A Very Royal Narcissist 4 : Aftermath and Reaction


Detailed below is a short article from Jonny Dymond, a Royal Correspondent for BBC News. It is a useful article to analyse as it demonstrates the (understandable) responses of someone who is not familiar with the narcissistic dynamic, demonstrates common observations and questions which arise and demonstrates that how the issues are seen but the answers are never arrived at or are wrong. My observations appear in bold and italics and demonstrates principally two main points. As always for the Hard of Understanding, this is an article about the narcissist dynamic only.

1. The explanation for the behaviours of Meghan Markle driven by her narcissism (which commentators have failed to identify and understand), and

2. The impact of Emotional Thinking which results in Prince Harry failing to recognise what it happening (which is integral with regard to the victim of a narcissist and causes the victim to remain trapped in a continuing engagement with the narcissist rather than removing themselves from the world of the narcissist which is the only way of dealing with the narcissist)


“As the dust settles on the most revealing royal interviews since Princess Diana spoke to the BBC in 1995, this is still the reality that Harry and Meghan, and the rest of the Royal Family, have to live with.

Maybe this was a moment of release for Harry and Meghan,

a chance to tell the world about their unhappiness – the pressure she has felt under, (There is no pressure, there is only the perceived threat to her control, control being what the narcissist requires at all times. This may manifest as being seen by pressure by the narcissist but it is not. It is Fuel – the emotional response to the actions of the narcissist which is the lifeblood of the narcissist and where this fuel is provided in a way which challenges the narcissist in some way (for instance unfavourable press coverage) this threatens the narcissist. The narcissist consciously believes it to be pressure, but unconsciously it is a threat to the narcissists control and therefore the narcissist is duty bound to counter this perceived threat. In Meghan Markle´s instance, this was to roll out Pity Plays and to commence legal action.)

his anger at what he sees as a concerted newspaper campaign against his wife, (There is coverage of the Sussexes because people want to read about them, just as there has been coverage about many of the Royal Family many of whom have received unfavourable and critical coverage. Take a look at some of the headlines written about Kate Middleton and contrast her response, as a non-narcissist. Prince Harry is ensnared and therefore his Emotional Thinking is very high. This blinds him, as it always does to a victim of a narcissist, to the logic. Accordingly, as a combination of this obscuring of logic, combined with the complaints from his wife (whom he naturally feels loyalty to) and his own dislike of the media because of its treatment of his deceased mother (a damaged trait his Emotional Thinking will exploit as will Meghan Markle (unconsciously through her narcissism) Prince Harry sees the newspapers as the root of the problem. It cannot be escaped that some of the coverage is unpleasant and relentless, but it has been this way for many royals, but it is not the root of the problem, but Harry is led to believing it is.)

his struggles with his mental health, (There is no doubt that Prince Harry has mental health struggles and these are being exacerbated, as they always are by the continuance of his ensnarement)

the lack of support she feels she’s had from the rest of the Palace. (This is a combination of perception owing to the narcissist´s Black and White Thinking, “you are either with me, so if you are not, you must be against me,” the Sense of Entitlement (“I should be supported”), the need for control (the failure to provide support wounds the narcissist and threatens control) and there will be some lack of support from the rest of the Palace because there will be disapproval of what the Sussexes have been doing (Meghan Markle governed by her narcissism, Prince Harry affected by the instinctive manipulations of the narcissist) and thus the Palace distances itself from this behaviour.

Maybe this was a bid for public sympathy, an attempt to circumvent the filter of the newspapers that Harry so despises. (It most certainly was because that sought after public sympathy equates to the provision of fuel and allows the assertion of control, precisely what the narcissist must have)

But what’s baffling is what the couple thought they would achieve in the medium term. This looks like a triumph of tactics over strategy. (This is an accurate observation by the writer but does not go far enough. The vast majority of narcissists seek control in the MOMENT, not last week and not two months into the future. This instinctive and unconscious need for control is constant and this means that a narcissist will do and say anything and everything to assert that control and results in the narcissist being hypocritical, contrarian and inconsistent (although the narcissist is blinded to this). This is why a narcissist will embark on a course of a action in a divorce by issuing repeated court applications which ultimately are doomed and will end up diminishing available funds. The narcissism is not concerned about the success or failure of the application, it is not concerned about the future event of reduced funds, all it wants is to assert control NOW through the issuing of the court applications. This is why a narcissist will punch his boss in the moment. The narcissism is not concerned with the ramifications of that punch, namely the loss of employment (as and when that happens in the future, the narcissist will only blame that event on something or someone else – it can never be the narcissist´s fault) it only wants control over the boss by putting him on his back in that MOMENT. Accordingly, it is a triumph of tactics over strategy. Markle needs control in the moment, untroubled by what the medium or long term will be (those will be dealt with in the same fashion as and when they arrive) and thus embarks on a course of action that does indeed seem baffling.

