The Royal Whipping Boy

SGUK Ep 157

Hello, Ivy here,

This week’s podcast (2^nd of 3 joint podcasts) is entitled The Royal Whipping Boy, and we will explore together and analyse a number of things. Each will dovetail into last weeks podcast, and most definitely will have influence in what is discussed in the 3^rd and final part of this series, and no doubt, way beyond these 3 areas of discussion.

“In today’s episode, we look at the shattered bond between two brothers—born into royalty, but walking separate paths. Using two academic models again, one of which is the Kübler-Ross model of grief, we explore how love, independence, and truth became threats to the Crown.”

Introduction

In the first podcast in this series we looked at the Psychological Unpacking of Prince William. We looked at the following:-

William’s upbringing, media portrayal and the impact of his role as The Golden Child compared to Harry.
Two Academic Models per episode, which combined will give a sound basis for any of you to explore further if you wish to do so in the future.
- Attachment Theory: explored how his early relationships may have shaped Prince William’s personality.
- Coercive Control: analysed any patterns of behaviour that could suggest an element of control in his relationships with Harry and others.

This week’s podcast and article:

Will be analysing Harry’s experiences, his relationship with William and the psychological implications of being labelled ‘the troubled one’.
The two academic models that will be utilised in this episode are as follows:-
- The Scapegoat Theory – discuss how Harry’s role as the scapegoat affects his mental health.
- The 7 Stages of Grief Model – we will explore how both brothers may have navigated their familial conflicts and common grief over their lost relationship.

Today, we step beyond headlines and carefully curated photo ops—into something raw, something real. The death of a brotherhood. Not by blood, but by betrayal.
Not by chance, but by choice.
And not just a private rift—but a public unraveling of what happens when love challenges power.
This is the story of Prince William and Prince Harry—through the lens of grief.

I’ll be using the Kübler-Ross model—commonly known as the seven stages of grief— to map emotional death. The grief that comes when loyalty is severed. When institutions devour connection. When the crown is weighed more heavily than family.

Lifelong Effects of the Favoured Child

This study and article (reference sources listed at the end of article) is not in any way referring to children in Royal circles, but when one looks at the scenario of a child born to a future King, that child immediately (if it is a boy) is placed upon a pedestal, and is treated very differently from any other child within the Royal family. Subsequent children are deliberately brought into the world, to ensure that a “Spare” is on hand in case anything happens to the Heir. The Spare at the time needed to be a male but the last Queen changed that rule, so in theory regardless of whether or not the 2^nd child is male or female, they would be in line. The way the world is going right now, and the move to erase women from any platform of normality and freedom of choice, things may revert back the Handmaid’s Tale style of utilisation. The book tells the story of a futuristic dystopian novel by Margaret Atwood that was published in 1985. It is set in the future. Handmaids women were forcibly assigned to produce children for the Commanders – who were the ruling class in the story. “The novel explores themes of powerless women in a patriarchal society, loss of female agency and individuality, suppression of reproductive rights, and the various means by which women resist and try to gain individuality and independence.” Quote from a Wikipedia link, listed below.

Anyone familiar with Royalty, but in particular those who are not Royalists, recognise a narcissistic family system. I have always maintained that children of Royalty and the way senior Royal children are brought into the world is abusive. If those children were born outside the gilded gates of the Plantation, Child Service would be knocking on their door. Children born inside those gilded gates, and following on from the Heir to the throne, are told from a very early age that they cannot have ambitions, they cannot outshine the Heir, and the Heir will be looked after in such a way that any negative activity or behaviour, will never be reported on stating that the Heir did this or that etc. The Spare was there to take up all that flack, and officially the story would state that whatever the incident or deed, it would be labelled as Harry’s behaviour and the stories would run for months. Eg Harry leaving a public house which had been selling/serving alcohol after hours, the UK tabloid media would show photos of Harry stumbling around outside the said building, and nothing said about William who was in attendance. It was a party. Very rare photos appeared of William in a compromising position, unless it was done by international paparazzi. The Spare could never leave, but as soon as the children of the Heir turn 21, the Spare is discarded. Historically, the Spare has never been treated well, and there are very few Spares throughout history, who were happy with the lives.

