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?

Sorry should be trafficked or under age of consent.

@Onnabugeisha You have no idea what Andrew thought since he was never questioned by the police as he refused to be. And his TV interview was obviously a total lie.

And anyone who has read what the parties on that island looked like knew it was ultra dodgy.
But you have revealed that you will stoop to any depth to defend the RF.

? What support of a convicted pedophile? Charles hasn’t supported a single pedophile after conviction in a court of law. And how am I lying, when I quoted facts from Wikipedia about Charles being a witness for the police inquiry and assisting them?

First, the U.K. police decided not to interview him as there was no evidence of a crime. Secondly, the US police had no right to request to interview him per international law as a British citizen on British soil.

True, we have no idea whether Prince Andrew knew Guiffre was trafficked or not. But imho, it is not likely that he did know or could have known. It’s still beyond the pale to assume he did know and to call it rape and a crime, when even Guiffre’s own testimony says Andrew did not know she was trafficked. That she had not told him or hinted at it at all.

I had already posted an article outlining how he supported Peter Ball.
I then posted quotes from the article again. Just read my post. He did a LOT more than just give evidence to a police enquiry.
Charles actively supported him.

I do not think Charles is a paedophile. I do think he is quite happy to support paedophiles. First Jimmy Saville and then Peter Ball.

I remember the first Palace statement put out when Saville died. It was far warmer and more regretful than the one put out when Diana died. I wish I had screenshot it as it soon disappeared as Savilles behaviour was put in the public eye.

But you have revealed that you will stoop to any depth to defend the RF.

No, I’m being factual. You’re the one stooping to exaggeration and frabrication to smear and defame.

The US police appealed for help to get Andrew to talk to him. He refused. They dropped it as it was clear the Royal Family would prevent them even talking to Andrew and there was nothing they could do about it.

If we accept for argument’s sake that the Royal Family is dysfunctional you then have to ask the following:

1. is it simply a family that is dysfunctional but also just happens to be the Royal Family? Or

2. is the family dysfunctional because it is the Royal Family? Is there something in the institution of the Royal Family itself that creates and enables dysfunctionality?

if it is 1, then there is no point in trying to rebuild the RF or the monarchy as a whole?

if it is 2, why are many other families dysfunctional despite not being Royal? And how would a new monarchy ensure that any future RF isn’t dysfunctional?

Charles support of a convicted paedophile after he had been in prison.

@AlecTrevelyan006 We do not know, but I think it is probably dysfunctional because it is a hereditary Monarchy with dysfunction built into it.

Yes, and I put in quotes from the exact same article as well.

The facts are he has never supported a convicted sex offender. He may have supported alleged sex offenders, but that happens quite frequently among everyday people because it’s often a complete shock and people don’t want think a person they thought they knew is actually horrible.

There is nothing morally wrong with abiding by the key principle of justice, which is innocent until proven guilty. Charles has merely been unwilling to condemn an unmasked sex offender or pedophile until they’ve been convicted.

This is actually a good ethical position to have imho, and one he shares with the majority of people. Most people don’t think mob justice or trial by the media are a good way to determine guilt or innocence.

Please don’t lie, Ball wasn’t convicted or imprisoned until 2015. He was released in 2017. And in 2018 we see Charles III assisting the CPS and police in an inquiry into further alleged historic abuse.

Yes, they can ask, but US police cannot force any British citizen to go there for an interview. It works both ways you know. It’s got nothing to do with the RF, it’s a right we all have to not be subject to the powers of foreign police forces while we are in the U.K.

they are hugely dysfunctional. They come from a bloodline of:

affairs
absent parents
paedophiles
incest
betrayal
murder
ostracising the disabled (Queen's cousins)

And don’t we all love it! Why make The Crown about a normal, always happy family? Boring!

Why have an infinite number of books/films tv programmes/ a musical no less, about Henry viii + wives ? The list goes on and on and on.

British history is interesting . And it’s the same the world over - we care about rulers - mad and bad - from the dawn of time.

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/14/friendship-with-prince-charles-made-paedophile-bishop-peter-ball-impregnable
read this. He sympathised about Ball’s treatment and even gave him somewhere to live afterwards. If you think that’s helping the police and not openly supporting a sex offender then I pity you.

At the time, Ball was not a convicted sex offender. There’s nothing wrong with going by innocent until proven guilty.

We probably all do, to be fair. I’m pretty sure none of us come from squeaky clean bloodlines if we go back far enough.

@Onnabugeisha
No you are misinformed

Ball had accepted a caution which means he accepted guilt.
I think Charles claimed not to know or not to understand what a caution was ...
He gave Ball a house on land he ( Charles) owned after this

@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.

@Blossomtoes
Well only you can speak for your family but none of that occurs in mine thank you very much ! A parking ticket is the worst of it - how very dull of us !

And you completely miss the point - your unfaithful , time serving relatives ( as you state ) aren't taking hundred of millions a year from the population to live a life of luxury and head of state
This ' we all all as dysfunctional as the royals ' line is untrue and self defeating

It costs a lot of money to keep someone in prison @Novella4 😂😂

@Onnabugeisha
Oh and re Andrew
Andrew stated clearly during his BBC interview that he was more than willing to speak to the FBI , wanted to do so in fact . Pledged was the word he used I think

Well , it's just that 350 million 'royal' dysfunctional family having a little laugh at our expense (literally ) isn't it ?
How many days has it been ? 1000? 1200? Still waiting for him to honour his pledge to help the FBI

Peter Ball was a convicted sex offender who preyed on vulnerable young men. He spent many years deliberately ingratiating himself with people he considered important and influential in order to protect himself from criticism. Charles was not the only person who was taken in by Ball's manipulation, and the broader criticism for failing to protect Ball's victims should really be aimed at the Church of England, both the institution and specific individuals within it.

I think you mean £102 million @Novella4. It’s taking a while for you to get it right.