It is not baffling. It is the narcissism at work in its usual fashion.

The cameras and flashbulbs won’t disappear now that Harry has said that they remind him of the worst side of his mother’s life. (Correct. Markle does not want them to disappear as they represent fuel. She wants the fuel to be one which signifies she has control ( see The 3 Key Interactions ) Harry, mistakenly led by his Emotional Thinking that the cameras and flashbulbs are the problem.

The newspaper columnists who have poured bile over the duke and duchess for so many months aren’t going to change their ways because Meghan says that Britain’s best-selling newspapers have not been fair. (Correct. They will continue to report and Markle does not want them to stop (Harry does and his ET makes him mistakenly think this can be achieved and that it is the media who he has to focus on). Markle wants it to continue just so long as she has control (see Love Me, Hate Me, But Never Ignore Me )

And the scrutiny of the couple – which has revealed some degree of say-one-thing, do-another – is not going to go away. In fact, it will probably increase. (The writer identifies the hypocrisy of the narcissist here, which demonstrates the necessity of control at all times, irrespective of whether this is consistent. It IS consistent in the alternate reality that is the world of the narcissist because the narcissism makes it appear consistent, justified and rational.)

Because these interviews are a double-edged sword. They give the participants a pretty clear run at putting their case to the public. But they give the couple’s critics an open goal too. (The interviews occur because Markle wants them in order to gather fuel and assert control. Harry goes along with them because he wishes to please his wife (and avoid the devaluing behaviour he will be subjected to behind the scenes, doubtless receiving comments such as “Don´t you want to support me?” (Guilt) “You should show how they are behaving like they did to your mother.” (Mirroring)  “They are trying break us up, come between us.” (Triangulation) “If you do not do something this damage us.” (Threatened Loss).

How can Harry and Meghan now call for privacy and restraint on issues like his mental health or her well-being when they have gone on national television and discussed them both with a friendly interviewer? (Precisely. This contradiction is glaringly obvious to the external observer but from Harry´s perspective his emotional thinking blinds him to it and from Markle´s narcissistic perspective she only cares about control, not whether it is contrarian or hypocritical because from her perspective it is not and EVEN if you pointed this out to her in stark terms, she will not be able to see it because of her narcissism. Consider this, how many times do you hear of famous people complaining about the glare of publicity and you think to yourself “Well it is an occupational hazard, it comes with the territory. If it is so bad, do not complain to the media about what they do, go and become a hermit instead.” You will have thought this many times. Guess why? You are commenting on the behaviour of a narcissist because our kind are over represented in the famous and publicity hungry.)

It’s why every experienced royal adviser consulted about this would have urged extreme caution, to say the very least.

And it’s why there was such concern about the interview in other parts of the Royal Family. (Undoubtedly, but that concern will, owing to a lack of understanding, not realised what is actually behind this behaviour. The need for control of a narcissist and a victim of a narcissist blinded by his emotional thinking caused by his continue ensnarement by said narcissist.)

The BBC was told by a well-placed source that William was “furious” with Harry. A source close to Prince William said that that was not his understanding. But whatever the immediate response, there will also have been bafflement. (William may well have been furious and also baffled. Again because he does not realise what the dynamic actually is.)

One of the ways the brothers have diverged is in their attitude to the media. William understands that the newspapers and broadcasters are a hugely important part of getting the message out. (He does and he is not governed by emotional thinking because he is not subjected to the daily influence of a narcissist therefore he operates with logic as stated in the writer’s observation.)

Harry cannot get over his loathing for the people and institutions he blames for the death of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales. He seeps anger at the press, in particular the best-selling newspapers. (William suffered the same loss as Harry but does not respond in the same way. Why? Because Prince Harry´s emotional thinking causes his logical response to be obscured and channels his loathing against the newspapers making him think that this is the legitimate root of the issue. It is not, he is failing to see where the problem really lies. Right next to him in bed (or in the adjoining bedroom if he is suffering the common devaluation of being banished to the spare room).

The relationship between William and Harry is irreparably changed. And the odds are, given the splitting of households and the charitable foundation, the establishment of separate diary and communications staff, relations will sour further.

It’s how it goes when you have different staffs and different objectives. They rub up against each other. (It is how it goes when one brother is abiding by logic as he is clear of emotional thinking and the other is governed by emotional thinking arising from his ensnarement with a narcissist.)

Two days after the interview aired the Sussexes struck back – an unnamed source speaking for or close to the clearly unhappy couple spoke to CNN. (A member of The Coterie unwittingly acting to assert control on behalf of Markle)

Alongside suggestions that the fuss over the interview was confected came an attack on the Palace and a slight to the Royal Family that will have come from one of their closest staff. (The actions through a proxy agent to assert control.)

The source told CNN “that the institution around the British Royal Family is full of people afraid of and inexperienced at how to best help harness and deploy the value of the royal couple”. (Grandiosity “the value of the royal couple”, combined with Insult and Provocation aimed at asserting control.)

The source said that Harry and Meghan “have single-handedly modernized the monarchy.” (Grandiosity, Magical Thinking)

The BBC has repeatedly asked to speak to the couple’s communications secretary, Sara Latham, but has had no response. (Silent Treatment through a Coterie Member.)

A friend of Ms Latham told the BBC that the comments defending Harry and Meghan, and criticising the Palace, did not come from her.

Briefing wars are rarely won. They trudge humiliatingly on, each side dipping a little lower with every response. And the Monarchy dips with them. The echoes of the unhappy Diana-Charles years are loud, and getting louder. (Indeed, the narcissist v empath dynamic does not and will never change, yet so many people do not realise what is unfolding before them.)

288 thoughts on “A Very Royal Narcissist 4 : Aftermath and Reaction

  1. Duchessbea says:

    With everything in the newspapers recently again, you cannot help but feel a little bit sorry for Harry. Then on the other hand I think Noel Gallagher summed it up perfectly yesterday. I don’t think there will ever not be content to discuss with these two. Sad.

  2. Lorelei says:

    Princess. I’m back, yesterday was a rush. You are dressing for Prince Charming I see? Just in case. I think they are all frogs that never materialize though!!

    1. Fool me 1 Time says:

      Lorelei I cannot agree with you more! They are all the same!!

  3. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

    Lorelei: I will have to put a notice in the Newspaper for Prince Charming , whomever he is and wherever he is, to stay away until at least next year, at the rate I am going. I am sure he is finding ways to keep himself occupied. But, yes, the way my 3 orders were cancelled was very harsh. Ironically, I thought to myself at the time, (these 3 different companies in China are treating me as if they have more important things to do than sell their items).

    Everything else I ordered, including an item from London, was not cancelled. I do believe something big is going on in China, and I was impacted before the news was really out. So weird. Anyway, There is a lot of junk in the clothing stores in NYC. Absolute Junk. Those stores better keep receiving QE. Not the Queen Elizabeth Ocean Liner, although they could use ocean liners to dump a lot of the ugly plastic clothing into the sea, but now they have to be careful from being caught over and over, for dumping and destroying all the bad clothing that women are refusing to purchase. Qualitative Easing from the banks: all those delicious loans and refinancing, etc., that keep those stores and that bad clothing around. Without QE, those stores are going to go out of business, one by one, with all the bad clothing and plastic fabrics on those racks. Watch. And, yes: Including `respectable` designers. They too are creating a lot of bad and plastic clothing. Theirs just use a better pattern, and have more hypnotic advertising and marketing going on. Anyway, I have to run, and do a few things before the rain, again, tomorrow.

  4. Violetta says:

    Princess: we’re not talking the French Riviera. This was the British equivalent of Rockaway.

  5. Violetta says:

    Princess: that’s exactly what happens in Sense and Sensibility. The dying husband extracts a vague promise from the son of his first marriage to take care of the wife and children of the second marriage. The half-brother’s wife talks him into giving his stepmother and half-sisters only a pittance, and treats the widow with such disdain that the 2nd family move into a small cottage, where they are unlikely to meet prospective husbands (if their reduced circumstances don’t dissuade them anyway). The brother’s wife not only discourages him from letting the sisters visit them in London, but is enraged when somebody else brings them to London.

