A Very Royal Narcissist : Part 5

 

Were you expecting the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle? Not this time. She will be ready with some scene-stealing since the gaze of the media is (for once) not on her and instead we consider whether another member of the British royal family is a narcissist.

This time it is Prince Andrew, The Duke of York or is it Randy Andy, The Duke of Porkie Pies (Lies)?

The Duke of York was second in line to the British throne. He is now eighth. During his younger years he earned the nickname “Randy Andy” on account of his fondness for the ladies, his relationships with the American actress, Koo Stark and Sarah “Fergie” Ferguson, with whom he has two daughters, being two of his prominent relationships.

He has gained a reputation for arrogance and was also nicknamed “Air Miles Andy” as a consequence of his lofty expenses in particular his habit of taking a helicopter to perform official duties when he could easily have taken a car instead. For example, in Feb 2009, he took a helicopter from his Royal Lodge home in Windsor to an engagement in Shoreham, West Sussex, at an estimated cost to the taxpayer of £6,000. The journey would have taken one hour and 27 minutes to drive and would have used only about half a tank of petrol for the round trip.

He has received press attention for questionable activities and business practices, which include

• His friendship with Tarek Kaituni who the Duke of York has known for over ten years. Kaituni is a convicted Libyan gun smuggler who also attended the wedding of the Duke of York´s daughter, Princess Eugenie
• His friendship with with Saif Gaddafi (the second son of the former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and his second wife Safia Farkash. He was a part of his father’s inner circle
• In Feb 2011: David Cameron (then British Prime Minister) faced calls in Parliament to strip the Duke of his role as trade ambassador over his friendships with Saif Gaddafi and Tarek Kaituni
• October 2010: Hosts a business lunch at Buckingham Palace for Sakher el–Materi, the son–in-law of the now deposed Tunisian president Zine al–Abidine Ben Ali. Mr el–Materi is under investigation for money laundering.
• Hosting trade talks with Muammar Gadaffi in 2008
• Claiming expenses of GBP 620 000 in 2010 in his role as special representative for international trade and investment for the United Kingdom ontop of the GBP 249 000 he is paid by the taxpayer for his royal duties
• Reputed multiple meetings with Ilham Aliyev, the president of Azerbaijan, an individual who has faced repeated accusations of corruption
• The sale of his home, Sunninghill Park purchased by a wealthy figure in the Kazakh regime, Timur Kulibayev, for £15m after five years on the market, for GBP 3 million more than the market value. . Kulibayev is alleged to have used “corrupt” funds to make the purchase, something he denies.
• In May 2016, a fresh controversy broke out when the Daily Mail newspaper alleged that the Duke had brokered a deal to assist a Greek and Swiss consortium secure a £385 million contract to build water and sewerage networks in two of Kazakhstan’s largest cities, while working as British trade envoy, and had stood to gain a £4 million payment in commission. The newspaper published an email from the Duke to Kazakh oligarch Kenges Rakishev, (who had allegedly brokered sale of the Prince’s Berkshire mansion Sunninghill Park), and claimed that Rakishev had arranged meetings for the consortium. After initially claiming the email was a forgery, Buckingham Palace sought to block its publication as a privacy breach. The Palace strongly denied the allegation that the Duke had acted as a “fixer” calling the article “untrue, defamatory and a breach of the editor’s code of conduct.”
• In March 2011, Kaye Stearman of the Campaign Against the Arms Trade told Channel 4 News CAAT sees Prince Andrew as part of a bigger problem, “He is the front man for UKTI. Our concerns are not just Prince Andrew, it’s the whole UKTI set up. They see arms as just another commodity but it has completely disproportionate resources. At the London office of UKTI the arms sector has more staff than all the others put together. We are concerned that Prince Andrew is used to sell arms, and where you sell arms it is likely to be to despotic regimes. He is the cheerleader in chief for the arms industry, shaking hands and paving the way for the salesmen.
• In January 2014, Prince Andrew took part in a delegation to Bahrain, a close ally of the United Kingdom. Spokesman for CAAT, Andrew Smith said, “We are calling on Prince Andrew and the UK government to stop selling arms to Bahrain. By endorsing the Bahraini dictatorship Prince Andrew is giving his implicit support to their oppressive practices. When our government sells arms it is giving moral and practical support to an illegitimate and authoritarian regime and directly supporting their systematic crackdown on opposition groups.  We shouldn’t allow our international image to be used as a PR tool for the violent and oppressive dictatorship in Bahrain”

Accordingly, the Duke of York has either embraced or moved within circles of individuals of questionable reputation. Might this be just the hazard of being a prominent royal and something one comes across in the role of special representative for international trade and investment? Or is this pattern indicative of someone who has no issue with such individuals, who has a broken moral compass, no emotional empathy, haughtiness, a sense of entitlement and a rejection of accountability?

