The Royal Family is incredibly dysfunctional

[babsanderson]

They are an incredibly dysfunctional family with lots of internal rivalries, poor parenting and a strange culture of stay silent and we will protect you from actual crimes, but speak out and we will destroy you.
They really are a mess and I suspect they are so dysfunctional, they do not realise just how messed up the family dynamics are.
But maybe such a dysfunctional family is inevitable within a hereditary monarchy where your accident of birth means you have access to more money and power than your siblings and other close relatives?

And will a certain poster stop with the libellous comments! First they are not proven and are purely speculation.
I have reported them and hope Mumsnet delete them before they get sued.

What about this erroneous comment of yours regarding the 1995 letter?

babsanderson · Yesterday 18:59
@Onnabugeisha Peter Ball was a convicted paedophile and had been to prison. He was convicted a second time. Charles supported him after his first conviction. So he was guilty and Charles knew it.

Conveniently fallacious accidental error on purpose that just so happens paints King Charles in the worst light possible.

@jeffgoldblum Are you talking about me? Nearly all of my comments have quotes and links to newspaper articles.
Royalists just do not like people to be reminded of the truth.

No ! I have no interest in your posts at all .

This link has Charles full letter to Peter Ball.

"In 1993, when Todd’s allegations led to Ball being given a police caution for sexual abuse (the lowest level of punishment possible, rarely used in such cases), he was forced to resign after just a year in post as Bishop of Gloucester. Prince Charles then stepped in, arranged for his friend and confidant to be housed in a property purchased specifically by the Duchy of Cornwall to rent to Ball, and continued regularly to invite him to his own home at Highgrove."

www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/boy-exposed-sexual-abuse-cover-up-went-top-church-england/

This is true and of course you are correct;
but nobody comes to these threads to be educated or to change their position when faced with incontrovertible evidence of evil.

You are wasting your time here.
By all means continue to engage but recognise this for what it is;

A study in the success of media psychological manipulation of the masses.
Evidence of the power of the mind's ability to maintain cognitive dissonance in order to protect the subject from psychological/emotional pain and existential threat to their world view.

When you stop attempting to change minds and simply place yourself in the position of the observer it really is quite a (terrifying) spectacle to behold.

Exactly. The Archbishop of Canterbury Carey was the one that protected Ball, decided he could return to ministry, assigned him within Charles’ diocese and every time Charles or his staff asked about Ball and the 1993 caution, Carey or his staff reassured Charles there was nothing to see and confirmed Balls’ manipulative campaign to paint himself as a victim of false accusations.

The churches are full of paedophiles who have been protected by the church.

But we are talking about the Royal Family and specifically King Charles role.

The inquiry has some damming stuff about Carey

”The CPS, the police and Mr Todd believed Peter Ball’s resignation would put an end to his ministry and to his influence, and thereby the risk he posed to children and young men. That was not to be the case. Almost as soon as the ink was dry upon Peter Ball’s resignation, he and his brother began a campaign for Archbishop George Carey to exonerate him and restore him to ministry. This campaign continued, with frequent letters and conversations with senior staff at Lambeth Palace, for over 17 years. It only stopped with Peter Ball’s further arrest in 2012.

285. The evidence shows Archbishop Carey always intended to restore Peter Ball to some form of ministry at some point through the grant of permission to officiate. As Peter Ball said of their meeting on 7 April 1993, one month after his resignation:

“Archbishop George Carey called me to him at Canterbury. And sitting in a window looking out on the cathedral he made a solemn promise that the Church would not take any further action against me because I had been punished enough.”[1]

Following this, Bishop Michael Ball wrote to the Archbishop to thank him for his continuing faith in Peter Ball and his wish to see him minister again in some way in the future.[2]

286. Just six weeks after Peter Ball’s caution and resignation, the Archbishop told a group of evangelical bishops who supported Peter Ball that it was his “intention to see him in some retired ministry in the future, but there is still a lot of healing to be done”.[3]”

They don't. They just think they do.