    At one point, the brother makes a reference to the half-sisters “losing their bloom,” i.e., aging badly, knowing perfectly well that without dowries, their good looks are vital to attracting suitors. His wife’s casual comment that the sisters can visit London “some other year” indicates a deliberate attempt to make sure that they won’t marry out of their dependent situation if she can help it.

    Being Austen, it does work out alright, but both S&S and Persuasion give a nasty taste of what can happen when unmarried women have to depend on male relatives.

    Austen herself lost at least one eligible suitor because of insufficient financial incentive, and had to live in a succession of nasty seaside rentals and a cottage on someone else’s estate. Persuasion even contains a scene in which Anne is hoping to see her former suitor and possibly rekindle their romance, but her brother and his wife leave her home to take care of the children or some such thing. At another gathering, they assign Anne to play the piano while everyone else dances.

    The truth is that many women had the choice of either being old maids, expected to.do unpaid child care or housekeeping in someone else’s house, or marrying someone like Mr. Collins, whom they detested.

    1. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

      Violetta: Regarding your sentence: “Austen herself lost at least one eligible suitor because of insufficient financial incentive, and had to live in a succession of nasty seaside rentals and a cottage on someone else’s estate.“ A succession of nasty seaside rentals. lol. Wow. Thanks. Women in general do have it tougher than men, in many ways, and still. And especially as we age.

    2. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

      Violetta: Yes, the money was returned to me immediately, in my bank account. Thank you. It was all so weird. My order was cancelled from 3 different companies in China and all three returned my money back to my account immediately, as well. Without any prompt from me. 3 different companies, and 3 proximate, but different time frames.Three cancellations of my orders. They did not offer explanations, and did not try to keep my money–they basically were telling me to just go away, in the way that they made me feel. So strange. Like in those movies where someone says: `If nobody moves, nobody gets hurt.` Right now, I will only order from North America and London. And London and the U.S. since they are cousins or whatever need to work on the high shipping fees with each other. What is up with that. Something is JUST WRONG about that. Ok. I have to run some errands. bye.

  6. Lorelei says:

    Wait—your new wardrobe is being halted
    by ill Chinese people? I just saw this. This is ridiculous. I couldn’t post under where you
    mentioned it. Just go to the store. Immediately!

  7. NarcAngel says:

    Re: Descending from royalty

    I know someone who announced that completely sober and with the deepest of conviction. I had to explain that behaving like a royal asshole does not allow you to lay claim to the monarchy. They didn’t like that, so I was further forced to point that since they could not currently produce title, they were powerless to do anything about it.

    1. Violetta says:

      Irrelevant anyway, because there are so many people ahead of most pretenders to the throne. You’re descended from Edward III? That’s nice: so’s that janitor down the road, the waitress across the street, and the lawyer who fleeced your uncle. Depending which of Edward’s kids they descend from, they may be more direct descendants than you.

  8. WASP says:

    PrincessSuperEmpath: Yes, the post-everything era will dispossess the Masses of what little they have and will remove all the logical steps to building a better life – claiming it is all “Unfair.” Property Rights are already under attack in the US with the vilification of Rural Americans and Single-Family Home zoning laws.

    We, the upper middle class and middle class of Europe, the US, AUS, NZ and Canada, are the new Kulaks. A wonderful “Epistle to the Ecotopian’s” written before Thomas Callenbach’s death is very helpful in regard to the question, “What can I do?”

    Understanding Narcissistic people as outlined on the site is very revealing.

    1. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

      WASP: I looked up Kulaks mentioned in your post. I am speechless.

    2. Kathleen says:

      Example of property rights issues you mentioned. I watched the local/regional news the other day and in Oakland CA a group of four women were evicted from A home they had been squatting in.They are “ “mothers”(Pity play) But basically they thought they had the right to live in that vacant property and that the police and the local government was being unreasonable to force them off the owners property. And they had a large group of supporters 😂- Even after they were released from jail-they were saying they were going back. And that it’s just not right that they can’t live there.I was just shaking my head like where do you get that kind of an idea?

      1. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

        Kathleen: I think your post was to me. But, anyway, Yes, one can take over a property by law, for a certain amount of time, and take over a property, if one does so BOLDLY, for a certain time period, or something like that. I forgot what the law is called, and the idea behind it. But, yes, that is a fact, if laws are followed, and of course, laws are not alway followed by the Judges. Those in charge of law often do what they want with laws, and are corrupt at times, as you know. But, those women are not wrong at all! I have to go and take care of something, and I will try to look that law up later, or if someone knows what I am talking about, please help me out.

