I agree which is why I think The Archbishop of Canterbury might well decline to do the coronation. All things being equal, they were both adulterers and should be judged by the same standard, in regards to the crown and trhe church. Fair is fair.
If the Archbishop refuses to crown Charles, that'll be the end of the CofE as the Established Church, so he'd better be very sure it's worth it. People aren't going to stand for the Church interfering in the succession and trying to force the issue of who becomes Head of State (because that's what a refusal to crown Charles would amount to).
As far as adultery by kings is concerned, I'll just refer you to the July 2008 newsletter. A lot of those illegitimate children were fathered by married men. The only kings not to have been crowned (Edward V and Edward VIII, unless I'm forgetting any) didn't commit adultery.
Last edited: