Prince Andrew : It Won´t Go Away

174 thoughts on “Prince Andrew : It Won´t Go Away

  1. NarcAngel says:

    People settle for payment for any number of reasons, those of which we will never really know. We love to think we would go all in for justice, but if we were put in those same positions we would likely convince ourselves to take the money. Especially when it is likely you will lose against power and title. Even if you win it is little victory. The abuser doesn’t change and you don’t get your innocence back. ACONs (or any of us for that matter) don’t get their innocence back either, but we also don’t have a boatload of money to distract us from the loss or make the way forward any easier, so I see why it’s effective.

    1. lickemtomorrow says:

      NA, are you saying it a boatload of money would make it easier for an ACON?

      We know we will never get justice with the narcissist in the normal turn of events, and when it comes to parental narcissists they have a habit of ensuring their empathic children never receive a dime (if they can help it) so ACON’s lose out both ways there. Most wouldn’t want the money, though some may derive satisfaction from receiving some small recompense for their suffering. It will never go to Court, we can’t claim injury, hardship, victimhood. Unless the abuse is extreme (sexual/physical), and then generally it would mean jail time.

      She claimed she wanted justice, but then her lawyer said a large enough sum in terms of a payout or settlement would probably cut the mustard. That tells me she didn’t want ‘justice’, she wanted a payout and she wanted a big one. If her photo was authentic and her case was provable then she may have made for a much bigger payout. This is where the question lies for me in terms of her accepting the payout, but that is just me.

      Interesting to hear your thoughts, NA.

      1. NarcAngel says:

        No. I’m saying I understand why people settle.

        Everyone will say/believe they want justice (or there would really be no case), but if you are facing Goliath with a bag full of cash and the possibility of losing after having all of the sordid details exposed (for acts by you or against you), at the end of the day, you might just think: bringing down this person won’t bring back my childhood/innocence, remove any stigma regarding my involvement, or change public perception about me, my family etc, but taking the money can facilitate new and positive opportunities and a shift in focus for me. After all, you and I got nothing for our abuse. No money, no justice. So if level of involvement is questionable on both sides (and it always is because only those involved really know what happened), and David gets a chance to take Goliath’s cash, I’m probably going to be okay with that (barring additional argument/information that I might not have considered). “Justice” means different things to different people.

        1. lickemtomorrow says:

          NA, thanks for your further thoughts. I also understand why people settle and it can be a David and Goliath fight at times. I don’t view this woman the way I might view other women/victims in this case. In spite of the questionable elements that you mention, and the positive outcome of a shift in focus, I have a deep and abiding suspicion of her and her motivations. At the same time, what I think is neither here nor there. She has been compensated and he has compensated her. End of story. Or is it?

          1. Truthseeker6157 says:

            LET,

            I’m going to show my ignorance now. I’m wondering what the expectation was for Guiffre when she brought the case against Andrew. I’m not 100% sure how those cases work, we don’t sue as much over here haha!

            If Guiffre brought a civil case, was it likely she expected it to go before a jury? Or, do most cases settle out of court, so she would be expecting a payoff?

            I suppose I’m looking at expectation and therefore motivation of Guiffre here.

            I have to say that the settlement frustrates me. I actually wanted both to argue their case as we would get a better indication as to what the truth of the matter actually was. We know Andrew would deny, but we still don’t know the detail as to Guiffre’s involvement. She had a photo, she lost a photo, she was 16 at the time, she was 17 and so on.

            I don’t like Andrew but it concerns me that people can make accusations, ruin reputations and receive a payout without having to prove the validity of the accusation. That can’t be right. It sets a dangerous precedent when looking at it from the other direction. A different case wher PE a narcissist woman decides to make a quick buck by smearing an ex boyfriend by bringing false rape charges against him.

            Innocent until proven guilty seems to go out of the window here. The assumption being that the alleged victim is always truthful. The press don’t help with this either. Things are going down the route of trial by public opinion and public opinion can be manipulated.

            Just because I dont like Andrew as an individual, doesn’t mean that I should automatically view him as guilty of crime x y or z.

            Maybe I’m missing the point of civil cases.

          2. lickemtomorrow says:

            Hi TS 🙂

            Here is a link explaining the civil cases brought in US Courts.

            https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/civil-cases

            It gives a good rundown and helps clarify the position of both parties.

            From what I recall she was pushing for a trial before a jury, her initial motivation in my understanding was for justice to be served. Her alternative motivation in terms of what she said was a payout. A trial could necessarily mean a payout if she won her case, but there was a possibility she could also lose. Therefore, no payout would be forthcoming. It would be a risky move to take and Andrew appeared to be willing to pick up the gauntlet. That may have caused her to reconsider her position and I’ve read the payout is much less than what has been reported. Who knows? There are indications Andrew was pressured to settle out of Court, but the details will remain shrouded due to non-disclosure agreements between the parties. He was forced to give a statement, but it does not admit to any guilt or responsibility. Works fine for his narcissism, I guess!

            The settlement frustrates me, too, and I think a lot of people would have preferred to see the waters tested on this one. Especially due to the high profile of the case and the parties concerned. We don’t want to see privileged and entitled people getting away with ‘murder’, but we also don’t want to see innocent people destroyed. Or at least I don’t. The case rests on a photo and Andrew’s association with Epstein. Her claims in relation to Andrew seem to come at interesting times. That’s all I’ll say.

            Your case in point about a female narcissist making claims against an innocent victim is something to consider. The ‘smearing’ of the victim and the victim’s inability to prove otherwise. We know it can be done. The Johnny Depp situation probably highlights how that can sometimes happen. This is different, of course, as the case doesn’t involve two people in a relationship, but it does focus on highly emotive subject matter (underage sex trafficking) and our sympathy will always usually go to the victim in those circumstances, as it should. I just struggle to see this woman as a victim. And like you say, there is a struggle to find her truthful, certainly going by the number of changes to her story. What’s that about?

            Yes, trial by public opinion and the manipulation around that is a factor, too. The press present it the way they want to and often in the flavour of the day. Some reporting can be very subjective and emotive, but I’ve also seen many commenters dispute the narrative around this case and question its validity. More seem to suspect her than him and that’s saying something.

            I don’t think you’re missing any points, TS. I think your spot on in your truthseeking traits to want to know more and understand it better. I share my thoughts with what rudimentary knowledge I have and that can always be improved <3 xox

          3. Truthseeker6157 says:

            Hey LET,

            Thank you for the attachment, that’s a great summary!

            I remember being in the US and getting phone calls from law firms asking if I had been in a car accident in the last 12 months and offering the no win no fee routine. I wondered if this might also be the case with Guiffre, or a variation of.

            The end figure probably was falsely reported and Guiffre’s lawyer would likely have taken a sizeable chunk of that. It’s possible that Guiffre was steered by her lawyer to take the money also. The lawyer wouldn’t care about the justice element, ( strong likelihood he is a narc himself) just the money he could get. That also impacts our view of Guiffre. She isn’t making her decisions alone, she’s being steered by a very switched on ball washing bastard!

            I don’t see justice as having been done here at all. If Guiffre is telling the truth then the payoff didn’t serve to clarify her position and highlight her as a victim of abuse with Andrew a clear perpetrator. Instead, fairly or unfairly she still looks like an individual who was cashing in. I couldn’t deal with that personally. I’d either not bring a civil suit in the first place or I’d commit and go broke to get the truth out. It’s possible her lawyer promised her her day in court, then delivered a cheque instead.

            Ultimately we don’t know. We might have seen more clearly if the case had gone before a jury because of the additional evidence that would have had to be provided. Im not sure that justice would actually be served even in that case though. I’m led to believe that in civil cases the jury isn’t asked to find someone guilty beyond all reasonable doubt as they would in a criminal case. It’s based more on how likely is it that the individual caused damage and compensation is based on that likelihood. So, it’s likely that Andrew slept with Guiffre but unlikely he knew her age for example. How would a jury balance that? Im not sure.

            I believe in the legal system when it comes to criminal cases. I’m not sure I trust it when it comes to civil cases, but the options are the options. Like you, I can see also where NA is coming from with her points. It’s almost a case of cutting your losses.

            In the absence of concrete evidence, going on the information we were given, I have to say I still don’t see Guiffre as a victim in the true sense. There’s too much about her behaviour at that time that I just can’t reconcile. I see Andrew as a self entitled, self serving, dodgy dealing narc who probably deserves to be hit in the wallet but I don’t see him as a calculating abuser. Honestly, I see him as a bit of an idiot trying to play with the big boys, whilst most likely being manipulated by Epstein.

            It’ll be interesting to see what else comes to light when / if the other women bring civil cases. That might offer more clarity.

            Xx

          4. lickemtomorrow says:

            TS 🙂

            Good to see your reply and glad the attachment was helpful x

            In terms of lawyers and their fees, “no win, no fee” is a little different to “pro bono” cases from what I understand. Pro bono is purely voluntary and no money comes to the lawyer even in the case of a win. Instead the lawyer may take the case due to its high profile nature or because they have a passion for the case or cause, and it is purely at their discretion which case they decide to take. They may do this to increase their own profile due to publicity, calculate it as an investment of sorts with regard to their practice, and simply because they believe in the ‘righteousness’ of the case.

            In terms of Guiffre’s lawyers in this case, I’m not sure on what basis they were working. If it’s pro bono they will not be expecting any payment, but a hugely heightened profile. It might make up for the fact the lawyers firm also represented Harvey Weinstein in days gone by as well as Elizabeth Holmes, the Theranos thief. So many people could for the Tudorscope.

            If they were working for money this is what David Boise has said about his fees:

            “Everybody is entitled to a lawyer, but not everybody is entitled to me.”

            He charges $2,000 US dollars an hour and is one of the highest paid lawyers in the US. He has a formidable reputation in Court, apparently, and no doubt would prove a formidable foe. It’s hard to know what advice he gave when it was apparent Andrew was willing to pick up the gauntlet. If he was getting paid, he might have advised to go all the way. If he wasn’t getting paid, he might have advised to take the money. That’s another angle on this whole affair. Maybe it wasn’t about justice for him either. Although supposedly he would normally be getting paid to do what the client wants. Who is likely to be able to afford this guy? Virginia has had more than one payout previously – from Epstein, Maxwell and is also suing Dershowitz. Now she has Andrew’s millions. I’m guessing she might be able to afford him. Maybe someone knows if they took this case pro bono. Not sure how much clarification that would add, though.

            Like you, I’d be wanting justice. I wouldn’t make a song and dance about that publicly if I was willing to take a cheque instead. In the end, she made more of a song and dance about the money. To me that means it was never about the justice of a Court – whether Civil or Criminal – where she could be properly judged as well, but about the court of public opinion and the justice pending from that. I’m inclined to go deeper in terms of my truth seeking traits as I know you are as well, which means I’m not generally swayed by the court of public opinion. I’ve got to suss out all the angles and look at the story from multiple sides before coming to my conclusion. A proper airing of the facts – telling both sides of the story – would have been very beneficial. At least in terms of airing the dirty laundry to greater effect than a he said/she said scenario.

            Your second to last paragraph says it all for me, leaving me with the question of who is more calculating. That Andrew was mistaken in having dealings with Epstein is obvious. How far he was drawn into those dealings is something to consider. That Virginia was mistaken in having dealings with Epstein is also obvious. How far she was drawn into those dealings is also something to consider. No winners here.

            Not sure why we aren’t hearing more about other victims and high profile offenders, but it will be interesting to see where it all goes next xox

          5. Truthseeker6157 says:

            Hey LET,

            Wow that quote from Boise was something else! It screams narcissist doesn’t it?

            I pondered to myself that if I knew a lawyer was a narcissist, would I opt for him or another lawyer I thought wasn’t a narcissist? I’d take the narcissist surgeon (assuming you got me near a hospital to begin with which is highly unlikely) but a lawyer, a lawyer I’m less certain of. I think I’d go non narcissist for the lawyer, particularly if I anticipated ending up in a courtroom. I wouldn’t trust a narcissist to read the room or win over the jury. You don’t need those skills if you are a surgeon. That kind of negates Boise’s success though doesn’t it? Haha! Meh, I’m still going non narc for the lawyer because I am a goddess of logic, obviously!

            Yes, it has gone very quiet as regards the other Epstein victims. I wonder what they thought about Guiffre’s result. That, I’d really like to know.

            The way you describe how you view the court of public opinion and turning cases around and around looking for the truth of the matter, I totally relate to. I think I’m always going to be biased against a narcissist to an extent but that doesn’t prevent me from continuing to examine motives of the various players to get to the truth.

            In this way I think my drive to see justice done still overrides the natural bias felt against the narcissist. I truly believe in the justice system as one that applies to all, where all should be treated equally based on their actions rather than perceptions of them as being good, bad etc. I recognise that this view is somewhat naive, but as a concept, I believe in the system of justice. I get frustrated when that process is halted part way through. That’s how it feels to me in this case.

            I’ve really enjoyed this conversation LET. I enjoyed reading your conversation with Asp Emp too, I just stayed quiet so as not to interrupt the train of thought. (Hey Asp x)

            Thank you as always for your consideration of my thoughts. Xx

          6. lickemtomorrow says:

            TS <3

            Boise definitely screams "narcissist", which is probably how he's got to where he is and able to charge his phenomenal fees. I'd imagine he's pretty 'cutthroat', as narcissists tend to be when they're in to win, and in that sense I'd have to wonder whether they would be better value as attorneys/lawyers in the long run. Hate to say it, but if you got a Greater narcissist with all the wiles at his/her disposal (charm included) there's a good chance they're going to be able to sway a jury, not forgetting their finely tuned predatory instincts and how that might play out in Court. Empaths are finely tuned, too, in a different way in terms of reading people. It could be a clash of the Titans on the Courtroom floor is you matched a Super Magnet empath with a Greater Elite narcissist. Makes me think it would be interesting to take apart different Court cases with an understanding of the lawyers status (empath/narcissist) to see how they operate and who ultimately wins the case. LOL. Another rabbit hole for me to wander down 😉 I'm thinking of Robert Kardashian (Kimmy K's dad) and the O.J. Simpson case. Seems like all the Kardashians are narcs, so if he was one then it would interesting to watch one of the movies/series depicting the part he played in O.J.'s acquittal.

            If you've seen the series "Dr.Death" you might think twice about the narcissistic surgeon, TS. It's frightening in its depiction of a man who believed he was some kind of God in the operating theatre, generally to the patient's detriment. There were some tragic consequences. I see the point of someone needing to be unempathic when cutting into other individuals and going places no other human being would care or dare to go, but empathic individuals can also put their empathy on hold to do what needs to be done in those circumstances. The narcissistic surgeon won't have any qualms about doing what needs to be done, but don't discount the empath either <3

            I see you, Goddess of Logic, either way 🙂

            Yes, it's interesting we hear little from other Epstein victims in relation to Guiffre and her case, though perhaps I just haven't seen the reports.

            Examining motives is a great description. I need to get to the bottom of things and don't just take surface information at face value. I'm the thorn in the side in that sense. Don't tell me something and expect me just to believe it. Not going to happen. Especially if I already have some prior knowledge that would make me question a situation. I find we are much more inclined to react based on emotion as opposed to logic these days and are also being fed much more emotional content. It's like an endless feedback loop of emotion – outrage, disgust, shame, anger, hate. Sometimes we need to take a step back from things that might be clouding our vision in order to see more clearly, certainly before making decisions based on that. Empaths are geared for emotion and emotive content, so we need to be extra watchful of narcissists in that respect. Kind of takes me back to the whole Courtroom thing.

            The court of public opinion shows how people can be swayed, and sometimes not, by various forms of content. It's why it's so important from my perspective to be able to examine various sides to the story and not just be fed one version. How else do we make a judgement? A judgement can only be made after we have been presented with all the facts, which includes opposing arguments and positions.

            Haha, way off track here, but it's where my head is at today xox

            I also have that same drive for justice and concur with your sense of dissatisfaction on the fight for justice being halted halfway through in the Guiffre case. It frustrates me no end that the waters remain muddy on this one and shrouded still at the end.

            Always enjoy our convos, TS, and I sit back sometimes, too, so as not to interrupt others train of thought or revelations. There is a sense of knowing when to intervene, and when to just appreciate what others have to say while taking in their position and perspective xox

          7. Asp Emp says:

            Hey TS. I have just seen your “small print” 😉 Thank you for that. “Interrupt my train of thought”? LOL. I understand exactly what you mean and I appreciate you saying so.

            I did reply to a couple of your comments: links are:

            https://narcsite.com/2022/02/02/why-cant-they-see-it-too-the-narcissists-facade-at-work-9/#comment-426576

            https://narcsite.com/2022/02/09/down-17/comment-page-1/#comment-426574

            Prayer for the Victim 🙂 Hmmm. The Virtues of Keeping Your Mouth Shut (ah, nah, fk that, eh? ;-))

            Thank you TS. Hope all is ok with you xx

          8. Truthseeker6157 says:

            LET,

            Absolutely, we are fed an enormous amount of emotional content on a daily basis. Much of it masquerading as impartial world news. We are fed a narrative and instructed as to the correct / socially acceptable way to think. Just tell me the facts, I can form an opinion myself haha!

            I’ve started watching the Al Jazeera news channel since the conflict in Ukraine began. I think they are reporting more factually than any other channel I’ve seen and they have some very articulate commenters speaking about the various aspects. If you haven’t seen the channel, I think you might find it interesting.

            I see Andrew made an appearance on Monday at the memorial service. Actually, I think Andrew should have been in attendance, Prince Philip was his father too. No point hiding that fact. Walking Her Majesty The Queen to her seat I think was a mistake, but I admire the Queen for sticking to her guns. If she wanted him with her then she should have him with her. Her needs should come first at the moment in my view.

            Coincidentally I was in London on Monday. I took a walk through Westminster, past the horse guards and number 10 through to the Parliament building. There were police everywhere. All down the Mall, through Westminster etc. it made me smile to myself, Harry and his Wife’s concerns for their safety were definitely without solid foundation as far as I could tell. I had a chat to a couple of police on the Mall, they were very co ordinated but even they only receive word of Royal movements at the last minute.