Those questions have found answer as a consequence of the Duke of York´s friendship with deceased, convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein and the repeated allegations that the Duke of York was involved in the sexual abuse of a young girl.

In March 2011, it was reported that the Duke’s friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, an American financier and convicted sex offender, was producing “a steady stream of criticism”. Sarah, Duchess of York, disclosed that the Duke helped arrange for Epstein to pay off some of her debts. The Duke was photographed in December 2010 strolling with Epstein in Central Park during a visit to New York City, according to The Daily Telegraph, while negotiating this financial help. In July 2011, the Duke was reported to have cut all ties with Epstein, and the Duke’s role as Trade Envoy was terminated that month

In January 2015, there was renewed pressure for Buckingham Palace to explain the Duke’s connection with Epstein. Peter Osborne, writing in The Daily Telegraph in January 2015, stated that “the proven facts are grim enough. What was the prince doing, in the first place, with Epstein, a paedophile who was jailed in 2008 for soliciting young girls for under-age prostitution?” Such a question smacks of either a terrible lack of judgement or simply not caring as a consequence of having no emotional empathy, a significant sense of entitlement and no concept of accountability for one’s actions, including ones choice of friends or contacts.

The same month, Virginia Roberts Giuffre made allegations of sexual impropriety against the Duke in court papers related to a civil action in Florida arising from her connection to the Epstein case, but to which the Duke was not a party. Roberts claimed that the Duke was among men, including “a former prime minister” and Alan Dershowitz, who had sex with her while she was a teenager. She alleged Epstein paid her £10,000 to have sex with the Duke. She asserted that she had sex with the Duke on three occasions, including a trip to London in 2001, when she was 17 and again in New York and on a private Caribbean island. Flight logs show the Duke and Virginia Roberts were in the places she alleges the sex happened. The Duke and Roberts were also photographed together with the Duke’s arm round her waist though Andrew’s friends have repeatedly claimed the photo is fake and edited Roberts said she was pressured to have sex with the Duke and “wouldn’t have dared object” and feared leaving, as she felt Epstein, through contacts, could have got her “killed or abducted”. The allegations have, as of early 2015, not been tested in any court, but Roberts repeated allegations against the Duke and against Epstein in a sworn legal statement under penalty of perjury.

Buckingham Palace stated that “any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue”, later repeating the denials. Lawyers for Roberts claim a request to the Duke for a statement under oath about the allegations was returned unanswered. When the Duke was asked about the allegations by a journalist at the World Economic Forum, he refused to answer and left the room.

Dershowitz said, “she’s lied about me … she should not be believed about anyone else … it must be presumed all her allegations against Prince Andrew were false as well.” Dershowitz initiated legal proceedings contesting the allegations and he and Epstein were suing the lawyers representing Roberts. In response Virginia Roberts stated she would not “be bullied back into silence.”

On 7 April 2015, Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that the “sex allegations made against Prince Andrew in court papers filed in Florida must be struck from the public record”. Marra made no ruling as to whether claims by Roberts are true or false, specifically stating that Roberts may later give evidence when the case comes to court.

In August 2019, court documents associated with a defamation case, involving Ghislaine Maxwell, revealed that a second girl, Joanna Sjoberg, gave evidence alleging that Prince Andrew had placed his hand on her breast while seated with Roberts in Epstein’s mansion while posing for a photo with his Spitting Image puppet. Later that month, the Duke released a statement, emphasizing that “At no stage during the limited time I spent with [Epstein] did I see, witness or suspect any behaviour of the sort that subsequently led to his arrest and conviction,” though he expressed regret for meeting him in 2010 after Epstein had already pleaded guilty to sex crimes for the first time. By the end of August 2019, The New Republic magazine also published an email exchange between John Brockman and Evgeny Morozov from September 2013 in which Brockman mentions seeing a British guy nicknamed “Andy” receiving foot massage from two young Russian women at Epstein’s New York residence during his last visit to the mansion in 2010. He then added that he “realized that the recipient of Irina’s foot massage was His Royal Highness, Prince Andrew, the Duke of York”.

