rightful heir to his father Charles I.
As for the current Prince of Wales - he may decide to choose a regnal name different from his own Christian name. It’s not an unheard of practice. Edward VII actually used the name Bertie (short for Albert) in his private life. Edward VIII was known by all his family and friends as David.
Let Chucky have his chance. He can’t be all bad–dogs don’t flee from him.
I liked Diana–I always felt sorry for her–she wasn’t prepared for the media onslaught and got no support from the Family, from what I dimly remember. She did show some vulgar colors over the years, but she loved her sons–which is more than perhaps Charles can say about his mum.
I’m only a Yank, and while I have respect for the Queen, it does not extend to her mother (I know, I know–they stayed in London during the Blitz–and?), OR her husband, who strikes me as a first class dick.
I think Fergie and what’s his name should have been able to stay together. I think Margaret should have been allowed to marry whom she pleased etc. I think the whole damned family suffered from Victoria’s shadow for too damned long.
Diana was many things-emotionally needy not the least of these–but she did drag the Royals into the 20th century, just as the world prepped to enter the 21st…
Sigh.
As I said, times have changed since e.g. Henry VIII.
Also adultery is certainly not part of the head of the Church of England’s job description.
Cite?
My perspective is that consenting adults can do whatever they like in private (though it depresses me if they are breaking their marriage vows).
However politicians take public money, pass laws restricting what all of us can do in bedrooms (and who we can marry etc) and use their families in pre-election publicity. They therefore should be exposed if they are hypocrites.
However at least politicians submit to election.
What makes me consider Charles unfit to inherit the posts of Monarch and Head of the Church of England is that he was too cowardly / greedy to marry the woman he loved (no doubt he thought he would lose his ‘jobs’ if he married Camilla after a divorce) and instead married simply in response to pressure to produce an heir.
Even the Daily Telegraph suggests that we skip Charles and go straight to William.
Oh really? Who ‘forced’ him?
Was it perhaps that he desperately wanted all the trappings of Monarchy far more than marrying the woman he loved?
I suppose Princess Di supporting a charity for land-mine victims or shaking hands with AIDs victims makes her ‘attention-seeking’?
Don’t you read the daily Court Circular pages? 
Many PMs have stated that the Queen is phenomenonally well versed in constitutional law and politics.
Elizabeth II has over 50s of experiance in government. She is probally better versed in British constitutional law than anyone else on the planet. But the moment she dies all that experiance dies with her. No matter how much tutoring he get’s Charles can’t hope to match it before he ascends the throne.