Narcissistic parents often recreate their own sibling rivalry issues onto their children. Once again, it reinforces that children who suffered with a variety of issues with their siblings, carry the traums through to adulthood, and often repeat the treatment with their own children. Some experts also stated that the kind of relationship that the older sibling had with the Spare also became replicated to varying degrees with the person they married. Let that sink in for a moment. I do not need to say here, what I am thinking but what I will say is that the interactions between a sibling and partner is very similar to what they learned and acted out with impunity in childhood to the younger sibling. Lots more to be found in the Reference Sources. Not enough time or space to go into detail here, but believe me, I have said my piece many times elsewhere.

There is an article in one of the reference sources (from hopefulpanda.com) and a detailed image that states all the salient points. I will include it in the published article, and hopefully I will have the time to include it in the video podcast. A quote from the section of the report states this:- “Narcissists enjoy splitting people apart into groups. This is to isolate and weaken certain individuals, giving the narcissist a sense of power and control. Therefore Narcissistic parents love to play favourites and pit their children against each other.”

When Princess Diana lost her life, the then Prince Charles spent time with William in his bedroom explaining what had happened. Williams bedroom was large, well furnished, high quality surroundings, palatial – no matter which building the family was occupying at that time. When Charles entered the room where Harry was sleeping, it was said to be around the quarter of the size of Williams, very little furniture, nothing palatial. Charles informed Harry of his mother’s death, and spent only a few minutes by his bedside.
- Charles found it difficult to state to Harry what had happened. Harry states in the book Spare, that Charles quite simply said, “Mummy was quite badly hurt” This did not prime Harry for what was to come. The lack of clarity from Charles contributed to Harry’s feelings of confusion and hurt during those early moments in grief. Harry was left with no doubt a multitude of thoughts going around in his head, and did not give much hope about the evolving family dynamics ahead.”
- The Heir continued to be treated differently and cosseted at all times. Moving into adulthood, the same approach continued. The Cambridges in Kensington Palace, Harry had a shoe box and one which he had to bow his head to walk around the bedroom because of the low roof.

Academic Models

Scapegoat Theory:- I will outline a broad summary of how the family scapegoat is blamed for problems in the family. I will also repeat an outline of the history of the term Scapegoat, and its various manifestations, which ultimately led to the Whipping Boy phrase. Historians disagree about whether or not this practice ever took place, but as many of those who talk about the Whipping Boy practice, and the Scapegoat era that went before that period, there seems to be some truth, to varying degrees, of this practice.

NB/ Scapegoats and whipping boy are historical practices where an individual is blamed or punished for the faults of others. The term Scapegoat is rooted in biblical ritual and refers to a goat carrying the sins of the community. A goat would be sent out into the wilderness with a piece of wood placed on top of his head and fixed in place. The piece of wood represented all the sins of the community. The idea was that the goat wandering out into the wilderness took the sins away from the community. It was not provided with food, so the goat would inevitably die.

Whipping Boys refers to a young boy who would be physically punished in place of a prince or Royal child who had done something wrong. Both practice reflect a pattern of shifting blame and avoiding personal responsibility, although they have distinct historical and cultural contexts.

In early modern Europe, whipping boys were employed to be punished in the place of royal children, who were considered too important or sacred to be physically disciplined.

“The burden of dysfunction is placed on one member, regardless of the true causes of the issues in hand. Being a family scapegoat can be a painful and isolating experience throughout a person’s lifetime.” [Choosingtherapy.com]
A few signs (there are plenty) that indicate who the Scapegoat in the family is:-
- Constantly being ignored: Feeling that your parent/s do not have time for you and treat your siblings differently.
- The silent treatment – is a tactic parents use to challenge their children to work through problems independently. Often the scapegoat begins to recognise certain signs, such as expecting to be ignored when they are struggling.
- Treating a family differently by interpreting their motivations in a negative way because that is how scapegoats are treated.
- Thinking negatively about a scapegoat is one part of the lost opportunity in this pattern. The other part is that the positive sides are not noticed either.