      2. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

        Kathleen: I found it! I found info on the law I was thinking of. And also, I do not know about the particular case that you are speaking about, in California, first of all. But, it is an act going on under the sphere of: Adverse Possession.

        (Also, Google is becoming an absolute nightmare these days to do research on.

        The internet is being shut down like I heard it was going to be, but not being unplugged, but by hostile manipulation of the search engines, I see now.).

        Anyway, I do not know about the example of the particular women in California, and I have not heard of their particular situation other than from your post today, but a lightbulb did go off in my mind and my memory from your post, and here is some info that many regular people do not know about, regarding the act called Adverse Possession, from Wikipedia:

        ADVERSE POSSESSION: Adverse possession, sometimes colloquially described as “squatter’s rights”,[a] is a legal principle under which a person who does not have legal title to a piece of property—usually land (real property)—acquires legal ownership based on continuous possession or occupation of the land without the permission of its legal owner.[1]
        In general, a property owner has the right to recover possession of their property from unauthorized possessors through legal action such as ejectment. However, in the English common law tradition, courts have long ruled that when someone occupies a piece of property without permission and the property’s owner does not exercise their right to recover their property for a significant period of time, not only is the original owner prevented from exercising their right to exclude, but an entirely new title to the property “springs up” in the adverse possessor. In effect, the adverse possessor becomes the property’s new owner.[2][b] Over time, legislatures have created statutes of limitations that specify the length of time that owners have to recover possession of their property from adverse possessors. In the United States, for example, these time limits vary widely between individual states, ranging from as low as five years to as many as 40 years.[3]
        Although the elements of an adverse possession action are different in every jurisdiction, a person claiming adverse possession is usually required to prove non-permissive use of the property that is actual, open and notorious, exclusive, adverse and continuous for the statutory period.[4][c]

        Kathleen, I also remember that Adverse Possession has to be done boldly, when I first heard about it. One must go out and about the property boldly (perhaps someone could then report you to the owner, and the matter is ended by the owner in a timely fashion?) So, now you know what it is called, if you want to do your own research into what you are telling me that those mothers are doing.

        And just because people (usually the people that many call `The Elite.` know something, they are not usually going to tell the general populace. Many people know about Adverse Possession. They just do not want you to know about it. I say: Spread The Knowledge, in this life. LOL.

        Anyway, I heard about Adverse Possession a while ago. And if I know about this, you see how the media is hiding this info. from their viewers? Because the media do have legal departments and real estate correspondents to vet and write these stores. Because you seem to think these women are absurd and outlandish with the way they are using that property, by the way they are being described by the media, that you heard the story from, when these women are not at all, acting in an illegal manner, from what you posted.

        If you continue to follow the story, now, at least you know about Adverse Possession. I am glad. The same media that reported the story that you heard, should have mentioned this, and not I. Why did I have to say this and give the name of this? The media demonized those women, unnecessarily, from the way that I read your post about them. Knowing about Adverse Possession may not change your feelings about these women, but I think it is good for you to know about Adverse Possession, anyway.

  9. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

    Violetta: I know that it is reported over here in the U.S. that Meghan is descended from the aristocracy through the lineage of her Father. At least that information regarding Meghan is reported the same way on both sides of the pond. Hahahaha.

  10. Violetta says:

    WASP: No, it won’t. When any revolution confiscates the goods of the ruling class, the revolutionary administrators distribute it among themselves. The folks on the ground won’t see a sou, a ruble, or a peso. Or in this case, 2p.

  11. Renarde says:

    Some points.

    Europe was brought together largely by the Roman’s. But the old tribes persisted. It was Charlemagne who managed to get pretty much the whole shizzle under control. Except Britain.

    Drearily, he believed in partible over primogeniture inheritance. Thereby splitting Europe. And pretty much permenatly in such the old borders became recognised again. Hope you havnt forgotten that the seeds of WW2 were planted at Versailles? Seeds of WW1 because of certain border disputes in Alsace and Lorraine?!

    Christian culture did not build Europe. Until Constantine in aprox 450AD we were pagan. The Celtic tribes existed under a protectorate. Very clever.

    Last time I looked, the Bible contained The Torah. Yes Jews and Judaism were massively sidelined after the Disapora. Christianity is very firmly, an Abrahamic religion.

    I will also add that the Rom were too. They also had their own Diaspora. But with a much less cohesive sense of self as ‘Tribe’, they have also suffered.

