A Very Royal Narcissist – Trailer

Untitled design-2




A statement from Buckingham Palace has confirmed that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will no longer use their HRH titles and will not receive public funds for royal duties.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex also intend to repay the money for the refurbishment of Frogmore House.

Has the fight back begun with the Palace putting its foot down or is this outcome desired by Miss Markle as part of her continuing control over Prince Harry under the facade of independence and a move away from the influence of Prince Harry´s family and the British media?

Receive the fascinating insight and accurate analysis in tomorrow’s update to the ongoing saga of A Very Royal Narcissist, only at narcsite.com


135 thoughts on “A Very Royal Narcissist – Trailer

  1. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

    Violetta: Re: The Blacklist: I feel sort of happy to know that she was missing for a while. lol. I used to sigh a lot during her scenes. I surely will enjoy the respite brought about with her real life pregnancy, that you told me about, more than you did. That was the best `spoiler` ever. Hahaha. (also, even in the writing in the show, in season one at least, some of the other characters were irritated that Red, at times, kept insisting on her being a part of things. I felt their pain. Hahaha.)

    Spader as Red Reddington was/is perfectly cast. He was born to play that character. But, remember, I saw and I am only speaking of only one season, and I probably missed a couple of episodes in that one season as well. So, if she actually is very wise, as the series goes on, that is definitely going to be a good thing. hahaha. ( So, I just hedged my bet, as HG calls it.) Violetta, I am glad you mentioned The Blacklist. If the series managed to keep the same writers that wrote the first season, then that is one good TV show, and one that amazingly started out on regular public TV and not on cable TV. And I may just check out season 2 when I finish reading and watching: Hamlet.

    1. Amelia says:

      HG, Did you post the update? I saw that this article says you would post an update the next day but I couldn’t find it. Thanks! I was wondering too if you ever posted the “A Very” series on the people you had mentioned in 2018. YOu had said you might post on some of them and polled your readers to see who they wanted to read about, but I didn’t see any articles on them (some of the mentioned figures were Mother Theresa, Obama, and Oprah).

      1. HG Tudor says:

        No, another matter overtook it. The others will be addressed when I have opportunity to do so.

        1. Amelia says:

          Thanks so much for replying. I look forward to reading them in the future!

      2. MB says:

        Amelia, here’s the Tudorscope analysis for Taylor Swift:


        1. Amelia says:

          Thank you, MB

  2. Violetta says:

    PSE: the actress playing Agent Keen is actually very wise. She’s not going to be able to compete with Spader’s Red Reddington, so she just reacts to whatever he does. There was a period when she was off the show (the actress was pregnant, and they came up with a plot device–NO SPOILERS!), and it was a little empty without that constant power struggle between her and Red.

    I think what’s going on is a twist on Silence of the Lambs. Jodie Foster’s character was an empath who had to deal with a brilliant narc psychopath to solve a case. Agent Keen is a normal, so it’s not as easy for Red to get his hooks into her, but it also makes it less fascinating.

  3. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

    Dearest HG: It was my pleasure, regarding the synopsis.

  4. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

    Dearest HG: The Blacklist is so good. I watched season 1. The storyline is about a guy that is a somewhat older Narcississt, Somatic, and either a Greater or an Elite, or both. He is a criminal, finally caught and imprisoned for something or other, and the FBI etc., grudgingly have to council with him to catch other elite criminals that are out of their league, sophistication wise, and on their Blacklist, and although he is technically in prison, he does negotiate some outside time for himself. So, he is often out and about in the series, which is really fun to watch. He enjoys that freedom time. Good for him, I say. He often negotiates with them for something that he wants, and then he assists them. They do not like him, but they are forced to respect him, as well, because I believe he is also a polymath. I am not fond of the word polymath. I rather say he is extremely knowledgeable about many things. A polymath. lol.

    And the criminals that he assists them in catching, are usually people he does not like anyway. And he knows the inroads to penetrate the other elite criminals` systems, weaknesses, enemies, etc, so that they can be caught. It takes one to know one, sort of thing, as well. At times he does seem to subtly double-cross his handlers, a bit here and there. lol. And they have to take it, because no one is as smart as he is to help them catch some people, especially on cases that are so hot that law enforcement have to show results or face backlash themselves. And sometimes his handlers can feel that he has duped them a bit, on some cases, but they can not prove it. The show is a drama, but the lead guy is funny in a smart sort of way. Because he is smarter than all the agents, but he must have made a mistake somewhere to be imprisoned. And he knows how to enjoy himself through it all, when he can. Of course he faces trouble in it all, as well, at times.

    He is very much an internationalist and is at home in any country, and knows who is who in most places, good people and bad people on high levels, and what they all are really like, including their hidden vices, for the good labeled high level people. He knows where all the bodies are buried, so to speak. And he likes the best of everything. Sort of like a hedonist, as well. Some on the outside want him dead, of course. He does have enemies on the outside. So there is some aspect of witness protection happening on his behalf as well. And he is witty in a droll way. And he often has to explain things to the FBI, etc. , about the reason they are failing in solving some of the cases, lol, and then he helps them out. And he is usually right.

    His achilles heel is the female FBI agent, that I think is a terrible actress casting on the show, but he insists the she is also his handler, and according to the writing, she may be his daughter, and she is unaware of this, and hence his interest in her. At least that part of the storyline covers her poor acting. And it is the only part of the storyline that annoys me. I do not dislike her as an actress. She is poorly cast in this series. He insists she is on some of the cases. Too bad. hahaha.

    HG: This synopsis of what the series is about is my own, including any errors, from what I remember when I watched season 1 of The Blacklist. I did not google or anything at all. I am going only by my own memory. I may try watching season 2 in the future. I did watch, but only a few episodes of Dexter. I may revisit that series as well.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Thank you for your observations and synopsis PSE.

  5. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

    Notme! It was worse than that, if you saw my post previously about how she was styled . Wallis was formally disrespected in the way she was styled.

  6. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

    Notme! It is not clear also, because it is all at the Queen`s prerogative to change things in various manners, or not. She also is not forced to follow custom. What is done to one, is not always done to another. Custom is just a guideline.

    Also, The Queen has top secret and hidden rights, and private edicts and proclamations and patents, etc. that she does not have to proclaim to the public, regarding many matters, including duties, and titles and surnames and how long any may be suspended or returned, and restored and for how long and whom will be impacted, even including future generations from now,etc. . In short, she can do what she wants publicly and secretly, to a great extent.

    All matters of the Monarchy are not revealed to the populace. And, Public proclamations do not always match top secret and hidden records, regarding a matter. Matters that would appease the public, (even on the surface, and for a certain time period that may or not be disclosed, or even yet decided by her) are of course, more likely to be revealed, even if some aspects of the proclamation are still hiding some information from the populace: other,more strategic aspects of a matter, not so much, and are very secret. Being a Queen has its privileges, for sure. lol…

  7. Notme! says:

    What isn’t clearly understood is that by ‘opting out’ of royal duties and funding through parliament, they effectively removed their rights to HRH. You’re in or you’re out. It’s not personal. Diana lost her HRH after the divorce too. It was always going to happen to H and M if they chose to be private citizens

  8. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

    Wiser Now: Some people project on others. For example, if someone says, they believe that a store is six blocks away, and another says , according to their understanding, the store is six blocks away, and another says that in their humble opinion, the store is six blocks away, and I say that I KNOW that the store is six blocks away, I am not being contentious. Even though someone may be offended by such definitive and declarative statements, these days. Not using qualifiers is not always being contentious. I actually KNOW that the store is six blocks away, and I will not qualify what I know.

    Even though these days, people are being pushed to use qualifiers, even when they know something. And people are being pushed to say: it is their opinion, or that they think this and they think that, even though it is something that the person actually knows. People still know things, despite the push of language and thought `engineers` against such definitive speech.

    My angst is not against you or anyone on here, at all! But, against all the social engineering that is going on against Knowledge and Truth and speech style, and against people that know what they say is the truth about a matter, and thus refuse to use qualifiers, when a qualifier does not apply for what they know that they know.

    For example, I will never say that: I think that 2 plus 2 equals 4. Or, that it is my opinion, that 2 plus 2 equals 4. Or it is my personal belief that 2 plus 2 equals 4. I make a statement and say it straight: 2 plus 2 equals 4. And then I walk away from the fallout, if or when it occurs, and even if I am called contentious, for saying it straight and without qualifiers and definitively.