Mental Health Impact of Being the Scapegoat in the family:-

Self Harm Behaviours – could help to draw attention to their suffering, though research shows that the scapegoat may or may not be aware of the motivation behind their self harm.
Trauma – being the family member blamed for the family dysfunction can lead to childhood trauma and possibly post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). People that have experienced trauma may continue to have such things as flashbacks and emotional intensity throughout their lives.
Low self esteem – often develops after years of being blamed and targeted by other family members.
Conflict – the frustration that can come from the experience of being the scapegoat can erupt into interpersonal conflict.

The ‘choosingtherapy.com reference source is a very interesting read, and contains much more information under these headings, and many headings that I have not included here.

The Kubler Ross Model – 7 Stages of Grief

Here I am summarising research data from a number of sources (listed below) but as we have utilised this model so many times over the past 5 years on this podcast channel, I wont need to explain in fine detail, on each point. I will post a few references to the model at the end of this article, but just to say, I am using this academic model to show how both brothers may have navigated their family conflicts and common grief over their lost relationship.

I feel the need to remind everyone, that Harry found out in the Discovery Section of the Court case, the names of the Key players and what they did and when. I am very happy that it is recorded in Court documentation now, which was one of the main aspect that the British Royal Family did not want to be made public. No matter how the Monarchy try to spin it, and rewrite history which they like to do over centuries, the media comprises of much more than Royal Rota serfs, and future generations will know exactly what took place and when and by whom. Royal Rota and Royal Experts have deservedly made far less money from their propaganda filled books these days. The games up. The respect has gone for most people, and those that still believe that they are saints, wont be around for many decades, so I am not worried about the information that future generations will read.

Let’s have a look at the model, and see how William and Harry fair at each stage. Using the Kübler-Ross model (commonly known as the 7 stages of grief, expanded from the original five) as a lens to explore the fractured bond between Prince William and Prince Harry is an excellent choice—especially when framed alongside the systemic and psychological cruelty inflicted on Harry and his family.

Let’s first briefly list the 7 stages (sometimes slightly renamed in academic and therapeutic use):

Shock
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Testing (or Reconstruction)
Acceptance

Aligning each stage with the breakdown in the brothers’ relationship, while layering in institutional cruelty, public image, and the toxic culture within the Monarchy—from a psychological and human perspective:

Shock

Harry chooses love, autonomy, and protection of his family. William is blindsided.

“The heir and the spare.” Born into gilded cages.
Two boys who walked behind their mother’s coffin, taught not to cry.
Two boys who, for a time, seemed unbreakable.

But one of them fell in love—with a woman, with freedom, and with the idea of protection, and he chose it.

That brother—Harry—walked away from the institution. Not from duty. Not from service. but from cruelty, and in doing so, he became a target. A risk. A mirror too clear for comfort.

He chose to fund his own life. Pay his own way. Protect his own family, and for that, the monarchy punished him.

The Royal machinery is thrown off-kilter.
William may not have expected Harry to truly leave.
Harry publicly steps back. The institution (and family) enter damage control.
The public narrative becomes hostile—initiated and fed by internal briefings.

Denial

William refuses to acknowledge Harry’s right to live independently.

Harry left. Not to take a break. Not to cause scandal. He left to survive.
In the halls of the Palace, in the mind of his brother—this was unthinkable.

Not Harry. Not the loyal spare. Not the crutch William had leaned on all his life. But he did.

William believes Harry will “come back” once things calm down.
The Palace underestimates Harry’s commitment to a new life.
The institution treats Harry’s exit as a temporary tantrum.
Security is cut, but the tone is “he’ll return when he’s learned his lesson.”

Anger

Vitriol intensifies. William is enraged, and Charles becomes punitive.

Then came the rage. Security was stripped. Newspapers filled with bile.
Private information leaked. And William? William stood by, Or perhaps—he stood behind it – Because anger isn’t always loud. Sometimes it’s silence while someone else twists the knife.

William may feel abandoned—no longer the golden duo; just the heir with no emotional buffer.
Harry becomes a lightning rod for rage and projected guilt.
Charles withdraws security, and institutions brief aggressively against Meghan.
Harry is smeared in the press with calculated leaks.
Resentment builds. Meghan and the children are treated as outsiders and threats.

Bargaining

The Palace sends out trial balloons: “Partial return?” “Could they work part-time?”