            It was a strange atmosphere, London was busy yet felt very quiet. I saw Charles and Camilla in their car passing me on the Mall, no crowds, very few people there, subdued, would be a good description of the general atmosphere. It made me realise how much Harry has left behind. The fake service that he and his wife engage in now looks like a tin pot Micky Mouse rip off of the real thing. Incredible that the shallow fakery of what he does on a daily basis doesn’t wear Harry down. Not much about it seems authentic when compared to what he has left behind. In his quieter moments, I suspect that must haunt him. There’s something very reassuring about the history and protocol of a monarchy when times are so uncertain.

            It was a strange day to be in London, I thought I’d update you about how it felt 🙂

          9. lickemtomorrow says:

            TS, totally agree with your first paragraph.

            I did catch an interview/news report from Al Jazeera on YT which I found very interesting.

            Truth is the first casualty of any war.

            The origin of this sentiment can be found in “The Idler” magazine from 11/11/1758 which says “…among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.”

            I concur with this statement. Each side will present their own narrative from their own perspective and also imply how people should feel about that. It can be hard to get to the truth. Can there be objective observers? Usually those outside the remit of the conflict. Al Jazeera may be one of those. I may need to look into that.

            I think the fuss everyone is making over Andrew attending his father’s memorial and walking the Queen to her seat is BS. Philip was his father, his mother would appreciate his support, and he’s entitled as Philip’s child to attend and offer his respects. Instead of focusing on the fact he chose to do that in spite of his public humiliation and drawing a comparison to Harry’s ‘no show’, we have the press continuing to beat up on Andrew on what must be a very solemn occasion for him as well. I didn’t see one report praising him for putting his best foot forward on this occasion, instead deriding him further. Harry and his wife are off the hook with the focus on Andrew. I’m just grateful they didn’t make the effort. Not even a statement. No surprises there.

            They played my old school hymn on the Queen’s entry and as she took her seat – “He Who Would Valiant Be” – which made that portion of the service very sentimental for me. It takes me back to a time where respect was a priority in my young life and we were also being taught to be valiant “‘gainst all disaster”. We wore blazers, hats and gloves in all seasons with ‘regulation knickers’ to boot!

            That was a coincidence you were in London at this particular time and how lovely that you have treated us to a little insight as to what it was like <3 It sounds like it was solemn there, as befitted the timing I guess, and I'm surprised you were able to wander as freely in the circumstances. The level of security shows it was no ordinary week, and Harry and his wife were just looking for an excuse. Nobody cares anymore. Knowing his Grandmother is unwell and reducing her duties should have also prompted him to travel. It shows him up in a very bad light.

            Wow, you saw Charles and Camilla? That's exciting! Puts you right in the midst of the action. I have to concur with your last sentiment: "There’s something very reassuring about the history and protocol of a monarchy when times are so uncertain." It reminds me a little of what Violetta said in another thread to us. There is strength in tradition, and a real beauty at times, too. I think it needs to be weighed up at times with what we imagine is to be gained by destroying it.

            So glad you shared your thoughts on how you felt, TS xox

          10. Truthseeker6157 says:

            Asp Emp,

            Those comments you linked to really helped me trace my steps, thank you very much for posting them. Xx

            Haha yes, sitting quietly reading is unusual for me I know, I’m usually visible across a number of threads, on this occasion though I just liked the interaction between you and LET and was content to see the flow of ideas 🙂

            Train of thought, yup, laughing, Your train appears to stay nicely on track though, mine is pulled up in the station waiting for the buffet car to arrive I reckon haha!

            Other than that, thank you I’m well, busy, but staying on top of things 😎.

            Xx

          11. Truthseeker6157 says:

            LET,

            You made me laugh at the mention of your regulation school knickers. I used to have grey regulation knickers and my dad called them my ‘ bullet proofs’ haha! I had a real obsession about doing hand stands and headstands as a kid. There’s a time frame where all of the photos are of me upside down skirt over my head! Kids are funny. My daughter was similar only she used to walk on her hands. Did it everywhere, in the mall, round the house, you name it.

            Respect. Yes. My parents were big on respect. My school was strict too. I still would never swear in front of my parents. It just wouldn’t feel right. I don’t swear much anyway but I’d be mortified if I slipped up in front of them.

            I was lucky to see Charles and Camilla in their car. I could see them very clearly, there were very few people on the Mall. I’m not star struck by the Royal Family but I was interested to see them and kind of felt sorry for Charles as they drove past. He’s a narcissist, so he won’t feel grief, but I’m not a narcissist so I still felt sorry for him, given the occasion.

            Yes, people could walk where they wanted pretty much, some roads were closed and the police presence was very obvious in that there were so many walking in pairs all over the place but it still felt relaxed. I thought it was very well done. Professional, unobtrusive.

            Yes, I agree, Prince Andrew had a right to be at that service. For me it falls under ‘family’ not ‘public service’. Similarly, it wouldn’t offend me to see him celebrating the Queen’s Jubilee. She’s his mother and she will want him there. Stripping his titles, no public engagements etc is absolutely correct but family events I think are different.

            London is definitely growing on me. I visited the Tate Modern and the Natural History Museum this time, which I loved. I have to say I think I missed a trick when it comes to art. One piece was a Co Op receipt pinned to the wall. Now, I’m not being funny, but I reckon I could have done a better job on the pinning!

            Xx

          12. lickemtomorrow says:

            TS, I was hoping someone else could relate to the thought of ‘regulation knickers’ 😛

            We also had to kneel to have our dresses and skirts measured to make sure they didn’t rise too far above the knee. LOL. Girls just hitched them up after the measuring was done! Checking the knickers was more of a threat than a promise, thank God.

            You sound like a very energetic young lady, and so does your daughter 🙂 I used to love gymnastics, but never got much of a chance to develop my skills as I only did it as part of our regular sports program. I hated hurdles. OMG. I was shitty at team sports and preferred individual sports for the most part. They were recruiting for the netball team at one stage and the bitchy sports teacher told me I could be the “orange girl” when I offered to participate. Screw that. Screw her, too.

            Agree with you on Andrew and lol to the pinning of the Co Op receipt 😛 What passes for art these days can at times be questionable, but the artist will have an explanation for what they are attempting to convey. It will be something meaningful and no doubt you were left to make your own interpretation. I could look at HG’s graphics here all day. Some of them are amazing, in terms of the thought that must have gone into them, and also loaded with meaning. Very creative. It’s not the same as painting the Mona Lisa, but there is an element of intrigue all the same.

            Do keep us up to date on your travels. I enjoy hearing about your adventures xox

          13. Truthseeker6157 says:

            LET,

            Regulation Knickers, oh yes, you can have faith in me! Haha. Maroon A line skirt and pale blue shirt, tie and, either hat with badge, or, wait for it, beret. Haha. That was secondary school, no regulation knickers there but the uniform was equally vile.

            Sixth form, life changed, relaxed choice of black skirt, white blouse and black or grey cardigan / sweater. Game on, no more below the knee for TS, oh dear me no. And, my friend had a Mini Cooper, one of the original little minis. You can fit 6 in a mini to get to the chippy at lunchtime. Who knew?!

            Sports, meh, I was ok. I was on the netball and cross country teams. I hated cross country, I was just pig headed and kept going. No talent just stubborn. Orange girl? Orange girl?! Nobody makes LET hand out oranges!

            Xx

          14. lickemtomorrow says:

            TS, you made me smile 🙂 I knew I could count on you <3

            Ooohh, a beret! We had straw boaters for the summer and felt hats for the winter. I love the sound of your Sixth Form uniform! LOL to the mini and a trip to the chippy 😛 Mine and my best friend's most daring trip was to raid the bar in her parent's home during our lunch hour to make Tequila Sunrise 😉

            OMG, you were on the netball team? You must have been better than me, or else the sports teacher wasn't a bitch like mine! Anyway, good for you <3 I only offered because they said they needed players and her comment was just like a slap in the face. I'm going to bet she was a narcissist! LOL, it's true. Nobody makes me hand out oranges unless that's what I offer to do 😉 Appreciate the back up there. I can see you being stubborn about the cross country, and making sure you got to the end. Obviously made of tough stuff x

            You just keep on being pig headed, TS. It's got you to where you are today and no doubt will take you to where you need to go xox Thanks for the chat 🙂

          15. Truthseeker6157 says:

            LET,

            You made me chuckle there. Raid a bar and make tequila sunrise haha! Not vodka and whatever came to hand, but tequila sunrise. There’s a flair and flourish to that haha, I like it!!

            Netball, I played goal keeper, only because I was good at leaning on one leg without falling over 😂 and was fast on my feet, that was all you needed to play that position really haha!

            Yeah, pig headed has served me pretty well I suppose. It made me a difficult child to manage and a difficult adult to live with but it does have its upsides. Not easy to influence. Now I have kids of my own, I am ever thankful for that stubborn streak. They tend to stick to their guns and with all of the negative influences through social media etc, sticking to your guns is more important than ever I think. Sometimes, just sometimes, I do wish “Because I said so” would work on them, haha! No such luck 😉

            Xx

          16. lickemtomorrow says:

            TS, I’d hate to be a goal keeper, and you’d need a lot of nerve, too. The pressure is immense. Definitely need to be quick on your feet and prepared for odd angles 😉

            I’ve got football on my mind after watching the Liverpool vs Manchester City draw!

            Your relationship with your kids sounds a lot like mine. They’ll try to ‘outflank’ me occasionally and generally it’s a draw in that situation as well. They can bring it, much like me, and we hone our intellectual skills on eachother. Sometimes it gets heated, but we always give one another something to think about even if we maintain our positions. Eventually someone will withdraw and not necessarily claiming a win, just a truce 😉

            Yes, it would be nice if “Because I said so” worked on them and the older they get the less likely that is to be the case. Mine know there are some tried and tested rules that they can’t go past, though, which generally relates to manners. I don’t need to say “Because I said so” then, it’s obvious xox

          17. Truthseeker6157 says:

            LET,

            Yes, I think so, our relationships do sound similar. My daughter debates with me most. Quietly stubborn, she just doesn’t budge, but then neither do I really. The worst conflict we had recently was over her WiFi being turned off at 11 pm. That ran and ran. She’s nocturnal like me, but then struggles to get up in the morning for school. She didn’t speak to me for a whole week. I didn’t move, she didn’t move, stalemate.

            I continued as usual. Not falsely nice, but held to my usual routine with her, no penalties. Still wishing her a good day at school as she left, still saying hello when she came home, still telling her I loved her before bed. After about a week she started talking and I was totally normal. She apologised before bed one night, out of the blue. I accepted the apology and told her I had missed my girl. She hugged me and told me she hated not saying goodbye in the morning. How she worried that I’d have a car accident and die thinking she didn’t love me. I told her next time we have a disagreement, she didn’t need to worry. If I die in a car accident, I know she loves me and I’ll love her just the same as always. So she can go ahead and sulk guilt free going forward! haha! She laughed and hasn’t sulked since.

            My son can’t manage it. He just can’t stay cross with me beyond about an hour. I’ll go in and ask if we’re friends yet, or, tease and tell him he still looks really handsome when he’s grumpy. He can’t hide the smile, he tries, but it breaks through. His view is more that if I’m digging my heels in over something, then there’s a genuine reason, and he might not agree but usually he gets a pretty good deal so what’s the point in splitting hairs?

            I might be a little lenient perhaps but, overall, they both have sensible heads on their shoulders. They both confide in me about friends, school, getting into trouble and about prospective relationships. I have it good, they’re happy, that’s not bad for two teenagers haha!

            I really enjoy them both in different ways. My son started at my gym just recently. I’m helping him to train, he listens, he’s very proud of what I can do myself and sees me as a good training partner ( not sure how long I’ll keep up given his soaring testosterone levels, but I’ll give it my best shot). My daughter, it’s more about clothes, shopping, friends she introduces me to. I now have Snapchat, she set up my account and we chose the outfit for my avatar. Her best friend snaps me too haha! People complain about teenagers being non communicative. I’m really enjoying teenage years so far. I worry most about school and grades, exams and homework but I’m always going to worry about that. When I read accounts here on the blog of those with narcissistic parents, I think I have to look at it, that they will get the grades they get and things will fall into place as long as they are happy and healthy mentally. They’re bright, great with people, they might not be Philadelphia lawyers, but they’ll have a solid foundation for decent careers and the rest has to be up to them.

            This is me pre exam season. Let’s see how I am in the coming weeks!

            There’s a lot swirling through my head today. Thank you for listening.

            Xx

          18. lickemtomorrow says:

            TS <3

            Our relationships with our children do sound very similar and you sound like you have a wonderful relationship with yours, in spite of the odd hiccup! Your daughter definitely seems to have inherited your "stubborn streak" and she proved it by her actions. Wow. You handled that really well. Good job, Mama xox

            Boys are a different kettle of fish and my son sounds much like yours with a few added years now, so the testosterone has fuelled his growth and his temper at times, but he's got a more mature handle on things currently. I mentioned my son recently (6 months ago) broke up with his girlfriend and I usually check in with the kids on Valentine's Day and use it as a reminder to let them know I love them, too <3 This most recent Valentine's Day, I wanted to send him a message and my first thought was "Hope your Valentine's Day doesn't suck" 😛 Now, I did second guess myself and checked in with my eldest daughter and her boyfriend, asking them if they thought that was inappropriate and might upset him. The boyfriend said "Don't do that!" and being a sensitive guy obviously felt it would be more harmful. So, I let it go, but saw him later that day, and first thing I did was tell him about the message I was going to send. He thought it was hilarious and said I should have done it. We match eachother's sense of humour, which also has a very Irish take in many ways, and it's "taking the piss", which I think a lot of guys do naturally as a means of coping with tragedy and heartbreak. It's not to ignore it, but acknowledge it in a way it doesn't weigh you down – unlike "OMG, how are you feeling, it must be hard, hope you're OK", etc. That also has a place, so you have to know the person and what works best, but I should have followed my instincts on that one 😉

            I think your kids will be fine with you as their mother, regardless of their grades x

            We instinctively want them to do well, but we can't force them. They need to get there under their own steam, but we can gently guide them. I tried to suss out my kids talents from their interests and encouraged them, always keeping in mind the most important thing was they knew I loved them no matter what. Stressing about exams and results wasn't a thing in my house, though being conscientious and doing their best was encouraged. They've all taken slightly different paths, but worked things out for themselves without me trying to direct them. I might have made suggestions at times they were free to ignore of take on board, but I knew it was always their life and they needed to find their own way through it. I'm here if they need me <3

            It makes me wonder if your own parent's stressed about your results and exams, wanting you to do well and put a premium on that, or if you are naturally concerned for your children knowing that good results are the best way to move forward in the world? There's always a balance to be found and your son attending the gym with you is part of that 🙂 Way to go, Mama, if he's impressed with your efforts. He is going to surpass you with testosterone coursing through his body at some stage. That will be time to celebrate, that the son you are raising is not only handsome, but strong. It will also be a great outlet for some of his energy and even angst. My son enjoyed the showmanship of wrestling (WWE) as a young teen and joined a franchise where he also put on shows for a time. It was a 4 hour round trip to go to training and shows, so it took a lot of dedication on both our parts! But it was a great outlet, and I was impressed 🙂 They need to know your impressed <3

            I hope you can manage to chill a bit coming closer to exam time. You may need to learn to trust they will put their best foot forward and the likely way they will do that is if they commit to it under their own steam. A little bit of encouragement doesn't go astray, but it sounds like they are coming to an age where they need to begin taking the reins going forward. Stress less, TS xox

  2. ihaveqs2 says:

    I don’t know why you call Megan Markle a narcissist. I just don’t see it. Maybe someone is jealous of the royals, huh?

    1. HG Tudor says:

      You mean envious, not jealous.

      I recommend you actually read and listen because it is spelled out very clearly why she is a narcissist. After you have actually done this, revisit it and if you still cannot see it then you have a problem.

  3. Alexissmith2016 says:

    HG I hope you’re busy recording an update on him going in front of a jury. Will he? Won’t he? It’s just too much excitement for a girl like me

  4. Alexander the Authentic says:

    I saw there’s a discussion below about Prince Harry and male victims of narcissistic abuse. Just thought I’d share my perspective as a man.

    The narcissist that I dealt with didn’t engage in physical violence or sexual assault. She was of the same sub-school as Harry’s wife. However, some male victims are physically attacked which is probably in large part due to the particular sub-school of narcissist that they deal with. Example: Johnny Depp & Amber Heard. Although female victims are probably a lot more likely to be physically abused, it still can definitely happen to a male victim. That being said, male victims including myself will all have to deal with emotional abuse. For me personally, the silent treatments are the manipulations that hurt the most.

    Society definitely places certain standards and expectations about men. Men are seen to be protectors of the household, financial breadwinners, and are encouraged to be tough, brave, and chivalrous. These are understandable societal expectations and I always strive be all those things. With that being said, I do think these societal expectations cause a lot of men to keep quiet about narcissistic abuse. For me personally, I’ve always internalized what I went through, and I do the best I can to move on. I feel comfortable speaking out on a blog where no one knows who I am, but I wouldn’t share this to many people in my private life.

    With regard to Prince Harry, I won’t lie that I’ve been disappointed with him. However, I do recognize that he is a victim and is conned by his emotional thinking. I know he’s a good person and I wish him well and hope that he escapes. I definitely miss the amazing bond he once had with his brother (Normal) and sister-in-law (Empath).

    I am grateful that I came across HG’s work and I am thankful for his assistance. I also love my fellow Empaths whether they are male or female. Normals can be amazing people too just saying. We’re all in this together.

    1. A Victor says:

      What a great comment Alexander, thank you for sharing your perspective, I have wondered how it is for a man. My brother was affected by my mom’s abuse in ways that I think I was not, because he was a boy trying to become a man. Also, my ex is the same as Harry’s wife and yours, no straight up physical abuse at any point yet all kinds of abuse still occurred and achieved his goals, as with your wife and you. Thank you for sharing, we do all need to stick together! Glad you’re here!

      1. Alexander the Authentic says:

        You’re very welcome AV and thanks for understanding and appreciating my perspective. That particular type of narcissist is really annoying lol. Hopefully your ex and your mom aren’t causing you much trouble anymore. Also, hope your brother is doing okay too. I’m glad to be on board with you all!

        1. A Victor says:

          Hi Alexander, my ex is no trouble. My mother…is always trouble… But the good news is that I’m getting stronger and wiser so the time and she doesn’t affect me as she once did. I think my brother is ensnared by a narc and is similar to Prince Harry, she has complete control of him. It makes me sad but I can’t change it and she stays out of our lives so that’s good. Sadly she has him convinced he should too, I do hope at some point he’ll see it. Your comments give me hope for him quite often. 😊

    2. Asp Emp says:

      Alex, thank you for sharing your experiences and thoughts. It is good to read them. For a man, it can be as equally ‘damaging’ as it is for a female. It is a great pity that the ‘mindset’ of society somewhat remains Victorian when it comes to males in this instance. I can understand why you’d not talk about it with many people in your private life, in my personal opinion, it does not make a man less than the person he is. I am glad you feel comfortable in talking about it here.

      1. Alexander the Authentic says:

        You’re very welcome Asp Emp and thanks for appreciating my perspective. You said it best that abuse can be equally as damaging for a man or a woman. Also, I appreciate you saying that a man speaking out doesn’t make him less of a person than he is. I’ll remember that going forward. I’m glad to be here with you all.

        1. Asp Emp says:

          Alex, Thank you for your response. I am glad to have given you some words of confidence. It is good that you are here too, Alex. Onwards and upwards 🙂

    3. Bubbles says:

      Dearest Alexander,
      Thank you for sharing, it’s great having a male’s perspective plus a friendly reminder, men receive abuse as well

      We forget sometimes how difficult it is to be a male these days, particularly when so much has changed. Look at these ‘first date’ shows, some have no idea from both sides and confusion reigns

      I grew up with silent treatments and my mum turning her cheek when I’d go to given her a kiss, not pleasant, I received more cold pricklies than warm fuzzies for sure

      We can all see that Harry is a ‘victim’ and has lost his individuality as a person compared to what he was and I truly feel for him, Meghan is the dominant one and clearly has no respect for him whatsoever. When will he wake up, that depends on the length of string?
      Look at William and Kate, an equal couple, yet retaining their individuality. Relationships are not about controlling the other person, that’s called, being a one sided turnout

      Personally, I would continue being the lovely person you are, however, if a female doesn’t appreciate your wonderful qualities….. you’re definitely not suited.

      Thank you again Alexander, your contribution means a lot
      🥰
      Luv bubbles xx 😘

      1. Asp Emp says:

        Bubbles, I like this comment, thank you for sharing your thoughts 🙂

        1. Bubbles says:

          Dearest Asp Emp,
          Thank you gorgeous …. I really appreciate your opinion
          💕
          Luv Bubbles xx 😘

      2. Alex the Authentic says:

        Thank you Bubbles for that kind comment. I really appreciate everything you said.

        1. Bubbles says:

          Dearest Alexander the Authentic,
          You’re most welcome
          You are way better than you think you are, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise, or treat you with any more disrespect
          You are worthwhile …..don’t you forget it
          Don’t stop being you
          🥰
          Luv Bubbles xx 😘

    4. Alexissmith2016 says:

      Awww what a lovely post Alex. Yeah some normals can be okay, but sometimes I just want them to have a tad more empathy.

      I never use to have any interest in the royals. I’m still not to be completely honest but I am interested in their personalities since HG. And I do rather like Harry. I hate what he is and will go through. Catherine and William are lovely.

      1. Alex the Authentic says:

        Thanks Alexis! Couldn’t agree more 🙂

  5. Chihuahuamum says:

    Lmaooo just read about Prince Andrew’s teddy bear ocd 😆 wow 🙄

    1. WhoCares says:

      Two things: Justice can be a very elusive goal, even in a system that supposedly upholds this concept.

      ‘Settling’ can also mean different things to different people, whether or not there is hard cash involved.

  6. NarcAngel says:

    Legit question open to any feedback because I struggle to understand:

    Why does there seem to be less tolerance for Harry as a victim? Many comments and observations have been made with regard to Harry being a lost cause, a fool, expectation of him needing to assert himself or wise up and respond differently than he is, etc. Sometimes much worse and even more direct. If those same comments were made about someone else here on the blog, there would be (and it has occurred previously) much commotion and accusation of victim shaming. Suggestion of any introspection by the target met immediately with cries of “blaming” rather than merely something to consider (or not). A common response has previously been that the target did not know that they were dealing with a narcissist (although they will have know it was not a healthy relationship and they were/are being affected negatively).

    Harry is not aware (to our knowledge) that he is dealing with a narcissist. Why then the many negative comments about his behaviour and perceived lack or inability to change things? The expectation that he should “shape up” and stop participating in the damage to his children and extended family? Why is he not afforded the same attitude of support, patience, and understanding espoused here? (perhaps more especially here because we are aware). Why no out outcry when (as a target/victim) he is portrayed as a clown or as being without balls? Where is the outrage for him? Is he not ensnared and addicted?

    Is it because he is rich/celebrity and we feel disconnected from him as a real person?
    We expect that he has better access to counsel and the financial means to do so?
    We expect more strength from him being male?

    I’m interested in the reason for the difference in attitude towards him, as opposed to a target that might present themselves here or on Youtube with the same story but without the title of Prince.

    1. Asp Emp says:

      NA, thank you. I really respect you for taking the time to write this comment. I totally support and agree what you have said here. You have also shown your considerations behind your thoughts in your words. Thank you for speaking up, it is much appreciated.

    2. Witch says:

      It’s because he’s a man
      And because he’s a celebrity that people are not interacting with so the distance creates a lack of empathy
      I’ve criticised him based on some ridiculous things he has said but I don’t dislike him, I actually think he would make a great husband and it’s a shame he didn’t marry a “decent woman” who was just smarter than him and could lead sensibly. He is very loyal.

    3. Truthseeker6157 says:

      Hi NA,

      I’ve asked myself the same question, why don’t I have sympathy for Harry? I did, now I don’t. You’re also correct in pointing out that people here on the blog, when they share their stories, I feel genuine sympathy for them. I mull comments over trying to think of a way to help, some stories by readers here I find incredibly upsetting.

      So what’s the difference with Harry?

      I think there are a number of reasons without there being one specific reason I can point to.

      I’m actually not a big fan of the royal family full stop. I have a huge amount of respect for Her Majesty The Queen. Never liked Charles or Camilla. William and Harry I never had feelings for either way. I liked Kate, couldn’t abide Andrew. So really other than his partying, his gaffes and various girlfriends, I didn’t really know much about Harry to begin with. The loss of his mother at such a young age I found incredibly sad, but adult Harry I saw as a bit of a non event, living happily off the tax payer.

      I entirely defer to HG when he assesses Harry as an empath. I’m sure HG is correct. However, I don’t recognise Harry as such. There’s nothing that stands out to me that I can relate to as being empathic. Charity involvement, well, narcs do plenty of that. So I’m not recognising the empath. Here, reading the comments of other readers, I do recognise commenters as empaths, I do see their thinking, I do relate to them. I understand why they made the decisions they made during ensnarement. I might have made different decisions but I still fully relate to theirs. I don’t get any of that with Harry. It’s a little like someone saying, ‘That guy over there is a really nice guy.’ I’m not going to just accept that. I decide for myself if he’s a nice guy or not. So HG tells me Harry is an empath. I have to accept that is the case, but he still doesn’t feel like an empath to me.

      When the empaths here talk about their ensnarement, they are all similar, but also different. Some of us stayed too long, some blame themselves that they didn’t see it, some took revenge, some just cut off. Some tried to stay for their children thinking they were doing the right thing, some excused poor behaviour thinking it would pass or that it was due to outside factors, wouldn’t happen again etc. I understand all of this and fully sympathise, I understand the thinking behind each decision, I see the empath mind at work. Everyone here feels like an empath.

      What I just cannot fathom, are some of Harry’s behaviours. It’s the attacking I don’t accept. I understand empaths withdrawing from friends and family due to smearing by the narcissist etc. I don’t understand the attacking of his family. I don’t see how I could ever go ahead with releasing the Oprah interview when my grandfather was dying in hospital and my grandmother was terrified of losing her life partner. That image of the queen alone at Prince Philip’s funeral. My heart went out to her, those images were incredibly upsetting. Harry and his wife were still chip chipping away all around this time. I just can’t accept that behaviour. Something in the empath has to stay stop at this point. But Harry kept on. I cannot understand it. So in many ways you could say my compassion for Her Majesty The Queen repeatedly overrides my compassion for Harry and his ensnarement.

      Your point about Harry being male. Possibly there is an element of that. Empaths are often in physical danger from narcissists. Harry isn’t in physical danger from his wife. He isn’t being overpowered or sexually assaulted. So his gender might have a small impact on me in that overall, I see female empaths as being more vulnerable due to the physical aspect.

      I don’t believe that any of the ensnarement is Harry’s fault. I see him as a victim in this respect. I do feel sorry for him that he is in the situation he is in. I just can’t condone his attacking behaviours. That’s really what it boils down to. I can’t identify with that aspect, can’t get past his treatment of his grandmother, who I view as entirely innocent in all of it.

      I’m not saying I’m right in this. I believe I should feel more compassion for Harry. I would feel far better about myself if I did. I have to be honest though and say, not now, no, I have very limited compassion for Harry currently.

      1. HG Tudor says:

        I have witnessed empathic victims both in my private life and with those I consult with behave in ways very similar to Harry. They are caught in a maelstrom of manipulation and ET which skews their perception and consequent behaviours.

        1. Asp Emp says:

          HG, thank you for explaining it. “behave in ways very similar to Harry” – absolutely, some can recognise / relate to this.

        2. Truthseeker6157 says:

          “I have witnessed empathic victims both in my private life and with those I consult with behave in ways very similar to Harry….”

          I don’t doubt your assessment of Harry HG, or your assessment of the motivation behind his behaviours. For me though there also has to be a limit. A tipping point that says, ‘What I’m doing here just isn’t right.’

          I do feel sorry for Harry, because one day when his grandmother dies, he will realise that he can’t get these years back. For an empath, that will be excruciating.

          1. HG Tudor says:

            However, how can somebody reach the conclusion “What I’m doing here just isn’t right” when they cannot see what is going on. You find that conclusion easy to reach because you are not in the midst of it all, you are looking at it as an external observer. I have dealt with so many people in consultation who when they first came to me fell into these (non-exhaustive categories)

            1. I love this person, I want it to work.
            2. I do not care that they hurt me, I am willing to make that sacrifice, I just want to be with them.
            3. HG, tell me how I can manage this person so we can at least make it okay some of the time.
            4. HG, I want to destroy this person, tell me how to do it.
            5. I want to make them come back so we can carry on.
            6. I want to fuck up their new relationship.

            None of those observations above are logical, yet those people all genuinely held those views and did so vociferously. They engaged in a variety of behaviours which were demonstrative of reduced empathy occasioned by an external stressor. If viewed in isolation, nobody would conclude that person was empathic, however when sent in the proper context, once can understand who they are and why they are behaving as they did.

            Through my assistance, I ensured the individuals GOSO´d and when their ET dropped and the external stressor faded, they looked back on the person the came out with those statements listed above and they all said “What did I become, I did not see what was going on” (or words to that effect).

          2. WhoCares says:

            “However, how can somebody reach the conclusion “What I’m doing here just isn’t right” when they cannot see what is going on. You find that conclusion easy to reach because you are not in the midst of it all, you are looking at it as an external observer.”

            Similarly, in hindsight and as an external observer, it’s easy to state, “I would never have engaged in A, B, C & D.” ( Fill in whichever poor behaviours you want.) But, the same external observer, in their own ensnarement, engaged in “E, F, G & H..” (Fill in whatever questionable behaviours.)

          3. Asp Emp says:

            HG, again, thank you for that. Thank you also for taking the time to write a long explanation. I would suggest, while I am an external observer in relation to Harry’s situation now, I would have been totally ‘blind’ to what he is experiencing now while I was in my own lengthy (life-long) “situation”. What I ‘became’ as a result is still a raw ‘realisation’ yet I believe I am managing extremely well, having learned extremely well too. It is eerily similar to the death of a loved one, the death of myself to a degree yet there has been a rebirth (thanks to you mainly and to others on here). I will rejoice in that. Deep down I always knew that I was not really “the what I became” because it never really felt ‘right’ if you can understand. Effectively having got rid of my ‘false’ self that I never really was. Thank you, HG x

          4. Truthseeker6157 says:

            HG,

            Firstly, thank you for taking the time to explain, I always appreciate your time and explanation.

            I do understand what you are driving at here. How can someone know what they are doing is wrong when their judgement is impaired? The narcissist does impair our judgement, I wholeheartedly agree with you there. Looking at the examples you listed above, I understand those protestations and understand the emotions behind them, even the revenge and the wanting to ruin the narcissist’s new relationship.

            I understand it because the emotion is centred around either the empath themselves, or, targeted towards the narcissist.

            If I was head over heels in love with a narcissist, the narcissist handed me a gun and said “Shoot that guy over there, he caused me to lose my job, you’d do it if you loved me” I wouldn’t shoot. No matter my feelings for the narcissist, my own will would kick in and say “No, that’s wrong on every level.” It’s an exaggerated example to illustrate my point. (I’m genuinely not trying to be an arse.) At some point, the respect for right and wrong, the respect for self has to kick in, in spite of ET. No one would ever leave the narcissist otherwise, assuming they didn’t find you of course.

            A 37 year old man targeting his 95 year old grandmother, is akin to firing the gun. It’s wrong.

            I understand Harry won’t see it that way, not yet. This is where I’m starting to see your point. Harry doesn’t see that by attacking the institution he is attacking his grandmother. I see his behaviour in that way, but I will, I’m on the outside looking in. Harry sees his behaviour as protecting his own family and speaking out against what he perceives to be poor treatment by the Royal Family, thanks largely to the narcissist pouring poison in his ear.

            I take your point HG.

            I visualise that old lady at 95 sitting on her own, dressed in black and grieving her husband. That’s the image I have of her now. It isn’t fair that she has to deal with this. Not now, not after a lifetime of service. What you have made me realise, is that my anger is trained on the wrong person perhaps. It should be directed squarely towards Harry’s Wife, less towards Harry himself.

            Do I now feel more sympathy towards Harry? I might be getting there.

            Thank you HG.

          5. HG Tudor says:

            I don’t find the analogy of firing a gun and killing someone, one that equates with hurting your grandmother. They are vastly different. You must remember that an empathic victim caught in the pincer grip of both manipulation and emotional thinking, as I have explained, is, to put it bluntly not thinking straight. They do not see that what they are doing can be considered as wrong. They do not think “oh it is wrong but I will do it anyway” they either do not see that it is a problem or they find a justification for it. They may in some instances recognise it is hurtful but still justify it because they feel like they have no choice. Take for instance the oft repeated scenario of a person who is ostracised from his his family by say a female narcissist. He is met by complaints by his parents and siblings, he knows it hurts them, but he still keeps a distance and turns down invitations because to do otherwise would cause his narcissist wife to lash out at him. “I know you are upset I am not coming to visit mum but it is just not with the aggravation, you do not have to live with her, I do.” That is a more obvious situation. In other instances that spouse has been subjected to repeated subtle smearing of his relatives so he ends up believing it. We are often skilled at using plausibility to cause people to believe the smear – I have done it many times.

          6. Truthseeker6157 says:

            HG,

            The analogy of firing a gun was an exaggeration to illustrate my point that at some juncture, every person knows that what they are doing or about to do is wrong. (from the empathic perspective).There is a tipping point for each individual.

            My analogy was exaggerated as you have pointed out. Similarly, I don’t find the example of not turning up to a family event even though it will hurt your parents, comparable to going on national TV and attacking an institution representative of your grandmother’s life’s work.

            In the case of feeling sympathetic towards Harry or his grandmother I’m always going to choose his grandmother. You might ask why not both? Honestly, I’d struggle to answer that other than I find it extremely difficult to defend someone when they are in the process of attacking an innocent party.

            I think this is the real crux of the issue for me actually. If Harry had privately attacked Charles, Camilla, William or Kate, it wouldn’t bring out the same reaction in me. My view would be more neutral, likely more sympathetic to Harry’s situation. Add Her Majesty the Queen into the equation and my view of Harry changes entirely. I can only suggest that it’s the innocent party / vulnerability element of the Queen, coupled with the very public nature of the attack that results in my limited ability to feel sympathy for Harry.

            Thank you again for your response HG.

        3. Duchessbea says:

          Very much agree with HG. When you see through all that, you have a lot of work to do on yourself. It takes time but you will get there and your logical thinking will be the strongest. Best, DB

      2. Violetta says:

        You know, I think class might actually be a hindrance in his case. He hasn’t interacted with enough people outside his class without the circumstances being controlled to some extent, so he doesn’t realize how tacky her behavior is. A middle-class person, even an American who isn’t familiar with British customs, who has routinely dealt with people from higher and lower classes would be less likely to think her over-familiar manner appropriate. If Harry does notice anything odd, he probably thinks it’s just some American thing.

        1. Truthseeker6157 says:

          Violetta,

          There’s definitely some truth to that I think. Certainly over familiarity, or ‘ something different’ could have been attributed to cultural difference to begin with.

          I lived in the US for a number of years and differences became apparent over time. When I first arrived I couldn’t believe how happy everyone was, particularly in bars, cafes and restaurants! Obviously that’s due to the gratuity. Haha! I struggled with the term ‘server’ too. That made me uncomfortable so I stuck to my ‘waiter / waitress’

          Similarly, turn of phrase.
          “Oh, you’re so funny!” = I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
          “Bless your heart” = I think you might be a bit stupid actually.

          However, the struggle was worth it due to some real gems.
          “Darn tootin’” = I agree
          “ I mean but as but, not the butt of your hiney.” = I refer to but, not butt (my daughter age 4.5 yrs, KY accent)

          We speak the same language but there are some quite pronounced differences in phrasing, humour, mannerisms, all sorts and it is possible that some of the narcissistic red flags might be attributed to cultural difference. (I lived in the South)

          1. HG Tudor says:

            Darn tootin´is one of my favourites. Always conjures up an image of William H. Macy in Fargo.

          2. Truthseeker6157 says:

            That’s interesting. The scene you refer to in Fargo, it’s used more like swearing. Could be a regional difference. In TN it’s more like, “You’re dayyumm right!”

            Either way, it still makes me chuckle.

    4. lickemtomorrow says:

      Interesting question, NA, and not that hard to answer.

      Take a look at his behaviour.

      He is victimizing others, and has been for quite some time.

      I fail to see how this is the behaviour of an empath.

      Stockholm Syndrome. Maybe. He’s been given the benefit of the doubt often enough.

      At some point that no longer excuses his behaviour. He is complicit.

      Empath or not, his behaviour does not entitle him to sympathy.

      Most people who come here are broken after ending their relationship with a narcissist or struggling through their continuing entanglement with the narcissist. Did any of them behave this way when they were involved with the narcissist? It’s possible. Would they be regretting it by the time they arrive here? Probably. If Harry is in the throes of his ensnarement, turning him into a nasty piece of work out to destroy his family, then his behaviour needs to be called out to awaken him to his ensnarement. There’s no other way. I’m not giving Harry a pat on the back for acting like an oaf and continuing to exist under that witch’s spell. He’ll get the pat on the back when he leaves her, or at least admits to the fact he’s under her spell and acknowledge his bad behaviour. Most empaths are victims of this type of behaviour, not coming here to display it. I think that’s where the difference lies.

      1. A Victor says:

        LET, I do relate to Harry. As a Standard empath, the first reaction, to keep peace and stay out of trouble, was to go along to get along. My Super, which is very high, stepped up to draw the lines, once I could no longer justify or tolerate. I don’t know if Harry has Super or not, I suspect if he does it’s not a lot. She has complete and utter control of him at this time, been there done that, he gets full sympathy. My heart breaks for the day he realizes what he has been a part of even though he literally cannot see it now.

        1. A Victor says:

          He gets full sympathy on the empath piece. If there are things done on his own, he does not.

        2. lickemtomorrow says:

          AV, thanks for sharing your thoughts on my comment.

          Like you, I know all about going along to get along, and it is to keep the peace, often to save others as well. We try to smooth things over and settle them down, basically appeasing the ever demanding narcissist.

          I’ve read HG’s comment around the level of emotional thinking and how that can impact in the midst of our ensnarement. We can’t see the forest for the trees, and I’ve no doubt Harry’s shortsightedness is possibly a result of this. He seems to be unable to think long term and is requiring many short term solutions to what he views are his/their problems. This is also producing the element of burning his bridges while he does so.

          If I take what I have just written and consider how dissonant Harry must feel in the circumstances, also having been there in some ways myself, I can feel a level of empathy for him. He is tied in knots, trying to please her, burning his bridges with everyone else, unable to know or understand where the problem lies or what the real solution is.

          I do believe an element of Harry’s own hurt and pride are tied up with this. Hopefully you will hear me out. Much of my comment with regard to Harry relates to his treatment of others, particularly his own family. While we are expected to give him the benefit of the doubt (severe ensnarement), he’s not willing to give any leeway to them. He’s out to get them, one way or another, and I sense a deep wound on his part is what’s also driving him here. In that sense, I don’t believe it is just his wife who is driving him to put that wedge between Harry and his family.

          I also think an element of pride comes into it. As empaths, we still have those narcissistic traits which can be corrupted by circumstance and I think Harry is being very prideful at the moment in judging his family while not taking any responsibility for matters himself. Much like the demand for protection. And it is a demand, not a request. He chose to walk away from the perks of royalty, desiring to establish himself as a private citizen. In doing that it was explained what the consequences would be and the Queen even gave them a year to be sure that’s what they wanted. He’s been given more than enough leeway by his own family to potentially make the right decision, and instead comes back with more petulant demands.

          Now, I didn’t specifically say he wasn’t a ‘victim’, he appears to be the victim of a number of narcissists, though that does not include some of the people he is currently overtly rejecting. The fog for him may never have cleared, making it easier for his wife to ensnare him. Being a high profile public figure allows for a dissection of both his own and his wife’s behaviour. While her behaviour is clearly that of a narcissist, Harry’s does not necessarily appear to be that of a victim. I think the reason for that is because he has his own axe to grind. His narcissistic wife may be feeding into that, but I’m doubtful someone could turn in such a complete manner on their own family unless they also had a problem with them.

          This is where Harry’s wife gets somewhat of a free pass from me. It’s narcissist’s who don’t take responsibility for their behaviour. If Harry is an empath, he has to be feeling on some level his behaviour is inappropriate. A narcissist can’t turn you into a narcissist. As someone else mentioned, we are not aware of Harry’s thoughts and feelings, or if he is sharing that with anyone else. We can only base our understanding on his actions. Is he remorseful, feeling guilty, uncomfortable with what he is putting his family through? Only Harry knows.

          I’m also totally over the contradictory press reports on him, some relaying the news of his challenge to the decision not to provide him with government protection, and others the news that he has been engaging in friendly chats with his father, Prince Charles, which may be negated by the fact he is not being afforded protection. I’m done reading conflicting stories and will just wait to see how it all pans out. There’s a sense people’s emotions are being played with big time in this whole scenario – well, those who care – and the final thought I’ll share is that Harry may be a victim in more ways than one. He is also a victim of his own pain and pride. I think this is the pointy end impacting his relationship with his family at the moment and has less to do with his wife than we may think.

          All speculation, btw, on my part, AV. And as an empath his heart will be literally broken when he realizes what he has been part of and how much he has lost. It might be the one and only time I’d wish for someone’s heart to be broken … in escaping the narcissist <3 Been there, done that xox

          1. A Victor says:

            Hi LET, of course I will hear you out! Not only do I highly respect your opinion, I’m sure you know more about the whole thing than I do. I do totally understand the questions about the actions he’s taking seemingly independently from her, and I agree that those are questionable. I wonder about a couple of things even with that though.

            One thought, she would have sussed out early in any issues he had with his family. As an empath, in my marriage when I learned of resentments etc my ex had toward his family, I encouraged talking towards healing, forgiveness etc. Harry’s wife may have done this also, only they know, but we know she would only have done so if it benefited her in some way. We also know that she is going to use that information on any way she can try meet her needs going forward. Once she has even a nugget, she can then capitalize on it and basically control his very thinking, which in turn means she is controlling his actions. I’m not saying he’s guilt free, there is personal responsibility involved for all of us. But I do think she’s wielding a lot of power over him.

            Another thing I think is he likely did go into the relationship with her, as I did with my ex, immature and with things not right between himself and his family. With some in his family, no way to make it truly right because they’re narcissists. I also believe that someday he will regret much of what is happening now.

            I think with his ET flying high and her manipulations, it is difficult to distinguish which parts are her and which are him. I did add a comment to that effect as soon as I sent the other, to clarify this muddled issue we see. And, as you said, the press isn’t helping with anything. Good to read your thoughts as always LET and please know that I do really try to hear people. 💕

          2. lickemtomorrow says:

            AV, first off please let me apologize for my poor use of terms in asking you to ‘hear me out’. When I wrote that, I knew what I was trying to express, but couldn’t find the right words at the time. What I wanted to say was ‘bear with me’, as in I was likely to be giving a long winded explanation of my thoughts, so it was not meant to be a reflection on you and I’m sorry if it came across that way 🙁 You have been extremely responsive to other commenters and your listening skills are of the highest quality. Please don’t doubt I respect your views as well and I appreciate you sharing them with me <3

            I don't think I'm any further ahead than you with my understanding as we are both taking much of that from what we are learning here, and amongst the 'common' people (i.e. people with no knowledge of narcissism), Harry is seen by many to be as narcissistic as his wife. Thankfully we can take a step back from that in assessing the situation and see it with a little more clarity. My take on his behaviour, in giving him the benefit of the doubt, is that he has his own axe to grind and that is also what is driving him. I don't lay the blame for his actions completely at his wife's doorstep.

            In saying that, I really appreciate the insight you have shared about how the narcissist uses our vulnerabilities against us. In your case, as an empath, you would have encouraged healing and reconciliation in the circumstances. It's not hard to imagine how the narcissist would seek to drive a further wedge between people in those already difficult relationship situations. Where there were no difficulties, no doubt she will have manufactured some. The family also inadvertently put their foot in it when making comments or suggestions, such as William advising Harry to take his time getting to know here, and the innocuous questioning about the baby's skin colour. This is where the narcissist also has us bound. They will take these instances and use them, as you say, to their advantage. With the emotional thinking already in play as she pushes and pulls him this way and that, he's likely to be much more vulnerable to her suggestions around who is on his/their side and who is not.

            This could definitely put his family in the firing line under her influence.

            There could be an element of immaturity added in, as you suggest, as well. He's not a young man, but he's certainly shown an immature side at times and in many ways not been forced to grow up before now. His security has been stripped away in the sense that she has become his only security now and he will need to depend on her after all the bridges he has burned. I can see how you come to the conclusion she has a lot more power over him than I imagine, which does make it difficult to know how much is her and how much is him sometimes.

            Reminds me of how we become the narcissist's extension. There is no 'us' anymore. There is just the narcissist and our strings being pulled by them. It has become quite muddled, and the press definitely don't help with their conflicting reports. One day we're good, the next day we're not. One day they're coming, the next day they're not. Today they're getting along with family, tomorrow there's another spanner in the works. It's exhausting! Just like the narcissist.

            It's good to read your thoughts again, too, AV <3 I got a much clearer understanding and appreciate your feedback as always xox I do feel heard, btw 😉 Thanks x

          3. A Victor says:

            LET, no need to apologize, I hadn’t taken offense. I was a tiny bit surprised to think you thought I wouldn’t but who knows how people read us on blogs, so no worries. I do appreciate your further explanation and I entirely understand what you were meaning. No problem.

            As to the rest, I see it as a muddled mess and I am, as you said before, also in a state of wait and see. There comes a point, and he has crossed it for many, that it no longer matters who’s to blame, he is equally as distasteful as she is. He’s even there in my mind, I just wonder, if he is ever away from her and learns what she is, what would he do on his own. Would his empathy, empathic nature, return and he’d be a likeable person again? Or would he decide he’s now on a path and must continue down it? Who knows, only time will tell. I did like him once, what little I knew of him, he seemed like a decent person. I see that that person seems no longer to be there, I just don’t know if it’s permanent or not. So, again, wait and see. Thank you for your comments LET, I really enjoy reading them!

          4. lickemtomorrow says:

            AV, thanks for your response and apologies for missing this earlier x

            I think your comment about equally distasteful says it all. People with no awareness of narcissism and its effects will not appreciate how he is being manipulated in this situation. It would be nice to think a more empathic Harry would return if he were ever to get away from her, but I think it’s going to take for that to happen, and I’m not sure he’d ever get back to his old self. I still think he may have had some issues beforehand and they could become even harder to resolve with this layered over the top. He’s more likely to become bitter after burning his bridges and addiction of some kind may not be off the table. He will need to find a way to cope with his feelings, her demands, the negativity they have both generated, etc. That may cause him to continue down the path he is on, not seeing any way out after burning so many bridges. I do believe Harry is prideful and this trait of his has been corrupted. Where a balance was able to be provided by family before (Wills and Kate) it seems that is now lost to him which is why we see the pendulum swinging so far one way. In that sense, the person people thought they knew before does seem to have disappeared. If he can’t escape her, she will be a deathtrap to him.

            Enjoy reading your comments, too, AV 🙂 x

    5. Alexissmith2016 says:

      I love Harry and really feel for him. I’ve never had any interest in the Royal family until HG started writing about them. I still don’t really, other than the personality side of things. I have a male friend who strikes me as being very similar in personality to Harry. And he has been heartbroken quite frequently. It’s so sad to see but he’s also not someone whom is ready to hear. And he repeatedly falls for these types of women. Although I don’t feel any disllike of Harry at all and also don’t fully understand why others who have been through a similar experience would feel the need to be negative towards him perhaps there is an element of almost distancing themselves and not wanting to recognise the bad behaviours a narc can bring out even in us empaths. I know I feel guilt for the bad behaviours an N can bring out in me and how those behaviours have hurt others whom I love. Even though I knew it at the time. I still did it.

    6. WhoCares says:

      NA,

      It’s a very good observation.
      I found myself being uncomfortable, from the beginning of the series, when Harry’s apparent lack of intelligence was being often mentioned (and spoke out about it) as if it’s a contributing factor in the ensnarement. (We all should have learned by now that intelligence has nothing to with being duped by a narcissist and that emotional thinking has everything to do with it.)

      Is it because he’s male, or that he’s a royal that makes it okay to make fun of the fact that he’s being led by the nose by a narcissist? (Because we were all led by the nose by a narcissist at some point.) Is it the stereotypical belief that because Harry’s a man that he should just stand up to his wife?
      Personally, while I laugh out loud at much of HG’s commentary on the Harry’s Wife series, the occasional harping on Harry’s apparent lack of intelligence sobers me up a bit. (Would such commentary go unchallenged if it were a female victim of a narcissist bring discussed in the same way in a series?) However, with repeated playing upon this theme I do find myself WANTING to be irritated with Harry and have reduced emotional empathy towards him – but I just can’t.

      The reason for this is that I see too many parallels between his situation and my past ensnarement.
      I left my job, my support system, and moved far away with my narcissist in effort to do what I fully believed (at the time) was the best thing for my child and to help my family by reducing stress, getting back to nature, etc. And in my case, while it may have been motivated by what my narcissist was conveying/spinning to me, we never had conversations about what should be done about it. I simply made a decision based on what I was seeing, what my family seemed to be experiencing and the opportunities that presented themselves – and I initiated the process to move etc., with my ex following along.
      The things that I seriously question about Harry’s situation is the extent to which he seems to defend his wife and the amount of ‘airing of dirty laundry’ that happens.
      For example, in the Oprah interview – if there was any uncertainty behind the occurrence of the apparent racist comments by a member of the Royal Family, I wouldn’t be able to sit by and support my spouse making such declarations on international TV or otherwise. This is why, in Harry’s situation, I believe there was likely a kernel of truth to this, that Megan capitalized on, to support her narrative of things and to sway Harry. There are numerous narcissists in the RF, so it is hardly a stretch to think that one or more might have made such comments to Harry in effort to procure fuel by way of an emotional response from him. Megan would have latched on to this in the way that HG has explained the narcissist uses ‘the Truth, the Half truth and Nowhere near the Truth’.
      Megan has managed to pit Harry against his own family in this way – I wonder if Harry has Saviour traits? I don’t have Saviour traits and looking back I can see how my narcissist (very subtly at first) tried to create conflict and division between me and my family members. I never rose to the challenge though. He would make accusations that my cousin did something to him (like sneakily snap a picture of him at an event or family gathering…or sneeze on him on purpose) and expect me to confront this individual and question as to why they would do that particular thing – it never worked on me. In fact, I would usually defend my family member and say that he or she wouldn’t do that. And he never managed to drive a wedge between me and my cousins as a result. (Funny, he always accused me of not protecting our family from outside “threats” and not standing by him – i.e. not jumping into the fray and fighting for his ’cause’.) Eventually, he did succeed in causing me to slowly drift away from family and I stopped making him attend family events with me – although I would still go myself. So, I have a hard time watching Harry defend his wife and fully swallow her narrative of things – but is that due to a lack of intelligence, the extent of his emotional thinking or his empathic traits being corrupted? I think it’s more about the emotional thinking and corruption of empathic traits.

      The airing of dirty laundry – I have a huge issue with…one would think that Harry’s education and guidance as a member of the Royal Family would kick in and prevent this from happening. I think this is a combination of him not being very wise and his erosion of empathy towards the Royal Family. Maybe also, he feels a bit of freedom in the US, thinking some how more able to speak his mind and inner thoughts on things like this – without repercussion? I think he will regret much of that kind of behaviour later – but I also think that this is symptomatic of the narcissist engineering matters so that we end up doing things that we would not normally sink to the level of doing. Most empaths that I know did things, during their ensnarement, that they are very much NOT proud and would like, given a ‘do-over’, to erase those actions from the record.

      The one thing that I have little empathy for, on the part of Harry, is any complaint of financial difficulties, lol. Like, seriously? Even if Harry’s Wife takes him for all he is “worth” – I know that, personally, I could happily live on whatever was leftover…
      And no matter how hard Harry hits bottom, at some point – he will never be without a home, or resources. So, any complaint in this area falls on deaf ears here.

      Sorry, if that was a book, but you asked.

      1. Asp Emp says:

        WhoCares, it is a very good book to read. Thank you for sharing it.

      2. A Victor says:

        WC, I agree with Asp Emp, great reading! I relate so much to your comment. I have also been uncomfortable with the remarks about Harry’s intelligence, they hit close to home. I may have even said one at one point, a thing about which I am not proud.

        Also, I did things during my ensnarement of which I am not proud. I once yelled at a dear friend because she had not quickly enough sent me information about a place I wanted to go with my husband because I thought it would help our marriage, I was desperate! I did apologize of course, we’re fine now but I was so caught off guard by the strength of my anger at her. I think it was the anger about the entire situation coming out at one time! This is something that I have done once in my life, to her. I don’t yell at people.

        And, you reminded me that my ex did attack, verbally and to me only, my sister on one occasion. It was so out of the ordinary and now I believe that he either saw her as a threat to him directly or as a competitor for my attention and wanted to drive a wedge between us. I did not allow it. He didn’t try again and she moved far away so that threat was nullified, he didn’t have to continue to badmouth her.

        Anyway, thank you for your comment, it was good to read.