Despite the denials or silence, a pattern of behaviour is evident.

Against this backdrop of mounting public pressure and claims which appear to have some prima facie weight, the Duke of York was interviewed by British journalist Emily Maitlis on a television programme, Newsnight, which was recently broadcast. It is this interview which provides us with considerable insight. The following points arose from the broadcast, I have added analysis in bold and italics:-

1. The Duke of York Does Not Regret Being Friends With Epstein

 

Prince Andrew has defended his relationship with Epstein before – including as recently as August – two weeks after the disgraced financier( apparently) took his own life while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. (Lack of awareness, lack of remorse, lack of emotional empathy, sense of entitlement)

In the BBC interview broadcast the prince gave more detail about why he “still” did not regret the friendship. (Notwithstanding mounting pressure and an opportunity to reconsider, the refusal to regret underlines the lack of emotional empathy (it also questions whether cognitive empathy exists) , his sense of entitlement and the repeated need of the individual to assert control over the situation. The suggestion that he should regret his friendship with a criminal (and a particularly vile one) is Challenge Fuel, it challenges his sense of entitlement to be friends with whoever he chooses and challenges his lack of accountability to be held responsible for such a poor decision. These challenge his constant need for control and the response to this threat to control is to reject the challenge and offer no remorse, no sense of regret and no apology.)

He said knowing Epstein had “some seriously beneficial outcomes”, at a time when he had left a career in the Navy and begun one as a trade and industry special representative. (Deflection, Improper Justification, The Ends Always Justifies The Means)

Prince Andrew said: “The people that I met and the opportunities that I was given to learn, either by him or because of him, were actually very useful.” (Sense of Entitlement, Lack of Awareness, Improper Justification.)

His reason for visiting the convicted paedophile to end their friendship?

‘My judgment was probably coloured by my tendency to be too honourable, but that’s just the way it is,’ he said. (Grandiosity, Magical Thinking, Dismissive.)

 

2. The Duke of York Met With Epstein´s Ex-Girlfriend Recently

Prince Andrew has always said he met Jeffrey Epstein in 1999 through the financier’s then-girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell – a well-connected socialite.

Ms Maxwell , daughter of the late newspaper tycoon, Robert Maxwell, (narcissist) has generally kept a low profile since claims about Epstein began to emerge.

But the prince said he met up with her earlier this year, before Epstein was arrested and charged over sex trafficking allegations.

“She was here (in the UK) doing some rally,” the prince said.

He said they did not discuss Epstein during the meet-up.

“There wasn’t anything to discuss about him because he wasn’t in the news, you know, it was just… we had moved on.” (Flippancy, Arrogance, Lack of Accountability)

The prince stressed throughout the interview that he and Epstein “weren’t that close”. (Revision of History, Deflection)

Invitations Epstein had received to events at Windsor Castle and at Sandringham were in the financier’s capacity as Ms Maxwell’s “plus one” rather than as a friend in his own right, he said. (Deflection, Blame Shifting, Lack of Accountability)

3. He Met Epstein in 2010 To Put An End to The Friendship 

Much of the interview focused on why the prince went to stay with Epstein in 2010, following Epstein’s conviction and imprisonment for soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution.

The prince said the visit was to explain to Epstein that their friendship was over. (Although apparently he was not that close to Epstein but still regarded him as a friend and one whereby he felt compelled to fly several thousand miles to explain that the not close friendship was over – Contradiction, Lie. This is also at odds with the allegation that the Duke was actually there negotiating for financial assistance, something which Sarah Ferguson confirmed was the case. Clearly a not close friend willing to pay off the debts of the ex-wife of the not close friend. Contradiction, Lie, Sense of Entitlement.)

He said he had considered speaking to Epstein on the phone, but decided to meet him face-to-face “to show leadership”. (Arrogance)

“I took the judgement call that because this was serious, and I felt that doing it over the telephone was the chicken’s way of doing it, I had to go and see him and talk to him.” (See contradiction of other points above suggesting the Use of Lies. Also demonstrates a Lack of Awareness as to how such an interaction would appear given Epstein´s previous conviction.)

