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?

You're talking about things which mostly happened decades ago, some of which have little to do with how a family 'functions'.

How are the various 'branches' of the royal family of Harry's generation 'dysfunctional'? Obviously none of us, including you, really has a clue what goes on behind closed doors. but I don't look at the Montecito family and think that they're so much more 'functional' than their contemporaries. Quite the opposite.

I am not going to agree with you that Harry and Megan are less functional than KC.

KC befriended a prolific sex offender and publicly defended a paedophile. He married a girl barely out of her teenage years and conducted an affair throughout the marriage.Irrespective of when he did these things they are not the mark of a person whose morality is in any way functional or to be respected.

Harry on the other hand has written a book and denigrated the behaviour of his father, step mother and brother.

The house of Windsor is dysfunctional. I dont consider that it is very difficult to assume the genesis of their issues and it didn't begin with Harry, or his wife.
They are simply another branch of an extremely abhorrent dynasty.

I think every family is a bit dysfunctional but being in the spotlight and under constant scrutiny doesn't help.

The thought of having your closest and most trusted family members write a book about you (that millions will read!) must add extra pressure to relationships and further prove that nobody can be trusted.

It's all very sad, for everyone involved.

@IcedPurple It was very recently that the Queen supported Andrew in covering up his offending.
She allowed him to hide from legal servers in Royal grounds, to avoid being questioned by US police, and paid £12.5 million to make the whole thing go away.
Beatrice and Eugenie said that Andrew was innocent and they supported him.
The family helped Andrew escape and real consequences for his crimes.

If we actually talk about the family set up rather than the business side of the institution the present day royals seem to be pretty much ok apart from Andrew, and even he seems to have a happy family dynamic, his ex wife and daughters appear to love him all the other royal marriages seem to be stable, no rumours of divorce or discord from the rumour mill for anyone, they seem to be ticking along ok.

@LadyVictoriaSponge You have a very low bar for okay then. Someone's spouse and kids loving them does not make it a functional family.

Lots of families are dysfunctional. You just have an obsession with the RF.

I don’t really understand your point, they all seems happy in their relationships I don’t know why that is a low bar.

Rapist of sex trafficked teenage girl, dodgy financial dealings, heavy alcohol use, cold parenting, etc etc
But they all love each other so it is all okay.

Who are the heavy drinkers and drug users?(as you said in earlier posts)

Who are the cold parents? Zara and Mike? Sophie and Edward?

Heavy drinkers - Loads of them. Margaret, Charles, Camilla, Harry, even Queen and Queen Mother drank a fair bit, and Philip certainly when he was younger.
Harry is the only one who has admitted using drugs. But probably most of his cousins as well.

Gosh you know a lot about the Royal family’s drinking and drug use, are you staff?

You really don’t have your facts straight at all.

Queen Elizabeth II did not support Andrew at all. She stripped him of all his royal titles and rank that she had the power to strip. Duke of York and Prince Andrew titles she had no power to strip. She removed him from all public royal engagements. After her death, King Charles III has since removed him from all his charitable trust patronage positions and stripped him of RF bodyguards…so Andrew has to privately pay for security now.

Parliament has supported Andrew by letting him keep his Duke of York title. It’s the scuzzy Tories that are actively refusing to do anything.

And the Prince title is his by birth, only he can renounce it, no one can take it from him.

She supported his right as a British citizen to not be served a warrant, detained or questioned by foreign police on British soil. The same right we all have btw…US/Russian/Chinese/Australian/any foreign police can’t fly over here and arrest one of us. They have to go through the same court channels for extradition.

As it turned out, the US police decided there was NO EVIDENCE of any CRIME, so no request for extradition was done. So Prince Andrew hasn’t even been charged with any crime by US or U.K. police. This is where your “rape” comments fall short because according to the US and U.K. laws, it isn’t illegal/rape to have sex with a trafficked 17yr old when you are unaware they were trafficked. Now we may disagree with this, similar to how when I married my DH it wasn’t illegal/rape for him to force me to have sex with him by any means he chose…but the law is the law. You can’t factually say someone has committed a crime, when what they did isn’t recognised as a crime.

Andrew did an undisclosed £ settlement of a CIVIL suit. Again, civil lawsuits are done when there is NO EVIDENCE of any CRIME and the plaintiff is seeking restitution/damages on ethical or moral grounds.