    I think we are saying some of the same things. But, sometimes, to be true to ourselves, of course, we will be quite offensive to some people. Now, more than ever before, with so many theories going on how people should say things. I can not even keep up with all the theories floating about these days, and many contradicting each other, and now political correctness also has major voting right regarding both how people should speak, and what they can speak about. lol. I always like your posts and talking to you, but, if I start getting into too much trouble, with people on here, then I will direct most of my posts to HG Tudor only, like many already do on here. Hahahahaha.

  9. Violetta says:

    Susan: do you have a link for that tweet?

  10. Violetta says:


    “I would not be surprised to see Harry venting his spleen here in the not too distant future”

    SHE doesn’t think so. She’s not half proud of herself for doing him a favor:


  11. NarcAngel says:

    Perhaps we were both meant to exist as a balance. Those who are devoid of certain traits or characteristics that allow them to be fearless and blaze new trails, and others who have those traits in abundance to ground and anchor the blazers to something of importance, and from going too far. Great in theory, but humans are encouraged and conditioned early as a sign of success to “win” , not co-operate for the betterment of all.

    1. WiserNow says:

      Yes, it’s great in theory, and humans supposedly have the intellect to co-operate, however, there are other human traits that stop it from happening in practice.

      As HG pointed out in a different thread, people tend to focus on the negative aspects of things rather than the positive, because doing that is more likely to benefit survival. So, if a person feels that co-operating is actually a kind of “loss” because by co-operating they haven’t “won”, then they would see that as a negative.

      This kind of philosophical analysing of certain words and concepts makes me think that things like “success”, “failure”, “win” and “lose” are all subjective concepts when considered in depth.

      Thank you for your interest in this thread NarcAngel. It’s interesting to consider these concepts in more depth.

  12. Michelle says:

    I agree with you that she objectively lost, Bluewave, but she won’t see it that way. There are already people ready to believe that H & M are offering a great, respectable alternative to the stuffy and exclusive ways of the BRF. I am guessing MM has the audacity to believe that she will be better than the Queen. She has no shame.

  13. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

    SpaceKitty: No Sovereign ever permitted Wallis to have the royal title that would have been hers, ordinarily, through normal custom. So, Wallis was snubbed and slighted in this matter, royal title wise, according to the lifestyle of her class and culture and customs, and according to the styling of her Husband that would have been hers, even post `abdication` according to the general norm. And despite his many petitions on her behalf, he failed to obtain it for her, and so she lived out her days rebuffed in this matter. Because as many of us know, titles and names and surnames ,etc, are managed and styled at the pleasure of the Sovereign. However, many people forget, or do not know this fact in the first place: I looked around a bit and found an example of my meaning, SpaceKitty, in a Question and Answer posted below, for your convenience and for your review:

    ~~Question: Why was it such a big issue for Edward VIII/The Duke of Windsor that his wife, the former Wallis Simpson, did not get the style HRH?

    ~~Answered May 22, 2019, By Charlene Dargay, Anglophile.:

    `On December 12, 1936, the new King George VI announced that he would give his brother the title Duke of Windsor with the style of Royal Highness. However, Letters Patent dated May 27, 1937, passed by the new king and unanimously supported by the Dominion governments, specifically stated that “his wife and descendants, if any, shall not hold said title or attribute.”[1][2]

    It was a bitter wedding present to the couple just one week before Edward married Wallis Simpson. Edward never forgave his brother for the slight to his wife and during the rest of his life regularly petitioned King George, and subsequently Queen Elizabeth II, to correct what he considered an insult and a personal failure. Wallis would be The Duchess of Windsor, but styled ‘Her Grace,’ not ‘Her Royal Highness.’ Edward insisted that Wallis be called “Her Royal Highness” within their own household.`

    `As the son of a monarch, and therefore a Royal Highness from birth, the Duke’s style should have automatically extended to his legal wife and any legitimate children — as it did for the wives of all his brothers. When Wallis became Edward’s Duchess, she should have been, by custom, entitled to the curtsies and courtesies of royalty.