    1. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

      Renarde: Can you tell me more about Partible Inheritance? And especially what change or impact that it made, up to this time? I did google it, after reading your post just now, but google is just not the same these days. I rather you explain it to me, and especially what impact you know that it brought about. I hope you see this post!

      1. Renarde says:


        Sure! Partible is when the monarch/ruler holds lands. Doesnt matter what size, essence is the same. The usually male will EQUALLY divide his land rather than giving the lump sum to first born surviving male. Wealth and lands are not retained by the family as a whole. Therefore factions develop which then begin to envelop each other at times but then naturally revert to their own tribal boundaries in times of stress.

        You need to overlay the present European map on the old Celtic borders.

        To my mind, the problem as always been that the ancient Celtic Tribes of Europe were FAR more established than the Roman ones were. So when it dissolved in say 500 years (birth of Jesus to Constantine), it didnt matter. The Roman’s did not attempt to eradicate peoples natural spirituality. Not all at once. But when Constantine did it, the Roman Empire was teetering on collapse. Last refuge of a desperate man?

        Anyway TRE collapsed, Britain entered into ‘The Dark Ages’. Ancient Celtic beliefs resurfaced. These were finally stamped out by the invasion into Britain by the Angles, The Jutes and the finally the Vikings. They raided all over Northern Britain.

        We formed Anglo Saxon Britain. The era of the Wittengeimot and the Septarchy. Resolved by Alfred and then was handed to the Viking Normendy French at 1066 via the absolute fuckwittery of St Edward the Confessor.

        And that missues, is TRF.

        1. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

          Thank you, Renarde. On another note: I remember that HG Tudor said that one of the things that some people do forget about the E.U, whether they like the E.U. or not, is that there have been less wars over there, lately, as well, especially post the last major world war. If I understand him correctly. He sure is accurate about that in my eyes! These people need you to also remind them of ALL the `good old days.` From the past over 500 years and more until modern times. hahaha.

          Yes, it was dramatically `busy` over there for quite a while. And many pagan or old traditions are rife in the religion of modern Christianity in the U.S. as well, coming from Europe, I see now. I never thought much about exactly where did all the oddities come from in modern Christianity religion, since the U.S. is relatively a new country. You just answered a lot by discussing all the commingling of spiritual beliefs that have been going on for quite a while and then being stamped out and then coming out of hiding, over and over, etc. lol. Many people have left modern Christianity in the U.S. , because it is increasingly unrecognizable in so many ways, as it is still adopting ways from different cultures and incorporating different spiritual beliefs. Thank you for your explanations.

          Renarde, do many of the regular people, (not part of the Monarchy, etc.), in Britain have records to trace back their family history to know how they fit into all that activity from the many old invasions all the way up to the time of the Greatness Britain? Were many records lost to most people over there? It is fascinating. I live in the United States, so often there is more mystery and protectionism, etc., for many reasons, regarding people either knowing or easily discussing their heritage and history, of course. I will be glad if many people know their heritage and history over there, They surely would have some amazing stories to tell.

          1. Renarde says:


            Very glad you found it informative. I must stress that some of what I have written comes from my own education and also how I have observed Paganism and Christianity to behave.

            I think the problem in Europe (& UK) is it doesn’t matter what either the Eastern or Western branches of Catholicism or the Anglicans have done; they have never managed to completely eradicate Paganism. And thus the old tribal biundaries. Yes, they were subsumed into parishes but you don;t have to venture to far in the countryside without seeing the ancient remains of these liminal spaces. You can, with a good book, explore ancient aspects of the bigger conurbations like York, Chester, London. – the old Roman centres of power. Manchester and Liverpool are utterly fucked as is Birmingham,.You see it in Edinburgh but I suspect not in Glasgow.

            On records; a fascinating question. The legal requirement to register officially births, marriages and deaths only began in 1843 I think? First census was 1841, only about 180 years. Before that you are firmly back into Parish Records. Everyone went to Church pretty much so somewhere there would have been records. Some of course have been lost. But there are many amateur genealogy groups who have steadily being placing extant materials online. So if you are lucky, you could go back a far way especially when trees start to tie up.

            BTW, we haven’t been properly invaded since 1066, though the Channel Islands were occupied during the War.

