How do we explain the actions of someone like Prince Andrew? Are the accusations against him smears?
If he's guilty, how does that impact the wider royal family and the queen?
I'd say that the collective assessment of the entire family based on Andrew's pervert tendencies isn't much different to such statements as "all white people are racists", "all police are violent" or "all men privileged". Treating the entire royal family as a collective unit as opposed to a collection of independent individuals is not far off the logic behind identity politics. I understand that they are a part of the same institution, not just a family, but the fact that each of them can only be responsible for themselves remains.
As for price Andrew, rotten apples happen in all families, this is why the term 'black sheep' was invented. And I think it isn't unusual for two children raised by the same parents under the same roof to take completely different paths in life. Why that may be the case is best explained by something that was mentioned elsewhere on the forum, that at this point of the cycle the soul isn't an infant. The current make-up of the soul is an outcome of many previous lives and I guess it's fair to say that Andrew's soul (assuming he has one) is likely to be on a different journey than that of the queen.
What do we mean when we say "useful idiots"... Do we mean they can't be held responsible for their actions or inactions in certain matters? Do we mean they don't know and so shouldn't be held to a standard of accountability?
Laura has responded to this already:
British royalty has been at the apex of global society for centuries, including overseeing one of the greatest empires in recent history. This does not happen by accident. All these is only possible if those at the apex know precisely what they are doing and are competent at it. The proof of this is in the results, that they still maintain their position.
No, the proof that they do what they are told is what you are seeing. And that means they are useful idiots.
And as for this:
You pretty much answered your own question as to what 'normal' means.Lastly, what do we mean when we say they are "normal people"? Everyone is surely normal to one extent or another. It's the life situation we find ourselves in and how we deal with it that usually end up defining who we are. I'd imagine they are normal in the sense that they are human, experience joy and sorrow, love and hate etc etc. I imagine they hold friendships and other meaningful human relationships, I imagine they have flaws like most / all humans do. Does this not apply to everyone on the planet? So I wonder what we mean when we say normal? It seems to imply we shouldn't hold them to a higher standard than that we would hold "normal" people who hold no position of importance in society.