Behind closed doors, aides and even Charles test options.
William oscillates—publicly cold, privately unsure.
The Sussexes are offered crumbs: attend funerals, walk behind coffins, join photo ops.
It’s not reconciliation. It’s image management.
Harry is asked to play the loyal son, but with no real change offered in return.

Depression

The relationship is hollowed out. Harry mourns the brotherhood; William becomes emotionally removed.

Harry speaks openly about the pain, the betrayal, the isolation.
William shuts down. Appears hardened, distant, and increasingly disheveled.
The public sees William “unravelling,” even as he stands poised to inherit the throne.
The monarchy comes before everything—even blood.
This phase echoes the coldness Diana experienced. It’s a generational echo.

Testing / Reconstruction

Harry rebuilds. The Palace doubles down.

Harry becomes financially independent, builds Archewell, pays taxes.
William is left with the “Firm”—the crown, but little warmth.
Harry tests reconciliation through memoirs, interviews, and invitations.
The Palace responds by escalating: removing protection, blocking visits, attacking Meghan.
The UK media becomes a weaponized arm of the institution.

Acceptance

Harry finds peace in separation. The institution remains unrepentant.

Harry accepts the family he hoped for is gone. He focuses on chosen family, service, and truth.
The monarchy declares “duty above all”—even love.
William and Charles seem to accept Harry’s absence as permanent, perhaps even preferable.
The cost? The emotional collapse of a once close sibling bond, and global public dismay at the cruelty.

I think it is worth using models from 1 & 2 in this series of 3 to think about psychological insights:

Attachment theory: William likely had a deep, perhaps unhealthy, reliance on Harry’s loyalty.
Narcissistic systems: The monarchy as a structure sacrifices individual well-being for image.
Intergenerational trauma: Diana’s sons are repeating patterns—one escapes, the other absorbs the toxicity.

Recap and Conclusion

Podcast Framework Covered:-

“The Crown Over Kin: The 7 Stages of Grief in the Collapse of a Brotherhood”
- The public illusion of brotherhood: “the heir and the spare.”

- Harry’s “departure” as not a rebellion, but a boundary.
- Outline briefly what happened after:
  - Vicious press campaign
  - Blocked attempts to pay for private protection
  - Global attempts to isolate Harry

“This wasn’t just a family split. This was psychological warfare against a man who stepped out of line—and took his wife and children with him.”

Shock

“Harry left. Not temporarily. Not symbolically. He left to protect his family. The institution staggered—because for the first time, the script was being rewritten.”

Denial

“They thought he’d return. The palace spun narratives. Harry would come home once he saw the error of his ways. But he didn’t.”

Anger

“When denial failed, rage set in. The Royal establishment turned on him. So did his brother. Leaks, lies, and smear campaigns. It wasn’t personal, they’d say—it was protocol. Cruelty is never just business.”

Bargaining

“A funeral here. A Jubilee there. A handshake for the cameras. All hollow. Harry was invited to perform, but never welcomed.”

Depression

“A quiet grief began. Not just for the brotherhood lost, but for the family Harry hoped to belong to. For the father he wanted to trust. For the Britain that called him traitor.”

Testing / Reconstruction

“Harry rebuilt from the rubble. He became self-sufficient. Paid his own way. Proved the myth of taxpayer dependency was just that—a myth. And that, more than anything, made him dangerous.”

Acceptance

“The Crown moved on. Cold, detached. Still instructing governments not to protect him. Still framing his death—yes, even that—as less significant than losing the heir. As if human life has rank.”

The Monarchy’s Fear

Harry’s success exposes the lie: you don’t need the monarchy to matter.
£millions for a child’s birthday while citizens ration food.
Austerity for the people, abundance for the heirs.
Harry represents transparency, service, equality.
William looks broken, haunted. Harry thrives—open, loved, awake.

“To institutions that feed on control, healing is an act of rebellion.”

When Silence Equals Compliance

Diana. Thomas Kingston.
The “unexplained” becomes routine.
Deaths in royal orbit are renamed, then buried—figuratively and literally.
Whispered theories become forbidden thoughts.

“If you die near the Crown, you die differently. Your legacy is rewritten. Your voice is silenced before it echoes too loudly.”