I am honestly not attempting to insult anybody here; although what I am about to say next will certainly be perceived in such a way by those who have a vested interest in misperceiving my sentiments.

It is extremely interesting the lengths which people in general will go to in order to excuse the behaviours, present, historical and alleged of the Royal family.
Things have been excused and minimised throughout this and indeed other threads over the past weeks and months which would presumably have the same people rather disgusted, displeased and/or enraged if the perpetrators had not been royal, or heaven forfend, working class.

This is not to insult or disparage royal sympathisers , simply because the media is a very powerful entity within this country and its motives have been very clear recently; damage limitation and spin has very much been the order of the day for quite a while now.

I can hardly conceive of the cognitive dissonance amongst a large proportion of people when discussing the behaviour of the RF, Andrew and Charles in particular.
I find it difficult to understand that there is far more anger and vitriol towards H&M than towards the elder family members who befriended Jimmy bloody Saville and Jeffrey Epstein.
It's almost as if protecting the reputation of the RF is more important than sympathising with trafficked women and children and patients abused within their hospital beds; because you simply cannot hold both positions in any way which approaches moral validity or logical discernment.

The conclusion is that the reputation of the RF is so very important to the continued congruence of the world view of so very many people and it is totally astounding, if sadly not bewildering given the obvious power of the mainstream media machine.

I'm beginning to believe that as a society we are beginning to deserve what is coming to us and that is necessarily rather a frightening position to have to hold.

@Leemoe
No objection to anything else but this:
He married a girl barely out of her teenage years….Irrespective of when he did these things they are not the mark of a person whose morality is in any way functional or to be respected.

How is a 29yr old marrying a 20yr old immoral and so on? I married my DH at 20 when he was 28….what did we do wrong?

@Leemoe

Thank you
Very well said

Who mentioned 'KC'?

I was talking about the royals of Harry's generation, all of whom, from the outside at least, seem to have 'functional' families. With the arguable exception of Harry himself.

None of which has anything to do with the 'functionality' of the royal family, however each term be defined.

Which just confirms my point about the silliness of the 'dysfunctional' term. It means whatever the user wants it to mean.

I personally think it is unfair to label people by association. Many years ago I became friends (not romantically involved) with a lovely man who was kind, generous and recognised within the community as member of the local church, etc. It was a complete shock to all of us when he was arrested for pedophilia and most of his friends were in complete denial until the trial. We found it very hard to accept that this man was not who we all thought he was and seriously wondered if he had been falsely accused.

Both Prince Andrew and King Charles have been accused on this thread of supporting pedophiles and are found guilty by association with them. I would hold that both of them were very naive, and that Andrew was arogant enough to assume that all young girls would want to sleep with him. I can see how easily someone from a sheltered background could be deceived.

Similarly, many people were taken in by Jimmy Saville. I always thought he was a little strange, but never imagined he was anything other than kind. I thought Benny Hill was much more creepy. Being a poor judge of character isn't a crime in my book.

@IcedPurple
Dysfunctional for me re the royals means the sort of people who consort and protect sex offenders and pedophiles and act bewildered when ( lightly ) questioned .

Dysfunctional for me re the royals means the sort of family who attempt to blacken one another's name in the media in order to bolster their own image

Dysfunctional for me means to sort of 70year odd old man insisting that a population under economic and social strain pay at least 100 million for his unnecessary vanity magic hat ceremony
Is that clear enough for you ?
Is that clear enough for you ?

@Epiphany2023
👏👏👏 well put.

@Novella4 I'm fairly sure I never asked for your opinion but thanks all the same.

@Novella4
This is a bit unfair:
Dysfunctional for me means to sort of 70year odd old man insisting that a population under economic and social strain pay at least 100 million for his unnecessary vanity magic hat ceremony

Hes not insisting on his coronation and he’s cut it down to 25% of the size of his mothers coronation in 1953 which cost £1.57m. £1.57m in 1953 is worth £34.7m now. So a coronation a quarter the size of hers should be a quarter of the costs…so £8.7m. We can well afford that imho. That’s less than the pay raise that Parliament votes for itself twice a year!

Where did you get £100m from?

@Epiphany2023
You would have a point if the associations were a one off

But re Charles and pedophiles and sex offenders we have ( currently known , God knows what is still to be uncovered )
: his uncle - Mountbatten.
:his brother -still hiding from the FBI
His friend Peter Ball
His friend Saville

That's off the top of my head