    7. Empath007 says:

      This is not my take – but I think the answer is simple : He’s a man. The expectation that men should be in control, strong, and in charge is part of what our society has taught us since the days of Adam and Eve … it’s not right but people have engrained biases that they do not even realize are there.

      I’ve said a few times on this site I think men have it worse then women when it comes to abuse. Because they are that much more fearful to come forward because that makes them pathetic and weak. Also because women are viewed as the “gentler sex” they can often easily play the victim role and change the narrative of the man.

      That’s my two cents !

      I hope Harry figures it out – and comes to find me😂😂😂 (kidding ! I know I have no chance)

    8. Foreigner74 says:

      I think one of the reasons it’s hard to fully empathize with Prince Harry is that we don’t know what he really thinks and feels. He doesn’t go around talking to reporters, complaining that he can’t do what he wants because of his wife going out of her mind, sulking, giving him the silence treatment and so on and so forth if he opposes her. So what we perceive is that he and his wife are in perfect agreement with each other and this prevents our empathy from being tickled as much as in other cases where the victims of narcissists express their pain and their disappointment.

      1. HG Tudor says:

        Valid point.

      2. A Victor says:

        I was thinking this also, here, we do see into each other’s thinking, he has no outlet, no safe outlet anyway, for that. When I was married, I couldn’t show chinks, I had to present solidarity, even if behind closed doors it was chaos, and it pretty much always was at some level.

    9. Alexander the Authentic says:

      Well said NA. As a male, thank you for stating that.

    10. Leigh says:

      I actually empathize with Harry. It is extremely difficult to see the truth while you are in it. We make constant excuses even if its pointed out us. We stay in denial. Even after coming here I didn’t want to believe that my parents, my husband and my daughter are all narcissists. Its a very tough pill to swallow.

      If I had to take a guess, Harry thinks he’s protecting his family from the institution. His attacks aren’t coming from a place of malice. They are coming from a place of protection. He believes he’s being honorable and doing the right thing by his family. Just like TS protected her daughter from the gym teacher. I do hope the rose colored glasses come off but the truth is, sometimes they never do.

      1. A Victor says:

        Wow Leigh, you hit on something… In the interview HG was in yesterday, he states that no one will understand or seek out info on narcissism unless they’ve been ensnared (I am assuming not counting certain professions). If even those of us ensnared have such a difficult time seeing and accepting, and we do, it really is understandable that so many would never look, or get it. It almost feels like a lost cause from that perspective, of course, for us it’s not at all a lost cause. But we’re swimming against the stream trying to educate others.

        1. Leigh says:

          AV, exactly. Some aren’t even looking for it. I stumbled on it by accident. I googled, “why is he ignoring me.” While googling I found another article that led me to Mr. Tudor’s article, House of Discards. The truth seeker in me was intrigued. I couldn’t stop reading. I read and read and then read some more. I found it fascinating. Even while reading, I didn’t suspect my loved ones were narcissists. I was probably here a year before I put two and two together. Denial is tough to overcome sometimes.

          1. A Victor says:

            Leigh, I stumbled on it similarly, and had the same experience putting it together with most of my narcissists. Except the summer narc and my mom…

            I’m just glad we got here!! And we can share it when we can.

      2. Violetta says:

        Like many empaths, he’s unwittingly going for what he knows, as if he could rewrite it. Diana was an empath who at least thought she was in love with Charles, partly based on reading too many of her step-grandmother’s sappy romance novels. Harry may not have read the sappy novels, but like Diana, he was a child of divorce who thought if he could just find that One Perfect Love, his problems would be solved.

        Charles didn’t even try to love-bomb Diana (“whatever love means”), but he figured she would be useful for producing an heir and getting his parents off his back. She did both, but when she failed to produce the daughter he wanted to take care of him when he got old (um, YOUR Y-chromosome, Chucky, and what if she’d had a daughter who wasn’t in the leat interested in taking care of you now or ever?), whatever unity they’d managed to scrape together fell apart.

        Harry was initially useful in getting Wifey the fame and fortune she wanted, but when she failed to use either wisely, of course it was all HIS fault.

        As for Andrew, the fact that he enjoyed Gordonstoun (aka Colditz on Loch Spynie) says a lot about his brand of narcissism. Charles hated it, because he was the bullied instead of the bully.

        Perhaps Harry thought or still thinks that California hippy-dippy tree-hugging was the antidote to all this. Except when it’s replaced by Yankee business savvy, with which it isn’t compatible, and she’s not actually proficient at either.

        1. Truthseeker6157 says:

          Violetta,

          Your comment about California and the antidote reminded me of something. I might be able to offer some defence to Harry in this context.

          When I lived in the US I would travel back to the UK to see friends and family, roughly three week visits. When I would get to the UK I began seeing it a little as a tourist would see it. I noticed everything in glorious technicolour, but overall, everything was pretty much as I had left it. I slotted back in to life in the UK. Three weeks later, I would board the plane back to the US. I’d get off and the sun was shining, the sky bright blue, I could smell the heat. I’d drive home, my US life would carry on as normal. It was very much like stepping out of one world back into another. I had a life in two places.

          My grandma died when I was living in the US. I was very close to her. But, I was upset, not devastated as I expected to be. I was in the wrong world when it happened if that makes sense?

          Harry will likely have a similar disconnect. His friends and family in one world, his new family and new life in another. He is so far removed that it’s possible this enables him to make the moves he makes, attacking his family, because he can’t feel the equal degree of attachment that he would if he was in the same world.

          It sounds really odd, I might not be explaining very well. It was more pronounced when I’d lived in the US longer, around the 8 yr mark, but it was a strange feeling, a watering down of attachment. In a way I had to do that, I couldn’t have left if I hadn’t.

          Just a thought.

      3. WhoCares says:

        Leigh,

        “Even after coming here I didn’t want to believe that my parents, my husband and my daughter are all narcissists. Its a very tough pill to swallow.”

        It’s true. The denial is a huge hurdle – even if we don’t grasp that the individual we are dealing with is a narcissist (at first), when they start to show their true colours we just have such a difficult time accepting that horrible new reality of the person we met/committed to/had children with. And it’s just so much easier to keep one’s head in the sand.

        1. Leigh says:

          WC says, “And it’s just so much easier to keep one’s head in the sand.”

          Denial is HUGE hurdle. I lived under a rock for the longest time and when I first came here and starting learning about narcissism, I wanted to crawl right back under that rock.

          Like AV says above, we only seek out to learn about narcissism if we are ensnared. I sought it out because of the man I was having an affair with didn’t seem normal to me. So while I was here trying to figure him out, I opened a can of worms.

          Don’t get me wrong, I needed that can of worms opened, but I didn’t know that at the time and Harry doesn’t know he needs that either. That’s why I can empathize with him. I am him.

    11. NarcAngel says:

      Thank you to all who provided their thoughts regarding my question about Harry. The varied responses have been quite interesting to read and have provided further insight with regard to my ongoing education here. They are much appreciated.

  7. Bubbles says:

    Dear Mr Tudor,
    His nickname “Randy Andy” was given for a reason ….and “Air Miles Andy” for abusing tax funded flights and helicopters rides for personal use.

    Apart from the Queen, it must also be so embarrassing for his daughters
    It’s very interesting to watch when these ‘high profile’ people get caught out
    Having a Royal title, one would think you’d be even more particular who you associate with

    Excellent as always, Mr Tudor, thank you
    Luv Bubbles xx 😘

    1. Asp Emp says:

      Bubbles, and to think that the Queen is 95, never mind what else she has had to ‘endure’ in recent times, it is absolutely appalling to consider that she may feel ashamed to have brought up a son, only to learn what he really is like. She knew him but not the in-depth details that are coming out.

      You mentioned his daughters. How would they be impacted? Their relationships with other people? Their ‘standing’ in public? Their own children in the future?

      I have no doubt that what is happening now within the Royal Family will ‘re-shape’ the future of the Monarchy, including more ‘protocols’ being imposed.

      1. Bubbles says:

        Dearest Asp Emp,
        The Queens ‘favourite’ child, must be extremely difficult for her
        Embarrassment for his daughters, in the sense, knowing their dad is the ‘subject’ of an enquiry involving a sex scandal with underage girls and to also have him stripped of his medals, titles etc
        One never knows what kind of impact, until it actually happens

        What’s that ol saying again…? ‘innocent until proven guilty’
        We shall see, nothing would surprise me AE
        🤣😂
        Luv Bubbles xx 😘

        1. Asp Emp says:

          Bubbles, yes, RE: the favourite child. There is the aftermath of the emotional / mental ‘impact’ on his daughters, they may be in their early 30s but you never know. There will be some ‘truths’ that we may never know. 🙂

          1. Bubbles says:

            AE, privileges of the Royals, rich, powerful and religious 💩
            xx

          2. Asp Emp says:

            Bubbles, ah, yes, how powerful are they really? Some things cannot be brushed under a carpet, especially stinky ones 😉

  8. Asp Emp says:

    HG, I read your article on Andrew ‘A Very Royal Narcissist : Part 5’ (19 November 2019) before commenting on the programme I have just watched ‘Ghislaine, Prince Andrew and the Paedophile’ aired on TV 18 January 2022.

    Around 7 minutes into the programme, an artist’s drawing of the court room showing Ghislaine, despite her wearing a face mask, I observed that her eyes gave the impression of someone with narcissism.

    I was surprised to learn that Epstein came from a poor background.

    Lady Victoria Harvey giving her insights while being interviewed for this programme too. She remained composed, spoke quietly, not opinionated.

    Ranvir Singh reads out some of the contact details that were held for Andrew and then calls his mobile number and leave a message. I laughed at her audacity. Did he call back I wonder? No, his narcissism says ‘no, I must be in control’ yet Andrew says ‘I am a Prince’.

    Fkg hell, why the fk is Kevin Spacey’s photograph one of the number of celebrities shown as to have been ‘invited / involved’ in such “parties”. HG’s article https://narcsite.com/2017/11/01/a-very-deflecting-narcissist/ No, I am not surprised to see Kevin Spacey’s pic in this programme. His ‘victims’ were also under-age.

    How many other famous people were ‘involved’ in these ‘parties’? Hmmm, Bill Clinton too? Him and Monica, oh yes, he was one of the ‘gang’ of “buddies”. ‘Orgy Island’ was more than just a narcissist fuel-fest. Donald Trump.

    I am fully aware of the need for “confidentiality” purposes but there was hell of a lot of blacked out names on the flights logs of the ‘Lolita Express’.

    Ghislaine’s brother used the words ‘the way we were brought up’ when saying she took no shit from anyone. Not surprising, with a narcissist father who, in my opinion, is more than just a narcissist.

    I was flabbergasted at a former protection staff at the Palace describing the 40-50 toys in a laminated photograph. Laminated?!?!? I was actually shouting at my TV at this point, like with a WTF, are you fkg serious!? This photograph was stored in a drawer. Laughing, I asked myself why was it not put into a photo-frame and displayed? 😉

    Andrew had a serious bout of the narcissist’s ‘blinking’, when he was denying a moment before he says the words ‘a photograph of a photograph of a photograph’. Three times? Was that really necessary? Yes, his narcissism had to affirm, reaffirm and affirm again. Three times. The narcissist’s ‘magic number’.

    Ranvir Singh has her own personal memory and said she was ‘taken back into that room at 12 years old’ when hearing a victim’s story. So, at this point, I understood that for Ranvir, she had her own ‘understandings’ of what people go through when experiencing abuse and / or trauma. I could see that, despite remaining composed, there was a brief moment, of ‘that child back in that room’ as she was talking.

    The page of ‘Grooming’ in that manual?! Especially the ‘see / hear / say nothing’ reminded me of HG’s article ‘You Must Not Tell’.

    Your words, HG, “Such a question smacks of either a terrible lack of judgement“ – interesting, because when Andrew was asked in ‘Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal’ about staying at Epstein’s house, Andrew says to the effect of that ‘he admits that his judgement was coloured’ – I observed his body / facial ‘language’ as he speaks these words. Andrew looks up, away from the direction of the interviewer, his face is contorted as if his narcissism was actually ‘morphing’ his face. As if reacting like a Gremlin when it hits the water and starts morphing into something else other than the cute little bugger it was. Andrew’s hands also clasp / unclasp / clasp again – as if he is trying to ensure he has hold of the invisible ‘creature’ (his narcissism) to stop it escaping.

    I thought it was interesting that ITV showed ‘key’ moments where Andrew’s ‘facade’ is slipping. I wondered if they had read HG’s articles on Andrew as part of their research for the programme?

    3 of the victims, including Virginia Guiffre, who were interviewed as part of this programme were obviously traumatised by their experiences. Averting their eyes at recalling moments of as such. My empathy ‘reached out’ to them.

    Near the end of this programme, there is a photograph of Andrew in the back of one of the royal cars. There appears to be the moment of a narcissist’s fears, or the blank and empty stare of a narcissist, in his eyes as they are looking out of the window.

    How apt. “Some have a long way to fall” Ranvir says before the closing credits of this programme.

    Did I see the word ‘narcissism’ in this programme? No. If it was said, it did not appear in the subtitles.

    In my view, Ghislaine should be in solitary for the rest of her life = no access to ‘fuel’.

    “because we are intimidated by what is happening in the present.” (extracted from your ‘Digging Up The Past’ article). And, is, also further supported by your words in your ‘To Control is to Cope : Narcissism and Its Creation’ article “A lack of control now returns us to the lack of control then” – this is an observation that I could see in various people in this programme. Narcissist Andrew. The Epstein / Ghislaine victims. Ranvir.

  9. Pingback: Inside Prince Andrew’s Narcissism
  10. Duchessbea says:

    What is it with families. Harry and Andrew letting the side down. Good on the Queen for not caving into either of them or paying their bills. Harry and Andrew’s behavior and sense of entitlement is just astounding.
    Then you have Britney Spears and her monstrous family. She earned all the money and her family lived off of her money and spent it, whilst Britney wasn’t able to do anything without permission. Now her younger sister is playing the victim, has written a tell all book, and doing interviews – a bit convenient considering the ‘cash cow’ that is Britney and her money, is no longer available. Toxic and Terrible.
    Best,
    DB

  11. Violetta says:

    So according to the DM, Andrew threw tantrums–as a grown man–if staff moved the teddy bears in his room.

    🎵If you go in Andrew’s room today, you’d better not go alone
    It’s lovely in Andrew’s room today, but safer to stay at home
    For every bear that ever there was
    Will gather there for certain because
    Today’s when Andrew’s teddy bears have their picnic
    🎶

  12. Foreigner74 says:

    Hello H.G. Happy new year! With the (more or less) Royal Narcissists series, you got me hooked on the British monarchy. I have noticed that you pay close attention to the use of royal and noble titles. I don’t know if it’s because of your innate accuracy or if the royal environment is familiar to you for other reasons. I guess this is a topic for the Knowing H.G discussion forum. But could you please explain to me why Catherine Middleton is not Princess of Wales? Thank you

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Because Prince William is not the Prince of Wales.

      1. Foreigner74 says:

        I see… and why is she not a Princess since she’s married to a Prince?

        1. HG Tudor says:

          She was not of royal birth and therefore is not automatically a princess. Charlotte, her daughter is and thus she is Princess Charlotte, but Kate is “a commoner”. She gains the formal title of her husband and since William was made Duke of Cambridge, she became Duchess of Cambridge.

          You may have heard me in my videos, correct publications who refer to Diana as Princess Diana. She was never Princess Diana, she was the Princess of Wales (because Charles is Prince of Wales and she married him, thus taking that title) but she was not born a princess. Thus, her correct title was Diana, Princess of Wales, not Princess Diana. Unfortunately, the public took to calling her Princess Diana and accordingly the error created the belief that she was Princess Diana, but she was not. Diana could have been called Princess Charles taking the title from her husband, in the way Kate could be Princess William but neither chose to do this (see Princess Michael of Kent who did choose to do this, she is actually called Marie)

          1. Asp Emp says:

            HG, that was fascinating to read and thank you for taking the time to explain it 🙂

          2. Foreigner74 says:

            Yes, H.G., I had noticed that you always correct publications that refer to Diana as Princess Diana by saying “No, Diana, Princess of Wales”. I also noticed that you often refer to the Queen as Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II.  My  interest about this topic arose from that.

            Thank you very much for your very clear and detailed answer. 

             I’m more and more fascinated by your culture and your politeness, H.G.

             Maybe it’s only a matter of  facade management for you, but I do appreciate it very much.

          3. HG Tudor says:

            You are welcome.

  13. A Victor says:

    This man is so horrible, this entire situation is so horrible, the epitome of abuse to so many innocent victims, the hiding of it, it’s disgusting. I don’t know how the non-narcs who are helping him can live with themselves. Great breakdown HG, as always.

  14. Chihuahuamum says:

    Welcome back HG!! Hope your holidays were amazing🤗 Great article!!
    I’m glad Prince Andrew was stripped of his duties, but that is just a slap on the wrist. Once Jizz Maxwell discloses some of the clients of Epsteins the heat may be turned up even more. Of course he will be untouchable, but it’ll be good to watch him squirm. The way he has been so cockey about the case is disgusting. His interview was a laughing stock joke. He’s an incredibly bad liar.
    I do wonder if he may have been molested as a child because most times the cycle repeats and the victim goes on to molest another. Not always tho. The royal family had that creep friend of Charles around. I can’t remember his name.
    I do question if the monarchy should be abolished. Do their duties govern the status and vast amounts of money they get. Were no longer back in the 1500s. Maybe it’s time to end the monarchy. It’s a fascinating history, but does it serve the people??? The monarchy in many ways is the epitome of npd. What makes them so above anyone else? I could be off base, but these are questions that i have.
    Prince Andrew looks the image of his great grandmother. She was a raging narcissist clepto. Anything she wanted she got and stole! Many of these royal family members feel entitled, but are they entitled?
    I think the UK should have a vote whether to keep them in place or not. It’s only fair as it is THEIR hard earned money that does so!
    As for the prince boo hoo cry me a river! Face the music like a man, except he isn’t a man he’s still mommy’s golden child hiding behind her status as Queen. The only two i don’t think are narcissists are Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge. Maybe Harry has the right idea to jump ship and reinvent himself. Altho he did so with the wrong person.
    At the end of the day i don’t think anything can touch Prince Andrew in a criminal action sense. Too much money and status behind him very much like a certain orange faced turd i despise.