Reflect on the human cost:
- One brother crowned in coldness
- One brother freed by fire
A reminder that institutions don’t grieve—they punish.
Final words:

“Harry grieved the brotherhood. The monarchy grieved the control. And only one of them chose truth over tradition.”

from carrying truth, trauma, and vision all at once. I’m honored to help you carry the weight for a while.

Here is the full podcast script, in a warm, reflective, and authoritative tone—just as a listener would expect from someone pulling back the curtain on a family and institution too many still fear to question.

How it Began

Once upon a time, they were “the heir and the spare.” Born into gilded cages.
Two boys who walked behind their mother’s coffin, taught not to cry.
Two boys who, for a time, seemed unbreakable.

But one of them fell in love—with a woman, with freedom, and with the idea of protection.
And he chose it.

That brother—Harry—walked away from the institution. Not from duty. Not from service. But from cruelty, and And in doing so, he became a target. A risk.
A mirror too clear for comfort.

He chose to fund his own life. Pay his own way. Protect his own family – and for that, the monarchy punished him.

The 7 Stages of Grief

Let’s walk now through the seven stages of grief— from a dying relationship perspective. One that once held promise—and now holds pain.

Shock
Harry left. Not to take a break. Not to cause scandal. He left to survive, and in the halls of the Palace, in the mind of his brother—this was unthinkable.

Not Harry. Not the loyal spare. Not the crutch William had leaned on all his life – but he did.

Denial
For a while, the institution convinced itself:
“He’ll come back.”
“This is temporary.”
“This is Meghan’s doing.”

It was easier to blame love than to face the truth: Harry had outgrown the cage.

Anger
Then came the rage.
Security was stripped.
Newspapers filled with bile.
Private information leaked.

And William? William stood by. or perhaps—he stood behind it.

Because anger isn’t always loud. Sometimes it’s silence while someone else twists the knife.

Bargaining
There were trial balloons.
“Could they work part-time?” “Attend royal events without titles?” but nothing genuine was offered.
Harry was invited to funerals, not family. To photo ops, not reconciliation.

It was never a true olive branch—only a PR strategy.

Depression
Harry grieved.
Not just the family he lost—but the illusion he once believed in.
He was not a son to be protected. Not a brother to be missed. Just a threat to be managed.

And William? He began to unravel. Once full of promise—now a shadow of himself.
Haunted. Hollow. Wearing the future crown, but without the warmth that once made him human.

Testing / Reconstruction
Harry did something unthinkable. He rebuilt. He founded Archewell. Paid taxes. Bought a home. Lived without taxpayer money.

He proved something damning: That monarchy isn’t necessary to thrive. That integrity can exist outside of privilege, and that… made him dangerous.

Because if the “spare” can live without the crown—what does that say about the heir?

Acceptance
But not all acceptance is peaceful. The monarchy accepted Harry’s exit—by freezing him out. By refusing to let him pay for security in the UK. By instructing other nations not to protect him.

The King even argued in court that Harry’s death would not be as damaging to the UK as losing the heir. As if human life has hierarchy.

Harry? He accepts now that the family he wanted… doesn’t want him back, and that’s okay. He has chosen peace. They have chosen power.

The Monarchy’s Deep Fear

Why does this matter? Because Harry, living freely and successfully, exposes the myth.
That taxpayer funding is necessary. That the monarchy sustains the nation.
That royalty is irreplaceable.

All of it—exposed.

While citizens ration food, £millions was spent on a child’s birthday party.
A beautiful child, yes—but one born into inherited privilege during a cost-of-living crisis.

Harry, a man without a crown, is thriving and the monarchy cannot bear the reflection.

When Silence Equals Compliance

And then, there are the whispers.

Diana.
Thomas Kingston.
Others before and after.

In royal circles, people don’t die.
They “tragically pass.”
They are “found.”
They are “mourned privately.”

But not investigated.
Not questioned.

Silence becomes safety.
And in that silence, fear grows.

We aren’t meant to ask.
But some of us still do.

Final Words

So where are we now?

One brother is crowned by tradition.
One brother is freed by truth.

Harry grieved the family he lost.
William grieves the control that slipped away.
And the Crown grieves the narrative it can no longer control.