    Edward couldn’t make Wallis his Queen. Now he couldn’t even give her the HRH that every other royal Duke’s wife had by right. She is the only wife of a royal Duke in recent history to be specifically denied by fiat the HRH style to which she would otherwise be entitled.

    (Catherine Middleton[3] and Meghan Markle[4] both became royal Duchesses, entitled to the HRH style, upon their marriages to Prince William and Prince Harry.)`

  14. Bibi says:


  15. Bibi says:

    You saw all the bad films I watched in the ’80s as a kid. I believe I have seen every bad film that was made in the ’80s. This is why I don’t stream current garbage. Every so often I will find someone interesting but I mostly stick w classics for this reason. Disney blows donkey balls. And I am not trying to be a snob, as I would surely watch were it good or insightful, but it is not.

    I think Disney produced ‘My Dog Skip’ and that was the last film of theirs I admired. That film is not just about a boy and his dog but about growing up and where he learns his hero is actually a loser–(the ‘war hero’ guy who he learns is a coward). That is a wonderful film, but for every Skip you get a lot of junk.

    I streamed this film last night with Burt Lancaster and he walks around in swimming trunks the entire film. Now that was visually entertaining.

  16. Tea and Sympathy says:

    I understand HG. I was joking about the streak. Thanks for all the help. I shall send everyone here to learn.

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Quite alright and thank you.

  17. Tea and Sympathy says:

    Thank you and good job Violetta ! I suspected that all the warriors would be out and about spreading the word. Knowledge is power. I will continue the fight from here !

    1. Violetta says:

      Tea & Sympathy: we all have varying grudges against varying styles of narc. My particular objection to MM is the way she tries to help HIV+ women in Africa by having them sit on the floor while she flaunts Archie’s designer hand-me-downs. I object to her helping marginalized women by writing cozy messages on fruit as if they were five-year-olds and promoting synthetic dresses that will stink and require dry-cleaning after one wearing, and can’t be mixed or matched with other wardrobe items, supposedly for women who are struggling to get into the workforce. I object to her helping Harry by reopening all his old wounds about the divorce and his mother’s death, and rubbing them raw by reinforcing any suspicions he already has about the RF’s part in this.

      I had a lot of help from people like her when I was growing up, and while I always sensed they were incompetent, I only began to understand what was really going on when I saw HG’s analysis of these patterns in someone else. People like MM can do more damage with all that phony benevolence than many a frank enemy will do in open malice.

      I’m only mildly connected to UK politics: my grandpa was a factory kid in Leeds who grew up ranting about the Rights of the Working Man, and didn’t give a toss about the “king and” part of “king and country.” Possibly, not about the whole country, either: Southroners talked funny and some put ice in their drink. But I have enough love for the literature, the history, and even the food (a friend from NY said, “Get out of here!” when I tried to explain about cream teas, sausage rolls, and pudden), that I resent her consigning the entire kingdom to a bunch of “I say jolly ever so” white bread stereotypes.

  18. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

    SpaceKttty: What title did Wallis get, when he was removed from power. Some records say that he petitioned constantly to obtain for Wallis a royal title until the day he died, because she was made the viper and scapegoat on his behalf. But, I read that he could not obtain a royal title for her, despite all of his petitions, and this saddened him, until the day he died. So, I just want to know what royal title that he did obtain for her, that you know of, so that I can read about it?

    1. Notme! says:

      She was Duchess of Windsor but not HRH

  19. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

    WiserNow: To judge is to survive. Many other people also say to not judge people. It is also politically incorrect to say that one judges people. I ignore all that. I will judge a person regarding plenty of things, even a person that is trying to destroy or kill me or to do the same to my loved ones, and to my friends, etc. even if the person is trying to destroy or kill, because it is their personality, and they have that predisposition genetically, and it pleases them, and it is their worldview, and they do not believe in right and wrong and truth, or good and bad, and they believe it is all relative, etc. I will also judge people that try to coerce me to go against my own intelligence. I will do my best to stay away from them, when possible.

    And, general intuition is not enough for me to decide about and to judge a person`s character, in all instances. So, I watch and decide according to the patterns I see in someone`s actions, and even if I can not monitor their actions all the time, I will judge according to the carnage or collateral damage that they leave behind them, as well. I have no problem at all in judging people, for good or for bad. And, then I make my own decisions about people based upon my overall judgement of them.

