Why aren't kings allowed to have mistresses and bastards anymore?

Question

It seems weird that in the olden times with a more religious society mistresses were allowed. Yet in these laxer moral times there would be an outcry over it.

tear dust - where do you get that information from?

Answer 1

they are still allowed to have them just like anyone else is allowed to have them.
but the moral standard in the west is "don't get caught", and today the kings have less power to supress public opinion and the press and are more under the public eye so it might damage their public image.

Answer 2

It comes down to the "divine right of kings". In former times, kings could do much as they pleased, since it was believed that God had put them in a position of power.

You will remember that Charles I got into a small fracas over this and ended up losing his head.

From the time that it was established that power resided with the voters, kings had to at least appear to be a good moral influence. Not that there were any fewer mistresses etc, just that they were kept out of sight more.

It also became apparent in modern times, that the taxpayers were rather annoyed with paying for these little fripperies. So I think it came down to money more than morals.

Edit
Evie S. - you're quite right, but it was Edward VIII who was encouraged to abdicate because of Wallis Simpson. Which was a blessing in disguise, he would have been a disaster as a king. The truth about he and Wallis being Nazi sympathizers only became known to the public after his death. His father, King George V, was right in his opinion - Edward was an irresponsible twit.

Answer 3

I guess it´s because their power has been minimized. Take Henry VIII. He was a tyrant - so he made laws such as forbidding people to say that he might die. You could actually be convicted for saying that! No wonder people didn´t complain too loudly about his mistresses. I guess the wives would protest a bit, but you need to remember that they were often foreign princesses, and in case of, say, Anne of Cleve, not exactly powerful ones. So their wellbeing in their new home depended on not quarreling with their husbands.
Now, then again, the royal are more of role models than actual leaders. So naturally, people would protest if the one whose main purpose is to represent their country is unfaithful, because this reflects on the whole country. Right?

Answer 4

The existence of effective birth control has, by and large, eliminated illegitimate children. Obviously, mistresses still exist - witness how Prince Charles was boffing Camilla while still married to Diana - but it's become more secretive. When you own multiple residences and frequently have many people coming and going for legitimate reasons, it's not too hard to hide a simple affair if you're careful.

Answer 5

All very plausible answers, but in the last 50 years the press have been more active in following Royalty/ celebs and the rules of publicity have been relaxed, Plus the general public today are not as gullible as our forefathers and as such will not be fobbed by cover ups.
Also the spin doctors of today are better than 50 years ago.
So it might still be going on but the cover ups are more sophisticated.

Answer 6

Apparently, this rule prohibiting princes (if not kings) from taking mistresses has not reached either England or Monaco:

Example I: DNA tests have established that Prince Albert II of Monaco is the father of two children, Jazmin Grace Grimaldi and Alexandre Coste.

Example II: Camilla Parker Bowles is the great granddaughter of Alice Keppel, the last mistress or Edward VII (r. 1901-1910). When she first met Prince Charles at a polo match in 1972, she said something on the order of "my great grandmother was the mistress of your great grandfather, so how about it?"

Apparently, such liaisons run in the family--on both sides: Camilla is a descendant of Charles II as descended from his illegitmate son, Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond, by Louise de Keroualle, Duchess of Portsmouth, just as Diana Spencer is also a descendant of Charles II also through Charles Lennox, as well as through three other illegimate children of Charles II: Henry Fitzroy, by Barbara Villers, Charles Beauclerk, by Nell Gwyn, and James Crofts-Scot, by Lucy Walters.

Example III: Prince Charles' great uncle Edward VII, to whom he bears a remarkable resemblance, had a series of romances with married women before he settled on twice-divorced American Bessie Wallis Warfield Simpson:
------Freda Dudley Ward (dual British-American citizenship)
------Mildred Harris (American film actress)
------Lady Furness, Thelma Morgan (American of part Chilean ancestry)

Many historians believe that Edward VII was allowed, or perhaps encouraged, to abdicate more because of his pro-Nazi sympathies, which Wallis Simpson shared, than because of his marriage to Wallis Simpson. As Governor of Bermuda during World War II, he was out of the loop and unable to cause much further trouble.

Example IV: Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, has long had the reputation of a womanizer.

Answer 7

We are more civilised these days. It would not look good. More so than ever, the royal family are figure heads for the country they belong to. There's nothing good about the representative of GB, being a falanderist womaniser!

Answer 8

Who says so......they still do!!! Remember Charlie boy? Its never stopped him from having his fling and Camilla HAS got the ring on her finger despite the public outcry,wise up bud,she'll be your Queen next!!

Answer 9

It is possible that Elizabeth Windsor has three fathers to her four children. Philip Mountbatton is the father of Anne and Charles

Answer 10

Well he's not king yet but did you not notice Camilla in the background over the years.