Dumbledore knocks up mistress at 68!!!!!!!!

Sir Michael Gambon is set to have a second child with his mistress at the age of 68.

The actor – who plays Hogwarts’ headmaster Albus Dumbledore in the ‘Harry Potter’ film franchise – already has 17-month-old son Michael with lover Philippa Hart and is said to be “worried” about how the news of the latest edition to his family will affect his wife Lady Anne, who he has been married to for 45 years.

A family friend said: “Michael and Philippa are delighted that she’s pregnant again, but he is very worried about what his wife thinks of all this.

“He says it will cause him a lot of hassle if it comes out, but his private arrangements are so complicated he can’t really expect a completely smooth run.”

Michael shares a London home with Philippa, but also spends time at his own apartment in the UK capital and at his family estate in Kent.

When he is in Kent, he lives as man and wife with Lady Anne, who he has a 44-year-old son with.

The friend added: “He continues to see his wife and mistress, but is very secretive about both relationships. He may be getting on, but Michael is still a wizard with the ladies.”

Philippa, 43, was reportedly keen to add to her brood as she does not want Michael to be an only child. She was also said to be worried she might struggle to conceive if she did not have another baby soon.

The source explained to Britain’s The Sun newspaper: “Philippa wanted a brother or sister for little Michael because when he gets into his teens, it’s possible Sir Michael might not be around.

“Sir Michael’s happy, but he’s got a few more frown lines since telling his wife. She knows everything and seems to be taking it in her stride.”

Michael’s agent is yet to comment on rumours he is expecting his second child with Philippa.

Michael took over the role of Dumbledore in ‘Harry Potter and The Prisoner Of Azkaban’, the third film in the series, following the death of Richard Harris.

He's afraid his WIFE might not take the news too kindly that he's knocked up his MISTRESS AGAIN?

Gee, DO YA THINK, NIMROD?

Somebody should euthanize him and his nasty mistress.

You know, this whole article reeks of 'missing the point'. The punch value in this is way off base - everyone is supposed to "ooh" and "aah" over the fact that this crotchety idiot was still able to spawn even though he's pushing 70, but they're conveniently missing the fact that he's a slimy adulterer who doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself.

"Still a wizard with the ladies"? Hardly. He's only a 'wizard' with these stupid women who sit back and tolerate this kind of crap. If I was his wife, I'd have used a bit of my own magic and made this asshat 'disappear' years ago.

I hope Lady Anne chops of his wizard and chokes his mistress with it.

This is so fucked up and complicated on so many levels it's unfathomable to me. It's easy to say the wife should get a divorce, but who knows what fucked up antiquated famblee rule she might break that could do her or her son damage? The MAIN thing that absolutely floors me about this is the mistress. How can she be thrilled and delighted to be giving birth to BASTARD kyds? These little fuckers will grow up ridiculed, teased, and God only knows what else because their mother is a whore! She obviously planned this last baybee, and probably the first bastard as well, because she as much as admits it with the".... it might be difficult to conceive later on...." comment.

I truly hope that the wife gets the last laugh. I hope that the bastard kyds and the mistress go completely unrecognized in the eyes of the law when the fucker dies, that the old man dies within the next year or so and it's found that ALL famblee assets are legally under control of the wife. I further hope that he was too selfish, sorry, and lazy to make any legal concessions for his bastard kyds and that the whore of a mistress ends up on public assistance. It's not quite so trendy and enviable to be the carrier of bastard spawn of a married man when there isn't millions coming into your bank account, you are considered a common, unemployed, whore, sorry bag of shit like this worthless slut and depend on the state to provide you and your bastards with basic food and shelter.

That's exactly what this whore deserves.

Actually I really like Gambon. He's hilarious with journalists because he deliberately tells outrageous lies in interviews just to see if they'll dumbly print them.

As for his relationship arrangements, it's hard to describe but this is actually relatively common amongst the upper-middle classes and upper classes in non-Catholic western Europe (UK, France, Scandinavia, Netherlands, Denmark, etc). And it runs for women as well as men. A spouse is a life partner, a companion, and a financial partner. But aside from a couple years after honeymoon and a couple of kids/heirs, the couple aren't expected to still be having sex with each other. That's what lovers are for. The spouse allows it because he or she too is doing the physical thing with someone else. Jealousy is considered childish. It's an arrangement that, believe it or not, often keeps the divorce rate amazingly low in those circles.

As for having children with one's lovers, that's against the rules.

As for pushing 70 and becoming a father again, that's just sincerely disgusting.

- - - - - - - -
"The death of creativity is a pram in the hallway"
- Cyril Connolly

All of us CF women are morally loose because if birthing a baybee is never a consequence to sex that we will consider, then that HAS to mean that we enjoy sex and that just isn't acceptable to the general public, especilly the religious sector. In general, society views CF women as overly sexual, promiscuious, unnatural, selfish, and child haters. I have personally been acquainted with so many moomie whores who had perfectly good men at home, when they were'nt at work paving the way for their SAH-MOOOISM, that I probably couldn't list their names on just one piece of paper.


I notice that with all the right-wing caterwauling about morals, I keep running into single fundie whore moos. But that's OK because they are HETEROSEKSHUL and breeding more little warriors for Gawd.

I think that the woman is doubly a whore for having a parasite by a 70 year old man. Call me old-fashioned, but any child not from a married couple or adopted is in my book a BASTARD, Maybe if there was more societal onus on single moos and their bastards, we wouldn't be seeing mor than half of all births being out of wedlock.