            To go back to your point about the Church. It is now mistepping with ‘the West’ more than ever. Just watched a documentary on the CoE. (BBC IPlayer) Archbishop of Canterbury actively covered up abuse of boys and young men. This came out in the mid 90s. Prince Charles was one of the named Bishops as peadophiles, ‘close friends’. I heard of it at the time but what I DIDN’T appreciate was that the Bishop was being very protected by the AoC. Bishop is dead but that AoC is still very much alive and is spinning all the old lines and excuses.

            I think was has shocked me is that the Charles link and the documentary itself has been glossed over in the papers. It shows astonishing lack of judgement on his behalf. He really does not question what is placed before him considering the position he is in.

            This topic of being advised has recently come up on here. When Charles ascends he will have one clear question to answer; which set of advisers does he keep? The Queens’ or his? He will want his of course. So what happens to the other lot? The other lot are far more savvy than his.

            His ascendancy will not be a ‘pain free’ transition.

        2. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

          Renarde: I wonder if Prince Charles is chomping at the bits, or just plain exhausted from waiting around, at this point. Did he ever do anything with his life, I wonder. He is getting older and older. I think he would desire to make a lot of moves and changes very quickly, because he has been waiting almost a lifetime, to take on the seat of his mother. And he has had plenty of time to think about things. lol. And then there is Camilla. I am sure she is one of his important and trusted councilors. She seems very smart. She got away with a lot, especially as a woman, and she is still standing.

          1. Renarde says:


            It’s a good question on Charles which I dont have a clear cut answer to.

            He was brutalised as a young boy. Being sent to Gourdonston. He is a MRN narc. Prolly Cerebral I’d say.

            Something rather strange happened to him. His mother ascended when he was a lad. She was young. It doesnt take the brain of Britain to work out he would not ascend until at least she was the three score and ten. But shes in her nineties now.

            Charles would have seen the writing on the wall when his grandma died at 101.

            Charles is a man who had the world. Wealth, privilege, prestige and agency. He is heir to the throne. And what did he do with his life? He squandered it.

            Talking to plants, homeopathy (!), pudding in a bottle. Being friends with paedophiles such as Jimmy Saville and the Bishop I’ve mentioned before.

            His own brother has been heavily implicated in Epstein. His wife is an idiot.

            Then he has the Sparkles debacle.

            Charles could have done anything. He could have been a geuine force for good. Look at the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme or the Invictus games.

            He sat on his arse waiting for the throne. That utterly despicable. A monarch in waiting cannot be seen to do that.

            You are correct in that hes had a lot of time to think about this. But hes a MRN.

      2. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

        Remember the TV Series, Downton Abbey? The storyline that: a male of that family lineage, (in some aspect or makeup, that I am not clear about,) continuously, is the only person whom could inherit the Abby and its accompany properties and wealth, etc. after the death, whenever it were to occur in the future, of the current Lord of that Abbey? This inheritance stipulation was part of the Codicil on the inheritance contract of the Abbey.

        Excuse me if my terms and wording and style are not overly accurate, as all this is a legal matter, and probably full of technical terms. However, I am discussing this situation of Downton Abbey in my layman terms, and from watching the series, etc.

        The plot dilemma of the series is that: the current Lord of the Abbey only begat daughters. Three of them. lol. Does anyone know if there is a name for that type of inheritance criteria stating that a male relative of some designation/criteria, is the only person that could, continuously, inherit the Abbey? I am asking this question clumsily, but, maybe someone knows the answer. No daughters nor any other designation of female, could ever inherit the Abbey, as dictated by the Codicil. The father went to court to try to break the Codicil, and he hired the best lawyers, but they told him, that the way it was written, it was unbreakable. No female family member could inherit the Abbey, and that fact would continue.

        ( When some men found out about the Codicil, that none of the 3 lovely daughters could inherit that grand Abbey, and all that came with it, at the time that their father would die, it cut down the number of men interested in courting the daughters).` lol.

        1. Violetta says:

          PSE: There’s a similar situation in Pride and Prejudice. Whenever Mr. Bennet dies, the estate is entailed to the nearest male heir, which unfortunately happens to be the unctuous Mr. Collins. That’s why the mother is so desperate to have one of the daughters marry him.