4. Being Shot At During The Falklands War Meant He Had Stopped Sweating.

The interviewer, Emily Maitlis asked the prince for his response to allegations against him made by one of Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre (then known as Virginia Roberts). Ms Giuffre said she met the prince in 2001 when she dined with him, danced with him at a nightclub in London, and had sex with him at Ghislaine Maxwell’s house in Belgravia.

Maitlis pointed out that Ms Giuffre’s accusations were “very specific” and included that the prince had been “profusely sweating”.

The prince said a “problem” with Ms Giuffre’s story was that a medical condition meant he could not have been sweating.

“I didn’t sweat at the time because I had suffered what I would describe as an overdose of adrenalin in the Falklands War when I was shot at and I simply… it was almost impossible for me to sweat,” he said. He accused her of therefore lying.

Here is a picture of The Duke of York, leaving Chinawhite Night Club in 2001

Clearly sweating. In case you did not know, the Falklands War was in 1982.

(Lie, Arrogance, Revision of History, Need To Assert Control, Projection)

5. The Photograph of The Duke With His Arm Around Miss Giuffre´s Waist

 

Prince Andrew revealed he had investigated the possibility that a photograph – or elements of it -provided by Ms Giuffre was fake. (It certainly looks like him, but of course, photographs can be doctored, but this rebuttal must be looked at in terms of the explanation given AND against the backdrop of all the other behaviours.)

One reason the prince gave was his attire. “I don’t believe it’s a picture of me in London because… when I go out in London, I wear a suit and a tie,” he said.

“That’s what I would describe as… those are my travelling clothes… if I’m going overseas.”

However, newspapers have previously pictured the prince wearing jeans without a tie or blazer on a night out in London. (Lie, Contradiction, Deflection, Desperate Explanation to Assert Control, Denial.)

Speaking about the photo with Ms Giuffre, Prince Andrew told Newsnight: “Nobody can prove whether or not that photograph has been doctored but I don’t recollect that photograph ever being taken.” (Denial.)

He also said he did not believe the photograph “was taken in the way that has been suggested” because it shows the prince’s hand on the woman’s waist.

“I am not one to, as it were, hug – and public displays of affection are not something that I do.” (The picture is at a private party, not a public occasion.)

Responding to the allegations that he had spent time with Ms Giuffre, Prince Andrew said: ‘I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever.’ (Revision of History, Denial.)

On Miss Roberts’s claims that he bought her a drink, the prince said: ‘I don’t know where the bar is in Tramp’s. I don’t drink, I don’t think I’ve ever bought a drink in Tramp’s whenever I was there.’

The prince is a bona fide teetotaller and has been for a large part of his adult life. He said he didn’t know where the bar was. However, pictures taken on multiple occasions between 1983 and 1990 place him at Tramp nightclub. (This demonstrates that he has been at Tramp night club on many times and even though he may not drink alcohol, this does not prevent someone from knowing where the bar is, especially in a place regularly frequented. Lie.)

Flight records from Epstein’s private jet – dubbed ‘the Lolita Express’ – place Miss Roberts/Giuffre in London on the day in question following a whistle-stop tour from Palm Beach, Florida to Canada, Paris, Grenada in Spain and Tangier in Morocco, before touching down in Luton on March 9, 2001. (This corroborates her version of events.)

6. Pizza Express

The duke said the day on which Ms Giuffre’s allegations are said to have happened, 10 March 2001, he was not out in London but “at home with the children”.

He said he had taken his eldest daughter, Princess Beatrice, to a party at a Pizza Express restaurant in Woking at about four or 5pm.

“And then because the Duchess was away, we have a simple rule in the family that when one is away the other one is there.”

He added he remembered the occasion “weirdly distinctly” because it was one of only a couple of times that he had been to Woking, and going to the Pizza Express there was “a very unusual thing for me to do”.

(He may well have been at Pizza Express, then or on another occasion, it is not outside the realm of possibility, but given his penchant for high end tastes and the clear lies and contradictory behaviour he has engaged in, his response when viewed in such context is far from the realms of possibility.)

7. Caribbean Orgy

Andrew’s third alleged sexual liaison with Miss Roberts is said to have occurred around the time of her 18th birthday on Epstein’s private Caribbean island – Little Saint James.