MerlynHerne Wrote:

> I notice that with all the right-wing caterwauling
> about morals, I keep running into single fundie
> whore moos. But that's OK because they are
> HETEROSEKSHUL and breeding more little warriors
> for Gawd.
>
> I think that the woman is doubly a whore for
> having a parasite by a 70 year old man. Call me
> old-fashioned, but any child not from a married
> couple or adopted is in my book a BASTARD, Maybe
> if there was more societal onus on single moos and
> their bastards, we wouldn't be seeing mor than
> half of all births being out of wedlock.


I hate that shit as well. Back when I was involved in church some 20 odd years ago, not really that long ago, it was REAL "bad" to be an "unwed mother" and these girls were shipped off to unwed homes left and right. HOWEVER, much like everything else when it comes to religious fundies, when it started becoming trendy in the media and started hitting a little too close to home, they basically changed their moral stance on it. NOW, since so many church people have kyds who fuck like rabbits, while they still peach against it they overlook the fact that the girls are sluts and embrace the end product;'A gift from God". The stigma has been replaced with, "It must be God's will", or "It's important this child is raised as a Christian", or "We must not judge Sluttina, but embrace her with God's love and help her", or "Her decision was to choose LIFE, so we must support her spiritually, emotionally, and financially"...etc........

As recently as the mid 80's Sluttina would have been turned away from many, if not most, of these churches as far as her continued participation in youth group activities, any youth leadership positions, etc.....All of the other parents of teen girls would have shunned her parents and would have NOT allowed their daughters to mix and mingle with a sinner like Sluttina. Now though, since getting knocked up is a real possibility for THEIR daughters, they tend to hold onto their stones a little longer before casting them. They still cling to Leviticus though with it's infamous......"Man can't lie with man as he does with woman..."although other than that they pretty much say that The Old Testament laws are for Jewish people, except that one of course as it is so commonly quoted and used against homosexual males, primarily. These people RARELY speak out publically about female homosexuality, but that's just because they don't have a shred of scripture to back up their claims, other than the ones where it tells women not to wear pants. What about feminine lesbians though? Since they don't have any alleged biblical answers, they generally avoid THAT can of worms.

NOWHERE in The Bible does it say that a woman can't lie with a woman as she does with man. This would of course be a very male view of things and any man of that time period would have thought that ANY female sex aside from a married woman with her husband was sinful. This further re-enforces my belief that The Holy Bible was written and inspired by men, rather than an omnipotent being. Also, in my interpretation, it is a physical impossibility for a man to have traditional sex with another man in the same way he would with a woman. The very nature of male homosexuality has little similarity to traditional male/female sex, except perhaps the orgasm. FEMALE homosexuality, unless a dildo is involved but even then, is as far removed from traditional male/female sex in the physical sense as possible. Therefore, for either sex to ".....lay with it's own kind..." AS IT DOES the opposite sex, is 99% not possible, so it's a moot point and the scripture means something else entirely.

Of course I have my own ideas as to what it DOES mean, but I have said enough. I need to do a biblical interpretation by "kim", but something tells me it wouldn't be widely accepted.

Amethyst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> As for his relationship arrangements, it's hard to
> describe but this is actually relatively common
> amongst the upper-middle classes and upper classes
> in non-Catholic western Europe (UK, France,
> Scandinavia, Netherlands, Denmark, etc). And it
> runs for women as well as men. A spouse is a life
> partner, a companion, and a financial partner.
> But aside from a couple years after honeymoon and
> a couple of kids/heirs, the couple aren't expected
> to still be having sex with each other. That's
> what lovers are for. The spouse allows it because
> he or she too is doing the physical thing with
> someone else. Jealousy is considered childish.
> It's an arrangement that, believe it or not, often
> keeps the divorce rate amazingly low in those
> circles.
>

Thats because those societies have a healthier and a mature view of dating, sex and marriage than Americans. They dont get jealous when a spouse mentions an old relationship that ended years before they married their husband or wife. European women are not jealous of other women who are prettier and thinner and they dont demand constant attention from their husbands and boyfriends.

allison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amethyst Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > As for his relationship arrangements, it's hard
> to
> > describe but this is actually relatively common
> > amongst the upper-middle classes and upper
> classes
> > in non-Catholic western Europe (UK, France,
> > Scandinavia, Netherlands, Denmark, etc). And it
> > runs for women as well as men. A spouse is a
> life
> > partner, a companion, and a financial partner.
> > But aside from a couple years after honeymoon
> and
> > a couple of kids/heirs, the couple aren't
> expected
> > to still be having sex with each other. That's
> > what lovers are for. The spouse allows it
> because
> > he or she too is doing the physical thing with
> > someone else. Jealousy is considered childish.
> > It's an arrangement that, believe it or not,
> often
> > keeps the divorce rate amazingly low in those
> > circles.
> >
>
> Thats because those societies have a healthier and
> a mature view of dating, sex and marriage than
> Americans. They dont get jealous when a spouse
> mentions an old relationship that ended years
> before they married their husband or wife.
> European women are not jealous of other women who
> are prettier and thinner and they dont demand
> constant attention from their husbands and
> boyfriends.

It has to be much better for a woman to have that sort of self-esteem. The sexual revolution with open marriage was tried here in the States but it did not take. Jealousy reared it's ugly head. Women tended to get left out as they aged as Americans look at an older woman as "ugly" or no longer desirable in a sexual sense. An older woman here in the USA has a hard time finding a lover outside of marriage or has to get a gigolo which further lowers the self-respect while men have had no problem finding young lovers despite age. Many committed people openly leer at younger folks despite how the partner feels about it. It would be nice if the same thing could work here...