What Did the Royal Family’s “Psychics” Tell You?

What Did the Royal Family’s “Psychics” Tell You?

by Carl J.Chan Feb 2026

The modern aristocracy has a problem it no longer knows how to name. It is not merely scandal, nor even hypocrisy. It is the quiet collapse of a myth: that proximity to power implies wisdom, discipline, or moral seriousness.

When Märtha Louise, a Norwegian princess, married Durek Verrett——a self-proclaimed shaman whose teachings draw on questionable appropriations of indigenous practices and the family constellation theories of Bert Hellinger(although he has not publicly admitted to being influenced by Hellinger)—the episode was treated by many as tabloid eccentricity. But it deserves closer attention. This was not simply a curious romance; it was a cultural signal. The ruling classes, long assumed to embody restraint and judgment, are increasingly indistinguishable from the mass-market spiritual confusion they once claimed to transcend.

The Norwegian royal family’s troubles hardly stop there. The recent release of additional Jeffrey Epstein files, with extensive references to Crown Princess Mette-Marit, and the criminal prosecution of her son Marius Borg Høiby on dozens of serious charges, have transformed what once seemed like isolated embarrassments into a systemic reputational crisis. These are not failures of optics; they are failures of formation.

Across the North Sea, the British monarchy tells a parallel story. In Prince Harry ’s autobiography Spare, the reader encounters not the inner discipline of a ruling house, but emotional volatility, magical thinking, and a reliance on mediums and spiritual advisers.Taken as a whole, the book conveys a striking immaturity in royal interpersonal relationships—an environment where grievance replaces responsibility and introspection substitutes for self-command.

For centuries, elites justified their privileges by claiming they were trained—by blood, education, and culture—to rule themselves before ruling others. This was the aristocratic bargain. Today, that bargain has quietly dissolved. The contemporary elite, whether royal, financial, or cultural, often enjoys insulation without formation, status without standards, access without accountability.

Why has this happened?

First, elitism without merit is unsustainable. Modern aristocracies increasingly resemble inheritance machines rather than institutions of cultivation. When status is guaranteed, the incentive to develop judgment disappears. The result is not refinement but regression—grown adults drifting into pseudo-spirituality, emotional exhibitionism, and moral irresponsibility.

Second, closed societies decay inwardly. Royal families are, by design, sealed ecosystems. Over time, they begin mistaking affirmation for truth and loyalty for virtue. Without genuine competition or external correction, irrational beliefs flourish. Mystics, shamans, and “guides” thrive precisely where dissent is muted and deference is automatic.

Third, wealth now shields failure rather than punishes it. In earlier eras, aristocratic scandal could provoke exile or ruin. Today, reputations bend without breaking. Public relations firms replace confession; therapy replaces ethics; victimhood replaces accountability. Elites survive not because they are exemplary, but because they are insulated.

Fourth, the collapse of shared moral narratives has left a vacuum. Traditional religion, civic duty, and classical education once imposed limits on elite behavior. In their absence, many turn to personalized spiritualities—emotional, therapeutic, and unfalsifiable. These belief systems flatter rather than challenge, soothe rather than discipline. They are ideal for people who want meaning without constraint.

What we are witnessing, then, is not the fall of monarchy alone, but the broader decline of elite credibility. The wealthy and powerful increasingly resemble caricatures of privilege rather than stewards of civilization. Their scandals matter not because they are salacious, but because they reveal the erosion of the very qualities—self-restraint, judgment, responsibility—that once justified inequality.

For well-educated and affluent readers, this moment should provoke discomfort. The question is not whether royal families are flawed; they always were. The question is whether elites of any kind still believe they owe society something in return for their advantages.

History suggests that when elites abandon seriousness, societies respond in one of two ways: reform or revolt. Populism thrives not because the masses are irrational, but because elites have forfeited moral authority. When kings consult psychics and princes consult mediums, the spell of legitimacy breaks.

The deeper lesson is sobering. Elitism can survive inequality. It cannot survive absurdity.

In the end, the question “What did the royal family’s psychics tell you?” is rhetorical. The answer is already visible. They told them what every decaying elite wants to hear: that accountability is optional, that intuition outranks reason, and that privilege exempts one from discipline.

History, however, has never been persuaded by shamans.

Postscript:

Bert Hellinger was a psychotherapist and philosopher who has deeply influenced me.

In Hellinger’s autobiography and interview collection(Bert Hellinger;Gabriele Ten Hovel), Acknowledging What Is: Conversations with Bert Hellinger, he emphasizes that he preferred to be called a philosopher rather than a psychotherapist.

Hellinger’s “family constellation” method is highly controversial, but even more controversial are his comments on Hitler. Hellinger incorporated both victims and perpetrators into the therapeutic system, analyzing them from the perspective of “systemic dynamics.”

But don’t forget: Bert Hellinger grew up in Nazi Germany, where his family’s Catholic faith shielded them from Nazi ideology. As a teenager, he resisted joining the Hitler Youth, which led to him being viewed as an enemy of the people. He was drafted into the German army at seventeen, fought in World War II, was imprisoned in Belgium, and later became a priest before developing his therapeutic work.

I noticed that Wikipedia has deleted the main entry for Bert Hellinger, replacing it with a link to Simple English Wikipedia, which emphasizes Hellinger’s theories as “pseudoscience.”

Hellinger never presented his theory as a science; rather, he emphasized that both science and phenomenology can serve as avenues to truth and insight.