Putting the claims to the prince, Emily Maitlis said: ‘In a legal deposition 2015, she said she had sex with you three times.

‘Once in a London house when she was trafficked to you in Maxwell’s house. Once in New York a month or so later at Epstein’s mansion and once on his private island in a group of seven or eight other girls.’

Andrew said the incidents had not taken place, but stopped short of accusing Miss Roberts of lying. ‘I’m not in a position to know what she’s trying to achieve but I can tell you categorically I don’t remember meeting her at all,’ he said. (Denial, Revision of History.)

‘I do not remember a photograph being taken and I’ve said consistently and frequently that we never had any sort of sexual contact whatever.’ (Circular Argument, Repeated Assertion of the Need For Control)

In a 2015 legal deposition, Miss Roberts said that she and Andrew had sex during an ‘orgy’ on the private island with other girls – who she said looked under the age of 18 – who did not speak English. These allegations were struck from the record in the US. Flight logs show that Miss Roberts arrived in the US Virgin Islands on April 11 and then took a boat transfer to Epstein’s private island next door.

A group including Miss Roberts, Epstein, Maxwell and a finance manager-turned aspiring politician called Gwendolyn Beck then departed the island five days later for Epstein’s mansion in Florida.

The Court Circular does not indicate where the prince was during this period, however by April 15 – Easter Sunday – he was reportedly in the Bahamas. He had been absent from the Queen’s Easter service at Windsor Castle, and a courtier told The Daily Telegraph that he was on holiday at the exclusive destination – about a two-hour flight away from Epstein’s island.

Miss Beck, a Donald Trump fan who was given thousands of pounds by Epstein when she unsuccessfully ran for congress in 2014, said she had been on Little Saint James in the days preceding April 16, 2001.

In a previously unseen email to a freelance journalist, sent in 2015, she claimed the prince arrived ‘very late at night’, stayed for the following day and left early the following morning.

‘He was in the bungalow next to me,’ she claimed. ‘I heard no strange noises or anything unusual. If anything, he was flirting with me, but as I mentioned before I was in love with someone else.’ (Boundary Violation, Sense of Entitlement)

Finally, with regard to the interview itself, one particular moment encapsulated what the Duke of York is. There was a moment towards the end of the interview with Prince Andrew when she was unable to conceal her astonishment at what she was hearing. Did he, Ms Maitlis had asked, feel any sense of shame at his association with the convicted child sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein? “Do I regret that he [Epstein] has quite obviously conducted himself in a manner unbecoming? Yes,” was the prince’s reply. “Unbecoming?” said Ms Maitlis incredulously. “He was a sex offender.” (By labelling the conduct of a convicted sex offender as unbecoming demonstrates without any doubt that the Duke of York lacks both emotional and cognitive empathy, no sense of remorse and blames Epstein for his behaviour but does not offer any recognition or acceptance for his own behaviour by being and staying friends with Epstein. Of course it suited the Duke to do so, it enabled him – through sex and money – two of the most potent ways of manipulating people – to exert control and Epstein granted access to those two things. Just as the various dubious rulers and business men have granted access to financial resource as detailed earlier in this article.)

 

The response to the interview was almost universal condemnation, bewilderment and the conclusion that it made matters worse for the Duke.

Former Buckingham Palace press officer Dickie Arbiter described the interview as “excruciating”.

Asked about the prince’s decision to be interviewed by BBC Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis, Mr Arbiter said he thought many questions would be asked in Buckingham Palace.

He said: “They will be wondering: Was this the right decision? Was the right decision made? Who made the decision to put him on? Did he make it himself or did he seek advice within the Palace?

My guess is that he bulldozed his way in and decided he was going to do it himself without any advice. (Sense of Entitlement, Arrogance, I Know Best)

“Any sensible-thinking person in the PR business would have thrown their hands up in horror at the very suggestion that he puts himself up in front of a television camera to explain away his actions and his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.”

He added that the interview was “not so much a car crash but an articulated lorry crash”.

Mr Arbiter said he believed the interview would have an impact on the Duke of York’s relationships with various charities.

The BBC’s royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said the prince was “very damaged” by the interview and the opportunity to clear his name had “failed, badly”.

Royal biographer Angela Levin said she was gripped by the interview but felt it was “ill-judged” to offer insights into his life with Epstein.