Archbishop Carey told the Inquiry that he had been anxious to keep Peter Ball away from ministry for as long as possible.[4] However his correspondence shows that by July 1993 he was writing to Bishop Michael Ball about organising a “cautious return to ministry” for Peter Ball.[5] To the extent to which Archbishop Carey did postpone Peter Ball’s return to ministry, his reasons for doing so were to protect Peter Ball and the Church from negative publicity,[6] not out of concern for what he described as the “so-­called ‘victims’”[7] or to prevent future offending.[8] In June 1994 he wrote to Bishop Michael Ball:

“I have never disguised the fact that I have always longed for Peter to have a ministry in the Church again but the basic problem has always been balancing Peter’s desire to get cracking with questions about his health and, perhaps of equal importance, the credibility of the Church in the eyes of the public ... having said that, I have consistently said it has been my intention to restore Peter to ministry gradually.”

288. Archbishop Carey’s opinion that Peter Ball would return to ministry set the tone for everything that followed. The Archbishop’s then chaplain, Reverend Colin Fletcher, recalls they were “working all the time in a framework set by the Archbishop that assumed that Peter Ball would return to ministry at some stage in the future”.[9] Dr Andrew Purkis agreed the “direction of travel”
     had been set by the Archbishop and so the best his advisers at Lambeth Palace could do was to make Peter Ball’s return to ministry as gradual and as far as possible into the future as they could.[10]

289. By September 1993, only six months after his resignation, Peter Ball was permitted to administer the eucharist privately in the convent in Truro. This was extended to small conferences and clergy retreats in July 1994.[11] Peter Ball and Bishop Michael Ball wrote often to Lambeth Palace to press for a public return to ministry. The tone of their letters led Dr Purkis to warn the Archbishop that Peter Ball was trying to manipulate him.[12] Reverend Fletcher, in June 1994 likewise concluded Peter Ball was “manipulative, status ridden and hypocritical (about money and obedience)”, and thought he put an “intolerable burden” on the Archbishop.[13]

Because he clearly is a heavy drinker.

It’s made up shit. Why people feel the need to do it is beyond me.

It’s made up shit. Why people feel the need to do it is beyond me.

No idea. I think they must be very bored in their real lives

Because he clearly is a heavy drinker.

Oh please show the documentation evidence you have to show that. Rather than just your claims, like much of the rest of the posts.

I've heard the rf , make all new members partake in a bizarre hazing ritual to see if they are up to royal life!

I’ve heard they make them pursue and kill a goat, then eat its entrails raw before bathing in its blood.

@Butitsnotfunnyisititsserious There are many many press reports of his drinking, his rosacea and swollen hands and fingers all lead to me saying this.

Let’s have some links to those press reports then.

@babsanderson

come Dr House, I can’t wait to see these reports

Or he could be like me & have several autoimmune conditions; which I think could be possible, especially since Harry shared in Spare that his father is in pain & has to do daily exercises.

Yes, well this great lengths Carey went to reinstate Ball are relevant to King Charles role because King Charles was told by Archbishop Carey on more than one occasion that there was nothing wrong with Peter Ball and the fact that within 6mos of Ball’s resignation, the Archbishop allowed Ball to celebrate communion in Charles’ diocese were sending unequivocal messages from the principal leader of the entire CoE to King Charles that Ball’s lies were true.

You castigate King Charles for his stupidity in falling for Ball, but really he fell for Archbishop’ Carey’s defence and campaign to return Ball to ministry. If you can’t trust the Archbishop of Canterbury to tell you the truth about a bishop, who can you trust? Definitely not the media…

Really @Blossomtoes ! , well I heard they have to choose a card and whatever game it says they have to play! .
All the games are children's games and fairly straightforward, however if they pick the hide and seek card .... we'll the rest of the family seek them and if they find them they kill them! .
Otherwise they all die from the curse of their ancestors! 😱

Which is clearly why Charles drinks! , I mean who wouldn't under these circumstances?