          1. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

            Violetta: Yes, the Mother did desire a daughter to marry Mr Collins. Because the father in this movie also begat only daughters. However, in Downton Abbey, all the adult men that were looking at the eldest daughter to consider courting her, did not know about the Codicil. So it seems that all inheritances at that time, did not exclude the daughters from inheriting the property. The daughter in Downton was peeved that she was prevented from being the edible bachelorette that she appeared to be to men, at first glance, until a man found out somehow, about the Codicil, and then the man found out that she was not an heiress. She resented this and considered herself to be too refined in her aristocratic upbringing to be in this unfortunate situation of the Codicil. I guess whatever composed her marriage dowry, was in no means in comparison to what men would want her to have, to make up for her not being an heiress, in reality. Her mother brought Big Money into the marriage as an American from the U.S. The reason that her mother was able to marry into that family. The father made bad investments and destroyed a lot of that wealth that she brought to the marriage, as well.

            You know what, Violetta, in too many of these movies, the dilemma always works out, in Pride and Prejudice, the lovely daughter ends up marrying the wealthiest man around. Problem solved. The problem was solved in Downton Abbey as well. Hollywood, oh Hollywood. Sigh. I would like to see a movie where a family of quality, of daughters only, does not find a suitable way out for when the male of household would die, and the male familial heir that does takes over the property removes the women from the home they lived in all of their lives, either because he just wants to, or perhaps because he has a wife of his own that does not want them around in her domain. Do all the removed family members become various degrees of paupers? I want to see a movie like that. I am sure these removals of the women, happened. And all people do not have neither empathy nor sympathy.

        2. Lorelei says:

          Just saying hello Princess!

          1. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

            Hello Lorelei: I do need to branch over to some of the other articles: I just love so much this AVRN series and the way that HG is dissecting and assessing the people involved, so splendidly, I am learning so much. I surely would be banned by now, regarding MM, on any other site, other than Narcsite,, for saying some of the things that I take under consideration and actually speak about. And, the funny part is, that un-like many readers, I do not dislike her, yet, ironically, I would still be banned on other sites, about the way I speak about her and her situation. lol! I love Narcsite! Hahaha.

          2. Lorelei says:

            Princess—in about 5.3 minutes I’m branching off into school work zone! I have a ton to do!

          3. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

            Lorelie: I posted a week or so ago, that I am working on updating my clothing post Narcville, and I mentioned that I ordered a silk knight gown, and this updating business is not going to be easy, because of all the polyester almost everywhere, remember my posting about that? and that my silk nightgown order and payment was cancelled out of the blue, and since then, Lorelei, 2 other orders were cancelled. And I mentioned on here regarding the first cancelled order, that they should have told me why. I never heard of this cancelled order business, and I am still sensitive from being in Narcville.

            So, I felt hurt over the first cancelled order, because it was my first foray into resetting myself, wardrobe wise, post GOSO. And I feel a little desperate to get this wardrobe together, because like it always happens, when one is practically in rags,etc., that is when Prince Charming comes along, and one has to go to war just to put together one decent outfit for the first date with Prince Charming. Hahaha. I am trying to outrun this part of life. For real. Is it too much to ask for me to have just a few truly good outfits, before Prince Charming enters the scene, out of nowhere??? Sigh.

            Lorelei: Anyway, I noticed today that all 3 cancelled orders, at this point, are from: China. Now, I wonder if I were impacted early by the problem they are having on that health scare, over there, and that is was why my 3 orders in total were cancelled, and all my payments returned to me immediately, when I checked my checking account balance. And with absolutely no explanation nor apology whatsoever. There is no way for me to find out.

          4. Violetta says:

            PES: in general, don’t order from China. There have been too many horror stories about people never getting their purchase or getting items that look nothing like the picture. Things advertised as silk are really silky synthetics. Calls and emails are ignored, or the distance means the return isn’t worth the postage or the trouble.

            Look up customer comments before you order from anywhere–not on their site: on Google.

            Check your credit bill to make sure you got your full refund.

        3. njfilly says:


          With regard to your last paragraph in parenthesis; Gee, what a surprise!

          1. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

            NJFilly: Well, people do need money to eat, even men. So, if some men have a choice of a beautiful woman with a fantastic inheritance, or one that does not have such an inheritance, and especially if the men in question, do not have an amazing income of their own, I do not hold it against the men at all for choosing the increased security and stability that comes with her money, along with the beauty of the woman. They can only stare longingly into each others` eyes for so long, until reality sets in, and the bills start knocking on the door, hahaha, and I find that it is costly to live on this planet.

          2. njfilly says:

            PSE: Yes. I agree. People are free to choose their partners based upon whatever is their personal criteria. I’m looking for a rich man myself. Do you know of any?

Vent Your Spleen! (Please see the Rules in Formal Info)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.