    1. Witch says:

      @ Chihuahuamum
      I believe the royal family does generate a lot of income through tourism. The royal family serves as a link to English history that maintains peoples interest in the country.
      Who would really want to come to visit England if it didn’t maintain it’s cultural identity?
      Prince William is a normal and Kate is a an empath, they might be the key to less Narcs being in the line of succession

      1. Chihuahuamum says:

        Hi Witch… yes i do realize they generate income through tourism etc I don’t know the full extent. It is just something i have thought about and have seen others post about as well. I do love the history and traditions of the royal family!

    2. Violetta says:

      New York magazine ran an article before Epstein was suicided, titled “Who Was Jeffrey Epstein Calling? A close study of his circle — social, professional, transactional — reveals a damning portrait of elite New York.” At least one person on it ran the restaurant where the Moan-tecitos had their first date. I suspect there will be all kinds of shady connections beyond the obvious ones.

      Which Gran was the raging klepto?

  15. Alexissmith says:

    Incredibly interesting to hear how he’s coping. Thanks HG. I wish more people were interested in Boris! I’d love one on him at the moment, although I suspect he doesn’t care a huge amount snd will carry on at No. 10 until it serves his purpose not to.

    What I don’t understand re Andrew is he is an UL and yet his narcissism is allowing some degree of control so he doesn’t lose residual benefits from the Queen? I wouldn’t have thought a lesser had that degree of control?

    1. WhoCares says:

      Alexissmith,

      “What I don’t understand re Andrew is he is an UL and yet his narcissism is allowing some degree of control so he doesn’t lose residual benefits from the Queen? I wouldn’t have thought a lesser had that degree of control?”

      I had similar thoughts and would love to hear more on this observation from HG!

      1. HG Tudor says:

        Explained in the video. Lessers still have some control, just not a large amount of it.

        1. WhoCares says:

          “Lessers still have some control, just not a large amount of it ”

          Thank-you HG.
          I had a re-listen of the video and the piece that stands out for me is that you state that it is “unusual” for a narcissist of Prince Andrew’s school to have the control that he has. It’s this applicability to our narcissists (if we happen to be dealing with the same school – I am not, but an Empath friend of mine is) and if we find ourselves dealing with a potentially similar situation (same school) that would be considered “unusual” – and what to expect in our personal scenarios.

        2. WhoCares says:

          I can’t help wondering if Cadre plays a role in the control of certain schools? For example, in the case of an Upper Lesser Somatic (or potentially, Elite) could his or her control in the particular arena of their preference: looks, finances etc..result in a heightened level of control? Or would it be related to cognitive abilities – because some UL’s can be quite intelligent?

      2. Alexissmith2016 says:

        Ah. Pay attention Alexis and WC!

        1. WhoCares says:

          “Pay attention Alexis and WC!”

          Hahaha!

  16. lickemtomorrow says:

    Lots of interesting insights when it comes to narcissism there and also how it impacts in this high profile situation.

    First, the image. Andrew looks like he’s constipated and trying to take a massive crap (pardon the expression) 😛 He can’t get it out, not matter how hard he tries. Ohhh, the frustration, and the discomfort! I’m afraid he’s in for the enema, and it won’t be pleasant. The Queen has already inserted the hose as preparations are made to clear this massive load of shite one way or the other. She won’t be responsible for cleaning up the mess, having done her part in this unpleasant procedure. Now it is up to the Courts to provide the solution which is going to help empty the bowels of this Prince, and of course he will want to resist. His discomfort will be great, the pressure will be enormous, and the embarrassment of it all is unlikely to ever leave him. The result at finally getting it over and done with must necessarily provide relief … c’mon Andrew, you’ve been holding on for far too long and it’s time to finally rid yourself of that massive misdeed which you knew had to happen sooner or later. Justice will prevail, one hopes.

    Second, there appears to be no qualms about finally throwing Andrew under the bus on this one. It should still be a case of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, but the current action by the Monarchy seems to be an admission of his guilt, even if he’s not willing to admit it yet. It’s a ‘no questions asked’ type of scenario, which leaves no room for doubt either. It’s almost as if the Royal Family have declared him guilty … why bother with a Court case and possible trial? Washing their hands is not a good sign and I can imagine he is like a caged beast with no sense of escape from his current problems. It will be interesting to see how this plays out for all concerned in the long run. I foresee several more informative videos in the offing.

    Third, the Queen is due another Annus horribilis it seems, and during her Jubilee year, no less. Harry’s book/expose, Andrew’s trial, God only know what Harry’s wife has up her sleeve …

    It’s an endless saga, and none of it fit for a 95yr old woman, despite the fact she has aged so well.

    1. Truthseeker6157 says:

      LET,

      This tickled me. If I was Harry or Harry’s Wife, I’d be getting just a little bit twitchy that I might be next for the chop. It will be interesting to see if they suddenly attempt to make nice over the coming weeks.

      Xx

      1. lickemtomorrow says:

        TS 🙂

        The interesting thing about this is that Andrew has lost what Harry and his wife lost on their exit from the RF – their HRH titles. He is still currently Duke of York, as they are still Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Harry also lost his patronages and military titles. My impression is the Sussex’s will be rubbing their hands together, enjoying the downfall of Prince Andrew, especially Markle because of her narcissism. She won’t be fearful to see him taken down a notch or several, but gleeful is my guess. She certainly won’t look so bad having offered her own criticism of the RF, even if, for the most part, it was untruthful. If nothing else, it paints her in a better light, especially after winning her court case. I hope you can see where I am going with all this. This, to me, is more like a feather in the narcissist’s cap, even though she didn’t orchestrate his downfall. She will be gleefully watching on, feeling ‘vindicated’ again (post court case win), and there is a definite sense Andrew has been thrown under the bus, which the Harkle’s could probably relate to, but obviously feel no sympathy over as narc’s don’t do sympathy.

        I find Virginia Dufree’s all out assault on Prince Andrew interesting as well. It’s almost disconcerting in its ferocity, with words she has spoken in the last day or so indicative of her utter disgust and disdain for him. I’ve no problem with that, but she has said in her own words she is out to ‘destroy’ him, calling him arrogant and being determined to break him financially, if in no other way. Her vitriol seems to rest on his sense of arrogance, which appears to have fired up a real sense and need for justice in this case, but my guess is she has also been used and abused by many other men in the circumstances who have never been brought to justice and likely never will be. If she was forced to sleep with Prince Andrew under Epstein’s watch, who else was she forced to sleep with? Why are they not also being held to account? I may have read something indicating he is the only one who managed to slip through the net based on the previous deal she made, but there is a sense in me that Andrew has become the fall guy for her depraved experience at the hands of Epstein. I’m trying to take an objective view of her position based on her recent comments. She really wants to make him pay, but he was not the only culprit. Odd.

        Just to finish off, I think the Harkle’s will continue on their campaign to destroy the Monarchy. They are jealous, Harry is now demanding they are provided security in the UK rather than have to hire private security (which the Harkle’s will pay for apparently) and my heart sank at the thought they would even think of returning. The RF should have established a rigorous no contact regime to solve that problem. Unfortunately, they did not take advice from HG and so they will have to confront the ongoing saga Harry and his wife decide to inflict on them.

        I’m afraid the Queen’s Jubilee celebrations will be completely lost in the mix for now.

        1. Truthseeker6157 says:

          LET,

          As I’m responding a day later, I have a bit more to go on but my views are very similar to yours.

          In my mind, Andrew is a truly vile character, he really does make my skin crawl. It’s the haughty self entitlement that really gets under my skin I think. His utter self centred ness, the determination to hold on to his titles with a view to coming back into public life that he held on to for so long at the expense of his mother’s reputation. This could prove to be a long list actually, so I’ll stop there haha!

          In terms of Guiffre, I have to say, I agree with you. This doesn’t mean that we are underplaying the gravity of what Andrew is accused of, at all, but in terms of a character, I find it difficult to view her as anything other than someone who is out for a big pay day.

          Again, as with my feelings for Harry, this lack of sympathy stems from the fact, that to me, no matter the influence of the narcissist, the devaluation, emotional thinking and confusion this causes, there is a point where your own behaviour is simply unacceptable.

          I can’t think of any situation that would cause me to turn on my family as Harry has done so publicly. There is a point you just say “Stop. Enough.”
          I understand the influence of the narcissist on an empath and what it does, but the narcissist doesn’t bring about a total frontal lobotomy either.

          Guiffre, similar thing. There is no question she was exploited by Epstein. My issue with her is that she recruited other girls to join. Again, there are no circumstances where I would recruit other girls to be trafficked. Actually one, if the abuser had my kids. That’s it, that’s all. What we aren’t allowed to say, is that it looks very much like, at 17 ( age of consent is 16 in the UK) Guiffre saw a way to make a lot of money fast and was content to accept the travel, gifts and so on. She saw what she was doing as a desirable lifestyle and saw nothing wrong with encouraging others to join her. She wasn’t held captive, she was free to leave at any point, so why didn’t she?

          This does not make what Epstein did any less vile, but, it does question her character, which is likely why she wasn’t called to testify in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. My view is that she is less concerned with the justice she is entitled to, and more interested in the payday.

          So it’s not a defence of Andrew but more the fact that her story, and her very recent comments lead me to think, ‘Something isn’t right there at all.’ Andrew was lavished with attention and sex when in Epstein’s company. Andrew isn’t that bright, I don’t believe he even thought to question the age of the girls he met. Again, not an excuse, but to me as much as I dislike Andrew, he isn’t an Epstein.

          As for Harry, my view is that his wife doesn’t want to step foot in the UK. The use of a security issue just suits her perfectly. If she really was concerned about security, she wouldn’t be letting Harry be the front man. She would be more visible in the proceedings. She isn’t because it’s in her interest for the demands for police protection to be rejected. I agree with HG there. I would say HG is far more balanced in his view of Harry’s behaviour. My view is that he should man up. He got chased by paps after a visit to a UK charity post unveiling of the Diana Princess of Wales statue. Those would be the same paps he and his wife court quite happily when it suits them. I don’t see his motive as being empathic at all. I see his motive as the creation of a media circus and the desire to get the right shots for his next Netflix boreathon.

          Andrew’s demise might well have been a boost to the Sussex camp. However, they went and ruined their own advantage.

          In all of it, I really feel sorry for Her Majesty The Queen. I really do. Andrew’s Court Case, Harry’s whineathon new book, the drama surrounding the Sussex’s ‘will they won’t they’ attendance will take the focus away from what should have been a real celebration of a lifetime of service to her country. A truly great lady.

          Xx

          1. lickemtomorrow says:

            TS, a day in the news cycle … we can’t keep up 😉

            First off, a necessary edit to my first response – *Guiffre*

            Lots to unpack otherwise, so I’ll start with Andrew. I know what you mean by a long list, and an empath would have admitted their mistake by now, apologized, taken the necessary consequences and first and foremost considered the consequences for others (i.e. the Queen). Not hard to see how his narcissism prevented him from doing any of those things, so now he’s going to have to accept the only remedy being offered which is a day in Court. Narcissists just make things harder, for themselves and everybody else. Seriously, it’s a little like the procedure I first described, or like pulling teeth. It’s uncomfortable, if not painful, and goes harder on everyone concerned.

            No doubt, these are accusations he has a right to defend himself against – innocent until proven guilty – so that is the other side of the coin. Both parties have in some ways put themselves in a vulnerable position in order for this to happen in the first place. In that sense, I would have to defer to the greater vulnerability of the ‘child’ (could be a sticking point with the differences in the age of consent – but no excuse if you have any kind of a conscience) and this is where the waters can also appear ‘murky’ as you have pointed out.

            Virginia Guiffre was a teenager when all this occurred. I’ve watched at least one program on Epstein where the young girls caught up in his lifestyle who are women now shared their stories of family hardship, the lure of money, the unexpected abuse and the offer of a way out all conspired to draw them in and keep them there. Many of them confessed to bringing other teens into Epstein’s circle, but not one of them had not suffered at his hands in the first instance (as far as I can remember). There is an element of trauma attached to all this. The women sharing their stories were overwhelmingly emotional and still suffering from trauma. I actually found it hard to watch. At the same time, it’s hard to understand how you can be abused and traumatized yourself and yet somehow seek to bring others into that situation.

            This is where the whole thing can take another trajectory. I can see where you are coming from in questioning Guiffre’s motives and the possible desire for a pay day. Many of these girls came from difficult backgrounds, no doubt creating a LOCE, which may also indicate not all of them are necessary empathic individuals, meaning they may have also had other motivations for involving others in the Epstein’s schemes originally. None of this excuses the abuse any of them endured, but as an empath I find it hard to comprehend how it would be possible to draw others in to be abused. If anything, we would throw ourselves under the bus to save others or prevent them from the same trauma. This leaves a question mark in my mind as to what the status of some of these women might be (i.e. empath, normal, narcissistic, narcissist).

            Guiffre’s venomous attack on Andrew is likely to lead to her being seen in a different light by some people and less of a victim, possibly more as a predator. This could also generate sympathy for him. She’s out to get him. In one sense, she wasn’t a completely innocent party. According to British law she wasn’t underage either. Interestingly, if she just wanted a pay day she could just accept a settlement. Part of the issue, from what I’ve read, is the fact Andrew continued to argue his innocence rather than consider a settlement earlier on. This she describes as arrogance on his part. It is arrogance if you know you’re guilty and can avoid a trial this way. Which is why she appears to have taken him by the scruff of his neck – could it be the ignited fury of a narcissist rather than just a fight for justice? I hate to say it, but it’s possible.

            I had to laugh when you said about Harry “this doesn’t have to mean a total frontal lobotomy either” 😛 You’d think that’s what he had in the circumstances. It’s hard to imagine an empath being so completely overcome by a narcissist to the extent they would do what Harry has done and continues to do. He’s generating about as much sympathy as his wife right now (ZERO) and I’m not sure his narcissistic wife can provide the ‘excuse’ for all of his behaviour, which is atrocious when it comes to his own family. What a complete ass! She’s the narcissist, so no surprises when it comes to her treatment of her own family, but somehow Harry has been convinced his family is also the enemy. I think he’s had a bone to pick with them for a while, and now she’s provided the cover or excuse he needs to go after them. Could be an erosion of empathy and narcissistic traits coming to the fore, but the flare of that flame is more like a flamethrower than a candle burning more brightly!

            I think I will have to catch up on some of HG’s videos re: the situation as I haven’t heard the one on the security situation. Dan Wootton gave an excellent rundown of how that might be perceived as emotional blackmail of the Queen in order for her to see her great grandchildren. He’s probably not far off and I think it’s pathetic. It’s basically “You can see your grandchildren if you make sure were are offered appropriate police protection.” I agree with you, it is a manner for them to avoid coming back, but making it look as though it’s the Monarchy’s fault they are not returning. It could also be an indication that Harry is regretting the decision he made and wants to return home to the UK, but he knows how unwelcome the couple would now be in the circumstances. In that sense he probably knows how the need for protection has increased. Becoming a private citizen after being born with a silver spoon in your mouth is not quite all it was cracked up to be by his celebrity seeking narcissistic wife.

            Lol to the Netflix boreathon as well 🙂 It’s all facade, no substance. I don’t think the Harkle’s realize people can’t be taken in as easily as they hope, although you’d think they would have got the message by now. They are oblivious! If people do watch it, it will likely be just to mock the self-importance of the couple, nothing more, nothing less.

            As per usual, making fresh demands has proved yet another ‘own goal’ for them, when no doubt they could have just basked in the sunshine of Andrew’s demise, but I’m happy for them to ruin their own advantage, as you say, in that sense. It’s hard to have sympathy for any of the people concerned right now, tbh. And the only one, ultimately, would be the Queen in the circumstances considering her age and in light of the fact she so recently lost her husband as well. A truly great lady, indeed xox

          2. Truthseeker6157 says:

            Hey LET,

            Thank you for this, you verbalised my thoughts a lot better than I did.

            I read my comment back and thought that it could easily be interpreted as victim shaming, which isn’t my intention at all. These cases are so difficult to unravel. I see Epstein as an abuser, I see Ghislaine Maxwell as an abuser, equally as guilty as Epstein, yet I struggle to accept Guiffre as a true victim of abuse.

            I see underage girls as being abused. I see girls above the age of consent as being exploited. An adult prostitute of any age I see as being exploited by men. Women turn to prostitution as a last resort, to keep a roof over their heads, feed their families, it isn’t a job of choice. Yet, some would disagree with me. Some high class prostitutes can earn a great deal, some do actually choose it as a career. They would rather be wined and dined then sleep with someone for a huge amount of money, than work in Burger King all week. There it’s a choice. They aren’t in fear of their lives, they aren’t being beaten up or drugged, they choose money and a lifestyle and it is their choice because it’s their body. I don’t have a problem with a woman making that choice, but I still view that same woman as being exploited.

            In the case of Guiffre, largely because she recruited, because she wasn’t held captive against her will, she wasn’t beaten up, and because she was over the age of 16, I think I see her more as making the choice of the high class prostitute. I see her as being exploited rather than abused. If I’m honest I’m also swayed by the statement of her ex boyfriend’s sister who claimed Guiffre went out actively looking for girls who were ‘kinda slutty’ and the ex boyfriend who got the impression that she was the ‘head bitch over there’. I find it difficult to associate those comments with someone being abused. I also can’t see a motive for making those comments if they aren’t true. I see Guiffre as exploited due to immaturity and financial circumstances but I struggle to see her as a victim of abuse when she actively went out recruiting. That’s a bridge too far for me. Strangely I don’t see Guiffre as a narcissist. I see her as a normal, I might be wrong there though.