    And I am doing my best to learn to do so more and more and to become better and better at judging people. Even though the Mantra these days is: `Do Not Judge!` WiserNow, I do judge and plan to continue to judge people.

    1. WiserNow says:

      As far as I’m concerned, you can go ahead and judge away to your heart’s content.

      If you re-read my comment, you will see that I did not say, “do not judge” or that people shouldn’t judge. My comment was a philosophical observation and *not* a moralistic stance on what people should or shouldn’t do.

      If you are walking in the dark and being followed by a would-be murderer, of course you need to judge. On the other hand, if you are sitting alone at home and commenting on narcsite, the need to be ‘judgemental’ is significantly lowered. Whether you judge or not depends on context, safety and who it is you are actually judging. It could be the person who has just sat next to you on the train, it could be a royal family living on a different continent, or it could be a whole global human race.

      By the way, on a sidenote PSE, why the need to be distinctly contentious? If you or I or anyone believe in something, can’t we reserve some intellectual capacity to consider someone else’s point in the context they are speaking about without becoming argumentative? Does every issue discussed need to become a debate based on who is ‘wrong’ and who is ‘right’ or who knows more or less?

      I remember a time when I was “up for a fight” at any moment and it wasn’t a comfortable or enjoyable place to be. It was personally unsatisfying and a waste of energy. It was a time when I thought I needed to ‘prove’ something. Now I see that there was nothing to prove, and instead, I needed to consider how my own ‘self’ was able to exist with everybody else’s ‘self’ without feeling like I needed to prove anything or over-protect myself. Just a thought PSE.

    2. K says:

      It sounds like you are talking about unbiased judgement, which is based on logic and evidence.

  20. Susan Vancouver says:

    If anyone wants to know if the a-listers have caught on to RMM’s pathology, read Selena Williams husband’s tweet on strategic sycophants he posted when the first announcement of their departure was made. It certainly gives one reason to hope. Thinly veiled criticism of RMM I would like to believe.

  21. PrincessSuperEmpath says:

    Violetta: Regarding Meg`s vs Diana`s mothering style, in Henry`s eyes: I have no idea if Diana were a Narcissist or not, so I do not know if her children were her precious sons or her precious `appliances.` There was messiness going on with Diana as well, according to the press and according to the many documentaries regarding her various strategies, against the desires of the BRF.

    And there are documentaries regarding her extra-interpersonal activities with other men during her marriage, as well. And her sons know all of this. I do not know how Henry thinks of it all, regarding his mom, and how she carried herself regarding everything and how her life ended. If Meghan reminds him of his mother, and if he truly loves his mother, then Meghan is really the project to save, in his mind, as HG Tudor says. Until HG Tudor assesses Diana I can not even begin to do so, at all. And I have no intuition to guide me regarding whether or not she were a Narcississt.

    I wonder if the media thinks our memories are shorter than they would like it to be, and I wonder if the media forgets about all the info about this family that is on the internet and thereby floating all around freely and easily accessible, placed there largely by the media, itself. Many people may prefer to go along with the media and paint Diana as a saint now, but it does not mean that all people in general do not actually remember that a lot of drama was going on in many arenas between the late Duchess Diana and the BRF. And many people do not paint Diana as a saint. But, those that do not paint her as a saint are provided little to no voice from the general media, these days.

  22. Em says:

    What time can we expect today’s analysis?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      It is available.

  23. Bluewave says:

    In my opinion Meghan has lost this little battle – she was writing in her and Harry’s statement about part-time work for the Queen, about 6 months in UK a 6 months abroad and about modernisation/progression of the monarchy… and it seems that queen said NO. They are out of Royal Family – no titles, no duties, no public money, no modernisation… “do as you please but not under Royal Family brand” – this is what Queen said.

    Of course it is possible that this part time work for Queen, modernisation etc was just BS and Meghan’s real goal was just to end it, cut everything off. I don’t know but if I was a narcissist and it was my end goal, I wouldn’t write in the statement about part time work for Queen because now it looks like Queen showed me where is my place and she did something against my will. So in my opinion Meghan didn’t get what she wanted. But I am waiting for your analysis HG, as always!!

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

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