“Unfortunately it was a sign of his arrogance,” she said. “He has always been arrogant.

“The Queen’s motto is don’t complain don’t explain. I think in her heart she will be extremely embarrassed.

“I know for a fact Prince Andrew does not listen to his advisers.

“A very senior member of the press team left suddenly two weeks ago and the implication is he would not have approved of what Prince Andrew did.” (Arrogance, Haughtiness, Poor Listener, Lack of Awareness, Wrecking Ball.)

 

Yet, notwithstanding observations such as those above and beyond, The Duke of York stands by his decision to take part in an interview about his links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, sources  told the BBC. (Rigidity of Approach, Lack of Awareness, Always Knows Best, Need to Maintain Control to the repeated challenge responses of commentators and observers.)

People close to Prince Andrew said he wanted to address the issues head-on and did so with “honesty and humility”. (Magical Thinking, Grandiosity.)

What did the British newspapers make of the interview?

It was, the Financial Times says, one of the Royal Family’s most misjudged forays on television, eclipsing even those of Prince Charles and Princess Diana on the collapse of their marriage. (Always Knows Best, Lack of Awareness, Sense of Entitlement.)

For the i newspaper, it was the Newsnight horror show – one of the weirdest royal interviews ever.

The Guardian says the prince faced disbelief and fury on both sides of the Atlantic over the defence of his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.

It says he is under growing pressure from his critics here and in the US to apologise to Epstein’s victims.

In the paper’s own view, there was a “grotesque mismatch between the Duke of York’s language and demeanour, and the gravity of the allegations”. (Lack of Emotional Empathy, Lack of Cognitive Empathy.)

But the Daily Mail reports that the prince has told friends he regrets he did not make it clear he had great sympathy for anyone who was abused by Epstein. (False Contrition, Too Little Too Late)

“When I said I was shocked I thought that was implicit,” he is quoted as saying. (Lack of Emotional Empathy)

The Mail’s Richard Kay says: “The jaw-dropping insensitivity of it all left millions of viewers, not just in Britain but around the world, asking: why? (The answer is at the end of this article Richard.)

“Why on earth had he agreed to do this, and what was he thinking?” He describes the interview as one of the most egregious acts of self-harm by any member of the Royal Family.

According to the Sun, the prince told the Queen that his interview had been a “great success”. It was, the paper says, his “craziest” claim yet. (Grandiosity and Magical Thinking)

The Times says Buckingham Palace insiders, while taken aback by the reaction, believe it will be possible to judge the impact of the interview only after the dust has settled.

They are bracing themselves for several days of negative publicity, it adds.

In the Times’s view, Prince Andrew’s “broadcast equivocations were an embarrassment and a disgrace” and “the monarchy stands mired in scandal as a result”.

His position is “probably irretrievable”, it suggests, adding: “The first step in extricating the monarchy should be his retreat from a public role, and a long period of silence.”

The Telegraph’s main cartoon shows a puzzled diner at Pizza Express in Woking inquiring about a dish on the menu. “That’s our new one”, the waitress replies – “the alibi”.

And, in its editorial, the paper says that as an exercise in making a bad situation worse, it has few equals.

“Since Prince Andrew saw this interview as an opportunity to put the record straight, it is surprising that he was so ill-prepared for the line of questioning,” it says. (It has nothing to do with being ill-prepared and everything to do with his arrogance, lack of accountability and sense of entitlement.)

 

The Duke of York has exhibited through this interview (and behaviours previously)

• A complete lack of emotional empathy
• Intermittent  absence of cognitive empathy
• Arrogance
• Haughtiness and Being Dismissive
• Boundary Violation
• The exhibition of the need for control
• The exhibition of a threat to the need for control
• The Telling of Lies
• Deflection
• False Contrition
• Lack of Remorse
• Improper Justification
• The Ends Always Justify The Means
• Lack of Awareness
• Always Knowing Best
• Silent Treatment
• Sense of Entitlement
• Lack of Accountability
• Objectification
• Revision of History
• Blame Shifting
• Projection
• Circular Argument

There is clear evidence time and time again of his narcissism.

The Duke of York is indeed A Very Royal Narcissist and once again, not one commentator,  television broadcast or newspaper, for all their condemnation and amazement was able to identify precisely what is driving his behaviour.