            Legally there is no problem settling out of court as she did with Epstein. Again though personally I struggle with her accepting a financial settlement. If I felt as an adult that I had been abused when I was a minor, I would either, try to rebuild and move on from it, or, I would want the abuser to be held to account in front of a judge and jury. I’d want him to be seen clearly by all as an abuser. To accept cash, would undermine the abuse I suffered, and the abuse of others. I would feel like I sold myself out together with the others in my situation. For want of a better term, I’d see it as blood money. I understand not everyone sees things as I do, but again I think this is why I see Guiffre differently. I can’t understand her accepting Epstein’s cash because if I was her, it would make me sick to my stomach to accept anything from him at all, Similarly, I can’t stomach her selling that photo with Andrew to the tabloids either. If I wanted that photo distributed I’d just hand it over, I wouldn’t sell it for well over $100,000 dollars.

            If I turn to Andrew, I really really dislike the guy. Seriously dislike him, but I believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty above all else. You made a similar statement. The world would turn to chaos if any accuser could destroy a man’s reputation without having to first prove their case. Do I think he slept with Guiffre? Yes, I do. Do I know he did? No I don’t. That’s the difference, the element of doubt. I do believe though, he didn’t question the age of the girls he met. I don’t even regard him as man enough to have challenged Epstein by asking the question in the first place. I believe he saw it as a hedonistic holiday camp and he is so self entitled he was more than happy to take part. Run with the big boy who was his new friend Epstein. That would be my view of Andrew. Should he have ascertained Guiffre’s age? Most definitely, you can’t just pull the ‘Well I didn’t know so I’m not guilty’ card. He should have come clean when Epstein’s abusing came to light and as you said, accepted the consequences of his mistake, if that is what it was.

            It’s very difficult to question the motive of any girl caught up in the whole sordid set up. It does very much look like victim shaming to do so, and yet I just can’t bring myself to accept Guiffre as a true victim. I see her very similarly to the high class prostitute, someone who chooses that path. Later it’s very possible she regretted that choice and I think this might be why she was able to settle with Epstein. I doubt very much she got any apology or acceptance of wrong doing from him. If she can accept money in that scenario then rightly or wrongly, it does give the impression that she is out for money from Andrew (why millions from Andrew but $500,000 from Epstein, am I missing something?)

            As for Harry, you made me laugh too with your light from a flamethrower comment haha! I agree, I think Harry’s resentment was there before he met his wife, and like the narcissist she is, she played on it for her own ends. My problem with Harry is that I just can’t accept his behaviour. He crossed the line in my book and my response to that is always similar, I draw in all emotion. Once that line gets crossed, it’s crossed and I’m done. I’m very much done with Harry. I can sympathise with his situation in terms of being ensnared, but I can’t sympathise with or accept his behaviour. I do feel guilty for saying that, but honestly, I can’t seem to change the way I feel about it either.

            Yes, HG is putting out some excellent videos detailing recent events about security etc. Definitely worth setting some time aside to listen. The narration of Finding Dollars Funding freedom is entertainment central too, HG at his humorous best, brimming with sarcasm whilst giving the book’s content an absolute slating. I laugh at the intro every time, and pretty much laugh the whole way through whilst thinking, ‘I can’t believe he just said that.’ Last night’s sex swing comment completely cracked me up. Even when he’s bad, he’s just so damn good!

            It’s always a real pleasure to read your thoughts LET and to feel able to have an honest and open conversation with someone who knows me well enough to figure out what I’m trying to say and why. Thank you for listening.

            Xx

          3. WhoCares says:

            LET, TS: Great discussion.

          4. lickemtomorrow says:

            Hey TS 🙂

            I didn’t think of your comments as ‘victim shaming’, so no worries there. It is a complex case where the accuser obviously has some responsibility in the part she played to lure other young women in the circumstances. Of course, we always have the Stockholm Syndrome which complicates matters further. How much of a ‘choice’ was her behaviour really, and how much can she accept responsibility for, in light of the fact she was severely manipulated herself to begin with? Older women, as in the case of Alison Mack and the NXIVM cult, would be charged and eventually imprisoned – let’s not forget Ghislaine Maxwell is currently awaiting sentencing – but Guiffre’s age is a pivotal point, I think, in this case. If she is considered underage, she is a victim, which I think we both agree she is, but her level of responsibility is necessarily diminished. Exploitation might be a better word to use than abuse depending on the perspective you are coming from in terms of her age. Some young people are mature beyond their years and are capable of being very manipulative, which is likely where their ability to exploit others comes from also. There’s no doubt she did this, so the age factor becomes a little more murky in that context.

            I concur with your thoughts around prostitution and it being an exploitation of women/girls regardless of the circumstances. No girl ever said “I want to be a prostitute when I grow up.”

            Wow, the statement of “head bitch” really jumped out at me. Perhaps she is a normal, but somehow I don’t see empath in the circumstances. She sounds as much of a predator, looking for girls who were “kinda slutty”, and I’m wondering now if she ever expressed any remorse for her actions. I may need to look into this further.

            When it comes to accepting cash, or settling out of court, sometimes this is the advice you are given by lawyers. The reason being that going to Court can be costly and it’s likely you’re going to also be put in the spotlight in terms of cross examination which may see you lose the case altogether depending on how ‘good’ the Defense is. It is actually quite a gamble, and one Guiffre obviously wasn’t willing to take in the case of Epstein. Perhaps the threat of Court is for a bigger payday when it comes to Andrew? She’s already said she wants to ruin him financially. If she pushes him to the limits then withdraws for a massive payday (which is a possibility), then my guess is she was in it more for the money than justice. My impression of her is very different now, especially after knowing, as you say, she was willing to take much lesser compensation from the main architect of her abuse/exploitation.

            There’s no doubt Andrew is arrogant, and I would have to agree with your assessment around him. Part of the arrogance is in thinking he would never be caught or answerable for what he did. At the same time, it still needs to be proven.

            I’m also on the same page as you about Harry. He’s made himself as dislikeable as his wife and gets no sympathy from me after totally throwing his family under the bus. Once I see that kind of ruthlessness, it’s hard for me to empathize. Harry is a jerk!

            I still need to get back to the videos, and haven’t caught up with Finding Dollars, Funding Freedom, but just the title makes me laugh 🙂 Thanks for the heads up, TS x

            I also find it a pleasure to read your thoughts and enjoy the common ground we seem to find on so many matters which can be so complex. The untangling of them takes time and often a great deal of thoughtfulness, which is what I also appreciate about your comments <3 xox

          5. lickemtomorrow says:

            Replying to my own comment here, but I think we are seeing a ‘turning’ now that Andrew has decided to confront the charges being made against him and is also demanding a jury trial. There is backtracking going on both by her father, who has rushed in to her defence, and also the lawyer. Some very tell tale comments in the daily mail in terms of her threat and the subsequent backing down with the challenge:

            “While Mr Boies said his client will not want to settle if Andrew continued to deny knowing her and suggesting the 2001 photograph was fake, he did accept that she will consider a financial offer if it was large enough to be ‘a vindication’.

            He said: ‘We would be unlikely to settle in a situation in which somebody just handed over a cheque.

            ‘So if Prince Andrew maintains ‘I’ve never heard of this person’, ‘I don’t know who she is’, ‘The photographs are fake’, then I don’t think we would settle on that basis.

            ‘That said, if you had a settlement that was large enough to be, in effect, a vindication, then it’s something we would obviously look at.’

            Her lawyer if even giving Andrew an out in terms of a possible response to the charges made against him:

            “Mr Boies claimed he had tried to avoid litigation and remains perplexed at the Duke’s legal strategy.

            ‘He could have said, ‘I didn’t know she was underage.’ He could have said, ‘This was an entirely consensual affair.’

            Continuing to err on the side of it being about money and not about true justice for the victims.

          6. Asp Emp says:

            LET, I wonder how much of his “decision” is based on ‘firm’ advice via The Palace, the Queen and so on, as well as any officially ‘selected’ lawyers / barristers (I would not be the least surprised if there had been a change in the legal advisors). Andrew still has an element of control yet I think he has been “informed” the what’s, why’s should he make the wrong ‘decision’.

            RE: your words about Harry in another comment “I’m not sure he’d ever get back to his old self”- I agree. Just like you and I will not be the same ‘selves’ prior to our coming to KTN site.

            Good to read, thank you for sharing 🙂

          7. lickemtomorrow says:

            AspEmp 🙂

            I get the feeling Andrew was being advised by the Palace not to take the route of the jury trial, which is the opposite of what he’s done, as they don’t want it to interfere with the Queen’s Jubilee.

            Personally, I think he’s on the right track in calling her bluff in the circumstances. I wanted to drill down to see if she was in it for the money or if justice was really her aim. I’m in no way supporting his claims that he didn’t know her or have sex with her, or denying her claim of being a victim. She is a victim of an abusive dynamic, and unfortunately she became part of that dynamic by luring other girls into it. In that sense, she is treading a fine line and the challenge is well placed to force her to back down, rightly or wrongly.

            It will still leave things open ended in terms of Andrew’s guilt and there will never be a regaining of his reputation. That is also just if he is unable to prove his innocence, which I doubt he can.

            As to Harry, none of us are the same after coming into contact with a narcissist, and neither will he be. You and I are also not the same after coming into contact with the ‘Ultra’ narcissist. There are good and bad ways not to be the same person you were … here we are better for our interaction with the narcissist in what I would describe as the one and only instance this could occur. If Harry could make his way here, he would have the best chance of recovery and to see where he went wrong. Think of all the empaths ‘cooing’ over him if he was finally able to break away from the narcissist <3 xox

          8. Asp Emp says:

            LET, you have given a good explanation. For some people it can be both money / justice, for others it’s the principle ie for whatever the Law deems justifiable for the wrong-doing. The settlement offer is a huge amount of money, is it based on greed, or is it the principle, or both? Let’s see what transpires.

            Virginia was 17, young. I was naive about life at that age. Naive about other people’s ‘intentions’. Naive about myself. Who taught me about the wrongs and rights about life when I was 17 years old? I needed guidance, support but was ‘issued’ with ‘corrections’ and misguided ‘understanding’ with regard to “fitting in” in society as a whole. Was I ‘mentored’ (prepared / educated) for life in the ‘wide world’? No. I became ‘independent’ in my own way – nobody taught me the version of ‘independence’ that I ‘adopted’ for myself. Maybe that is how ACONs “developed” into however they ‘turned’ out (this is not actually a question, maybe a statement)? Considering the other co-dependencies (Aspergers / Deafness) I had, looking back, I did a fkg good job at ‘surviving’ life in despite of how I was “viewed” (and treated) by society.

            I have no doubt that Harry will get the support he needs. He will ‘fast-track’ his way through should he use KTN as the route to understanding his past and prepare him for the future. Good to read your thoughts, LET 🙂 x

          9. lickemtomorrow says:

            Hi AspEmp,

            Great thoughts again on what is transpiring and what is yet to transpire.

            I take your point about being naive at 17 … I was much the same. I had minimal exposure in some ways to the wider world and it probably showed. In contrast, I think Virginia’s experiences at that age were very different to mine, and to have the reputation of being “head bitch” while operating as an accomplice to Epstein tells me she was also a very different person to me. It’s possible she was a victim from an early age, surviving a LOCE, and her entanglement with Epstein formed part of her survival strategy. I don’t see her as naive in those circumstances, though I would assume she lacked the proper kind of guidance and support from early on. Based on that, she may also be a narcissist. I can’t seem to shake the feeling, which is why I am questioning.

          10. Asp Emp says:

            LET, thank you for your response. Yes, I hear what you are saying here. It is difficult to make considerations when there is lack of childhood background information on people in circumstances as above. I would be inclined to agree RE: the victim and LOCE(s). There is also, sometimes, a difference in reading what she has to say from wherever the information comes from, compared to observing her ie in an interview. Then again, during an interview sometimes is easier to spot some behaviours, it depends on the subject and the linguistics used. When you suggest you had minimal ‘exposure’ to the wider world, would you suggest that it is to do with ‘isolating’ (by the parents) as well as lack of ‘mentoring’ shall we say? It was good to read your thoughts, LET, thank you 🙂

          11. lickemtomorrow says:

            Hi AspEmp 🙂

            I’ll start at the top 😉

            I’m going to try to look a little more into Giuffre’s background and I do believe she was a year younger (i.e. 16yrs) when she became involved with Epstein. I’ll see if I can discover more of the details and feedback when I do.

            Where you get your information definitely has an impact, especially if there is any kind of implicit or explicit bias. I had no thoughts one way or the other when this situation reared its ugly head again, although I had watched a documentary on Epstein and formed an opinion of him as a predator and these girls as his victims. I also assumed, going by photographic evidence, that Andrew did have a case to answer and the fact he was an associate of Epstein I assumed his guilt was almost guaranteed. If anything, my own bias leaned heavily towards favouring the victims and away from excusing the perpetrators. That is still the case.

            Having said that Giuffre’s recent behaviour has piqued my curiosity. She has been quoted, so there can be no mistake in terms of what she said and, IMO, what that also implies. Critical thinking is a must when it comes to interpreting situations where you have varying reports and information, some of them contradictory. That is the reason I’m avoiding some of the stories about Harry at the moment as there are very contradictory reports being shared, sometimes by the same media, and that just muddy’s the waters for me. I can’t see clearly and somehow it’s not about objective reporting. It’s almost as though it’s designed to confuse, if that makes sense.

            I went back to the documentary I watched about Epstein where Virginia Roberts appeared, and a body language expert is far more likely to pick up on a number of things I may not (fact), but one piece of information from the final episode startled me a little when I watched it again. Virginia Roberts talks about her first meeting with Andrew in London, the occasion where she states he sweated all over her, and then brings up the infamous photograph. She says she had a camera with her and asked Jeffrey to take a photo of her with the Prince.

            Now, I’m aware that Epstein likely had more than enough material to blackmail more than enough powerful people, and this may well have been part of his scam for the photograph to be taken in an innocent manner by Virginia asking for that to be done. If that’s the case, why aren’t there more photos of the other girls with other famous people who allegedly abused them? How did Virginia Roberts come to retain this one photo which she said was taken with her camera? Was it her idea and not Epstein’s to take the photo? Was she just in awe of meeting a British Royal, or did she possibly think far enough ahead in terms of the potential for blackmail?

            As you can see, I don’t see this as straightforward as it’s being presented and maybe it’s the truthseeking trait of mine, somehow aligned with TS as well, that is wanting to know/understand more. Andrew wasn’t the only one who abused Virginia Roberts. Epstein’s dead, but there are more people to go after. Perhaps this is her best chance for justice because she has a photograph to prove she had contact with Prince Andrew. Does that mean he had sex with her? How can that be proved? She is a trafficking victim, and maybe the photograph with Andrew is the closest she’ll ever come to being able to make at least one of the people responsible answerable. That could be why so much rests in this case against Andrew. Epstein’s death was very unsatisfying for the victims in the sense he never did have to confront a trial, though thankfully the victims were given an opportunity to speak out.

            More to come, I’m sure, as I work my way through the information.

            Just in response to your last question, my ‘minimal’ exposure was partially related to an element of isolation and you are also correct in assuming a lack of mentoring. Thank you for sharing your thoughts around that and it was good to read them, too <3 xox

          12. Asp Emp says:

            Hi LET, sorry I missed your comment 🙂 Thanks for offering to look into Guiffre’s younger years. I totally understand where you are coming from RE: Harry. Interesting reading what you have to say in relation to the one photograph in comparison to the ‘location’ of the others. You suggesting her thinking ‘ahead’, yes, I certainly understand the point (ie hers) and what you’re saying. I was psed off, absolutely psed off, that the channel that aired the programme where there were body language experts, linguists and forensic psychologists sharing their views in Prince Andrew, Maxwell and Epstein did not have subtitles facility, I did not sign up to access this online as it is not clear whether this online version would have captions too. I am not expecting sympathy. Just really wanted to see what those experts had to say. HG’s videos are a great source of such information but I was curious to see if narcissism was mentioned in that programme :-). Thank you, LET for sharing further on your young adult years. And to be demanded by muvver “When are you going to get married and leave home?!” when I was 18. I strongly suspect because of the child benefit that would have stopped when I turned 19, then again, I had in fact started to pay her ‘rent’ before I turned 19…… Thanks for sharing more of your thoughts, LET 🙂

          13. lickemtomorrow says:

            AspEmp, no problem (i.e. missing the comment – happens to me a lot as well with WP), and thanks for sharing further thoughts 🙂

            With regard to Giuffre’s earlier years, she was definitely the victim of a LOCE. As we know, the result of that can be more than one trajectory. In the documentary I reviewed there were a couple of photos of other young women with other famous people, usually gathered in a group around them. I’ve no idea who these people are (not on my radar), but no suggestion in the documentary that they were also perpetrators. I don’t know if any of those pictured are involved with previous or ongoing lawsuits either. Jeffrey Epstein created a very tangled web of people and places for his own purposes and at least one lawyer in the program describes him as a narcissist.

            What’s interesting is the number of powerful people he ensnared and with almost hypnotic effect. They all describe their later regret and yet at the time all still managed to come under his spell. This is what was interesting to me about the BBC interview with Andrew which I’ve since managed to watch. He describes coming out of the navy, procuring a new role which meant he needed to become more informed about international affairs, and Epstein being a mentor in terms of helping him do that. He claims his connection came about through his friendship with Ghislaine Maxwell which I accept as true. When asked if he regretted his involvement with Epstein, he states he does not regret that (mentoring) aspect of their relationship. I found that really interesting. Most people would be forceful in wanting to separate themselves from any links and possible accusations in the circumstances, but this element of the interview showed me two things. One, that Andrew was expressing an honest thought/feeling in relation to Epstein (he could have lied and distanced himself further), and two, that Epstein’s spell in some way was still not fully broken.

