"Love Is a Many Splendoured Thing"
So ironic considering what he and his doxie did to his first wife.
That poses a question.
Royals or no, the common (no pun intended) problem is that a man appears to have cynically married for appearances and success, while being duplicitous.
Consider the typical remarried heterosexual man. He wed young (statistically). He married a woman he wanted to raise his children. He often married a girl who adored him, and allowed him to lead or dominate. The woman often saw the man's career as the dominant one and the anchor for her security.
Later, they get to know one another, have conflict, and eventually do not accept the other.
Contrast that to a gay man's progress through relationships. He finds another, chooses to enter into a long-term relationship, but is under no pressue to marry or have community property or follow a partner's lead in career. After a period of best behavior and attempts to make it work, the split, without the pressures of the straight world, much less those on a royal couple. Gay men get away with the same fickleness without the heteronormative condemnation for the re-do. Gay privilege?
I'm no apologist for the King, nor fan of royals in general, but I don't see his behavior as either atypical or outrageous. Diana's alleged naivete, innocence, or subordination doesn't change the pattern of a great many royals, especially kings, both before and during Victorian times and after.
If there is any justice in reigns, maybe the outworkings of the crisis of King Edward are due, as the same family that forbid him to marry and reign now conferred the King's privilege to do it in a sibling's line of succession. From outside the kingdom looking, the empire doesn't seem to resent the new King for it.