            I’d be interested in body language analysis, too, and the fact that some of these things can be hard to access due to a lack of options must be very frustrating at times for you, AspEmp 🙁 I hope updates occur that will put it at your fingertips. I wondered if body language experts had been consulted on the Prince’s side prior to the interview, with him being given advice on how to react and preparing him for certain difficult questions. At the same time, I didn’t see anything ‘overt’, from a layman’s perspective, that would have told me he was lying, though I did notice the occasional more rapid blinking. His laughter seemed a little out of place or inappropriate at times considering the subject matter, which I’m guessing was an element of relief on his part – having avoided a difficult question – and also an attempt to align himself with the interviewer in a friendly manner. He may also have been trying to lighten the atmosphere of a very difficult interview.

            I am going to watch a video analysis or two of the interview to see what more I can discover.

            Your mother, and mine, were in a hurry it seems to see us leave the nest … my mother more on the basis she just wanted to get on with her own life … and the message of rejection is the same. Both imply you are a burden, you need to be out of the house and out of their way. Some might say it as a means of devaluation while still keeping you on a string, which sounds a little like your mother as she continued to use you in the circumstances. I can’t quite get my head around either of our mother’s behaviour from a parental perspective.

            Glad to hear your thoughts again, too, AspEmp xox

          14. Asp Emp says:

            LET, thank you for your response 🙂

            RE: Andrew’s “friendship” with Maxwell, hmmm. In regard to the ‘no regret’ part, narcissists don’t ‘do’ regret. Then again, Andrew gained benefits at that time, in more ways than one. Is Andrew ‘deflecting / denying’ that he “gained” any mentoring from Epstein? His “regret” (via disappointment / anger) may not have come yet?

            Thank you for suggesting that I may opportune to access / view the programme I mentioned. In that, there were a couple of clips to the BBC interview with Andrew, so that is also part of the documentary – linguistics etc analysis. Sometimes, the questions (not always) are “previewed” beforehand, which would effectively ‘pre-warn’ and thus prevent ‘404s’ (;-)). On this occasion, there may have been some questions that he was not prepared for, or, if he knew yet his narcissism will still ‘react’ because it is the ‘now’ moment.

            Yes, I saw his ‘blinking’ at the photograph (as mentioned in my comment 19th Jan of this article). Going back to that pic a moment, Maxwell in the background, was she “planning ahead” with regard to Andrew, knowing his is Royalty. We know that when it really comes down to it, one narcissist would bring down another (or more) if they are going down for evidential ‘punishment’.

            I suppose, forensics may investigate the photograph(s) in any case and determine authenticity or not.

            I read a bit of Ghislaine’s case (an update) where there is a suggestion of ‘unsealed’ information which was supplied. It is not known at this stage whether one of those is from Andrew himself.

            Indeed, a ‘web’. No longer a ‘tidy’ one as it has now attracted a lot of flies and other insects, including possibly a Black Widow spider or two…..

            Yes, devaluation from parents = very damaging. Yet when I’m packing bags to leave home I get “We need to talk about this”, me says “Nothing to talk about” (like, Fk.O outta my room, LOL) – she ‘withdraws’ = ‘out of sight, out of mind’ way of ‘coping’ at the loss of control of her ‘primary source’. I was gaining my physical freedom.

            Let’s view it this way, our maternal “parents” sensed we were strong enough (our inner-selves) to start asserting our own power back against their control? Because we were also becoming adults in our legal right.

            Just know this, LET, you are a wonderful mother to your children, that is ‘power’ in itself. Embracing that thought (positive ET & good LT about yourself) alone should remove (wipe out) and over-shadow in totality how you were “parented”.

            Looking forward to your reviews RE: further ‘investigations’, great to read what you have to say 🙂 xx

          15. lickemtomorrow says:

            AspEmp, it’s true, narcissists don’t do regret! I had to think about that for a minute as from my empathic point of view he was expressing the sense that he did not regret a certain element of his relationship with Epstein. Could that be the narcissist’s lack of regret, or an honest accounting of his sentiments toward Epstein? What he didn’t say was that he deeply regretted the damning elements of that relationship with Epstein. It was all about denial/deflection. Interestingly, Giuffre had a boyfriend she was living with at the time she was supposedly trafficked to Andrew and he also spent time at Epstein’s Palm Beach home while Virginia was working there. He asserts the same thing as Andrew (in an ITV interview available online) which is that apart from the images of naked and half naked women (?) hanging around the walls of Epstein’s home, he never got an inkling of any nefarious activities going on there in terms of the sex trafficking of underage girls. There’s no doubt it happened, but how hidden was it? Apparently hidden enough that Virginia’s boyfriend was oblivious to it as well, including her own situation. I was surprised to see him corroborate Andrew’s account of the comings and goings in Epstein’s home.

            Good point about questions being previewed, thus giving the interviewee the ability to prepare, no doubt lawyers were involved with that at some level, too, but the reality is it was never meant to be an easy interview. Those 404 moments were inevitable (such as when he was told he was seen being given a foot massage by a Russian girl) as was the narcissism acting in the now to gain control with the story being told of how he did not sweat … how did the narcissism come up with that one? Why would you even feel the need to explain? It’s a he said/she said and apparently he doesn’t recall ever meeting her. He hardly needs to prove he doesn’t sweat if that’s the case. How is she going to prove it? Now it’s up to him to prove.

            Maxwell in the background, likely the biggest Epstein victim of all in some ways, leading to her becoming his most loyal Lieutenant. That’s the thing about narcissists. It’s like embedding the IPPS. She proved a valuable piece in Epstein’s game of ‘chess’ and was able to ensnare others for his purposes who were able to ensnare others in one giant underage sex trafficking Ponzi scheme. That’s how it was described. There were three other women apart from Maxwell who accommodated Epstein in the same way and after the first case and deal were made, under its terms none of them could be prosecuted apparently. How many of these women are narcissists and willing to help traffic other vulnerable women/girls? A couple of women introduced their younger sister’s to Jeffrey after already having been exposed to a level of his depravity. I don’t understand how they didn’t expect their younger sisters to potentially suffer the same treatment. Of course, there was always some lucrative offer from Epstein on the table. Money and opportunities.

            When it comes to our mothers I think it was better for us to be away from them. That gave us the necessary opportunity to separate which we hadn’t been able to do up to then. The problem is that they didn’t really prepare us for the separation. Instead of going out strong and independent, I know for a fact I went out weak and still feeling very dependent. That is because a narcissistic relationship necessarily breaks us and they have spent time moulding us to fulfill their needs, not our own. Who am I? That was the biggest question I needed to ask and have answered. At that point in time I was my mother’s extension and expectations were set by other people, not me. I can clearly see the Co-Dependent in me at that point in time. Others set my value and I hadn’t been mentored to set any kind of value on myself. I was ripe for the picking by other narcissists out in the big wide world.

            Thank you for your positive thoughts and encouragement again, AspEmp <3

            My children know I love them. For me that is the main thing. I read a moving comment by another blogger and mother here a couple of days ago where she describes parenting her children in the opposite manner to how she was parented and I could have written it myself. I think many of us empaths are on the same page when it comes that xox

          16. Asp Emp says:

            LET, if Andrew said he had ‘regret’, would he be giving away his control to Epstein? Effectively at the same time he is also not taking accountability? Hmmm, that is interesting RE: the boyfriend. Had the boyfriend been ‘silenced’ (subtle, not realised?) in some way by way of ‘bribes’ ie stayed at Epstein’s house?

            TBH, at that age, I probably would have been delighted (ie free holiday with high-profile people, like in awe, wow, if you can understand?) BUT not realised the ‘underhand’ “business” – if I had asked questions (no doubt I would have because it is part of my nature), I may have ‘accepted’ an ‘explanation’ ie “oh, they are paid to work” as a way of ‘deflection’ of my ‘analysing’. LOL, the wording “hanging around the walls of Epstein’s home”. The boyfriend (of that time) may actually be a witness as part of the trial when it happens.

            I read some of Guiffre’s story, 15 years of abuse before she met / married her husband (quite quickly, then again, was he her ‘rescuer’ because she would have ‘formed’ co-dependency?). It can take years to ‘speak’ up, to acknowledge and understand the years of ‘pain’. Like we are doing here on this blog. It appears that the whole thing was started by someone else (a 14 year old) and Virginia was contacted before taking action for herself (maybe as a ‘rescuer’ having been a ‘victim’ rather than a ‘protagonist’ to assist in blowing all this out of the water so to speak?). Have you looked at any photos of her, what do you see in her eyes?

            Epstein may have been the initial ‘founder’ of the whole ‘web’, yet is it possible that Maxwell had influence over him (her position in society, the people she knew etc)? Who knows?

            Ah, our man, HG. I have no doubt he’s keeping up to date on this whole ‘case’. Observing, listening, just like we are. It is really good of HG to moderate while he’s so busy.

            Yes, being away from narcissistic parents is what we needed. Thank you for sharing more of how the experience of being ‘unprepared’ of leaving home was for you. Despite my being similarly RE: independence, naive etc, I still felt ‘safer’ away from her and living on my own, not having a clue about budgeting (LOL), I did well though, managing finances while on a low wage. I had no oven but a cheap microwave and learned very early on to never put a whole egg still in it’s shell in the microwave (laughing, it was a fkg mess! And, such an aspie thing to do! LOL). My boss was a good man to give me that opportunity. Granted, it was a crap ‘home’ but anything was better than where I was, it became my own ‘cocoon’ (sanctuary).

            Bless you, LET. Thank you for conversing 🙂 xx

            Thanks HG, for your time 🙂

          17. lickemtomorrow says:

            AspEmp 🙂

            I have a smile on my face after coming to the end of your comment … the story about the egg is the best! A classic case of learning by your mistakes 😉 I was very much starting from scratch in many ways, too, though I never did try to microwave an egg in its shell xox The burger joint around the corner from me did a roaring trade, though 😛

            Once again your thoughts have me thinking … about the notion of giving away control. You are right. From the narcissist’s perspective, to express regret would be to give away control – not that they can feel it we agree – so an expression of regret has to come back to how something has affected them adversely. What Andrew did say was he didn’t regret a certain part of his association with Epstein (the mentoring), so saying he didn’t regret, from a narcissistic perspective, was both honest and likely true in that respect. Expressing regret would mean giving away control or power, but would it be to Epstein? Or would it be to the interviewer who is assuming an expression of regret? I will need to think about that one.

            The boyfriend is an anomaly and also a spanner in the works. Certainly for Giuffre. He’s apparently been subsumed into the world of both Virginia Roberts and of Epstein. He doesn’t know she’s been ‘turning tricks’ for Epstein and his buddies, at least not until the Andrew saga according to him. Something convenient about his accounting of the story there since he’s apparently been oblivious up to that stage. He’s able to corroborate Andrew’s story of being ‘unsuspecting’, although I’m sure he had no idea at the time that’s what he was doing when he gave the interview. No doubt he was brought under Epstein’s spell like the rest and could see some advantage in that for himself.

            I would have to agree that there were many temptations being put in people’s way, and the younger you are the more easily influenced you are as well. A lot depends on how much naivete you want to accredit to the people concerned. What kind of life experience did they have? How did that affect them? Being broken individuals in some way, shape or form is almost a requirement. Some will have sniffed out an opportunity, some will have been blindsided in their innocence. I think what we see in the Epstein case is a blending of the two types of victims, both narcissistic and empathic. Some will have been extensions all their lives and unable to resist the force of a powerful personality like Epstein, others will have aligned themselves and their narcissistic nature to him. I’m feeling NXIVM more and more in this case.

            Giuffre’s story of her childhood have been disputed as well. Surprise, surprise! She apparently grew up in a middle class home and it was her father in his role as maintenance manager that got her a job at Mar-a-Lago which is where she met Ghislaine Maxwell. When I said she definitely has a LOCE, that was on Virginia’s recounting, not the actual facts apparently. What I can’t determine is anything more than she went off the rails in her early teens due to an apparent sexual assault. That is what she reported and I don’t know if anything is proven in relation to that. It’s possible that set her up for PTSD which affected her behaviour. It’s also possible she was already acting out of a narcissistic perspective, though the cause for that would be unknown to me. Please understand I’m speculating based on information being pieced together and on the basis that narcissism obviously lays at the core of much of this saga. Just who is narcissistic and who is not can lend a lot of clarity to this situation, I think.

            On the basis of that, let me go further. Virginia met her husband on the trip to Thailand that Epstein had arranged. She met and married him within 10 days. It could be, and she has claimed, it was a means of escape. My heart goes out to her in those circumstances and I would only wish her the very best. Epstein was bad news and any escape from him is to be applauded. What struck me about that is in some ways the opposite of what you are suggesting, and in many ways what you’re suggesting based on what she has said is more logical (i.e. the ‘rescuer’ of the co-dependent victim). I thought of the love bombing or seducing narcissist, who convinces someone they are madly in love and of the need to embed that new Primary Source. The only reason I thought that is because of what I have learnt here. Her husband could be the narcissist and seduced her (which is more along the lines of what you are speculating) or it could be the other way round. Alternatively they could both be empaths and dreams really do come true x (which is what I, as an empath, would like to think). I would only wish anyone the best on escape from Epstein, and their marriage seems to have lasted.

            I don’t know what I see in her eyes. So, it’s ‘nothing’ really. I don’t see the expression of a great deal of emotion. Maybe it is hidden, and she is hardened.

            Interesting thought on Maxwell and the part she played. I think she was played in terms of introducing Epstein to the circle of people she knew, and she was in his thrall just as she had been to her father. That appears to be the general take on things, and that she was looking for a powerful figure to replace the role her father played in her life which Epstein fitted nicely. No doubt he used her and she used him. It was a symbiotic relationship from which both benefited, although I’d say Epstein benefited the most in the circumstances. She was just his lackey, though she got to live the lifestyle she’d been accustomed to in return. Wasted lives, IMO.

            Yes, thanks must go to HG for moderating <3 I'm interested in the conversation and enjoying sharing thoughts with you, too. No doubt HG has tremendous insight into the whole affair and I think the narcissistic dynamic stretches way beyond Prince Andrew in this scenario. Pretty much like herding cats (literally, as cats are compared to narcissists) so probably best to focus on just one narcissist for now. Epstein's dead, Maxwell's in prison and it won't be long before we know what happens to Andrew.

          18. Asp Emp says:

            LET, LOL about the egg / microwave 🙂

            Thank you for considering my suggestion RE: narcissist and regret. Epstein is dead, figuratively, Andrew’s narcissism would have regarded Epstein not to exist either way – because Epstein is not in the room with Andrew and the interviewer (laughing here though, ghosting ;-)). Andrew’s instinctive, immediate response by ‘dismissing’ regret (asserting his control, denying Epstein the ‘right’ of ‘control’, ‘dismissing’ Epstein in his mind at the same time), so effectively, his response was directly to the interviewer because she is present (there, now). His response would also possibly have indirectly ‘told’ her, this stops now, no more questions on regret / end of discussion / move on to the next (all assertions of control – his narcissism effectively ‘multi-tasking’ = ‘dealing’ with a number of threats to his control, by issuing one answer in one go).

            We do not know for a fact whether the interviewer knows about narcissism, or is aware that Andrew is a narcissist.

            RE: “Some will have sniffed out an opportunity, some will have been blind-sided in their innocence. I think what we see in the Epstein case is a blending of the two types of victims, both narcissistic and empathic “ – I agree.

            Apparently, Virginia was abused from 4 years old at home and then, at 7,further abused by a family member. So her ‘experiences’ may have started earlier than people realise.

            Yes, I agree with what you suggest about her marrying her husband so quickly. Yes, it is not easily discernable who is empath / narcissist, if any, RE: Virginia & Robert. Having said that she did contact Epstein at the time of her being in Thailand that she was not returning – effectively escaping Esptein / Maxwell.

            RE: her eyes “Maybe it is hidden, and she is hardened”- that is what I see, almost ‘guarded’ (protection, whether narcissist, or empath, as a victim regardless)?

            I do understand that you are speaking from a speculative perspective and I respect this 🙂 Hence my mentioning HG in my earlier comment (RE: observing / listening on this whole case). I would not wish to impose further on HG’s time on his already increasing workload, yet, I would be interested in his observations in regard to Virginia (together with her husband, maybe), or the ‘whole’ case when it is a suitable (ie case trials completed – Andrew / Maxwell). (Thank you, HG xx).

            This discussion is also giving us opportunity to expand on what we are learning on KTN blog. We are also being ‘tested’ as we go along 😉 Herding cats is far easier than herding meerkats (LOL) 😉 Ah, thank you LET and I am enjoying this convo too xx.

          19. lickemtomorrow says:

            Hi AspEmp 🙂

            Thanks for your reply. The discussion around regret is interesting and I guess there is a need to exert control even over dead people at times! That never really crossed my mind, and the whole topic of narcissism never gets old in that sense.

            I don’t know if the interviewer knew about narcissism, and either way the job of the interviewer – at least in these circumstances – is to put the interviewee ‘on the spot’. They can expect hard hitting questions and as we can see narcissism (depending on their school) is not going to save them. In fact, it can all go balls up, as it did. A knowledge of narcissism could definitely change the approach. It depends what you want to get out of the interviewee. A body language expert said Andrew was in a ‘defensive’ body position the whole time. That’s likely because he knew he’d been accused and had to defend himself. Doesn’t automatically make him guilty. His questionable answers leave room to doubt his innocence, though.

            I watched an interesting program on the telly called “The Duke and Duchess of Disaster” LOL. You can guess who that was about … and no, not Harry and the Mrs (though they could have their own version soon!) One really great comment was made in terms of describing both Sarah and Andrew, but it suits Andrew down to a tee in this situation. It was basically that he was unable to get outside of himself to see how things looked from the outside, which really translates to the narcissist’s inability to self reflect. He is incapable of seeing himself the way others see him and thus travels his own road assuming he is always right. The upcoming case, if it goes to trial, could be the same kind of car crash as the interview.

            I feel there is conflicting information about Giuffre’s early years, so I’ll have to try and dig a little deeper. I think the difference lies in what she says and how she contradicts herself at times or others shed a different light on her story. Of course, abuse beginning at the age of 4yrs and again at 7yrs may well not have come to light until much later as so often it remains hidden while it is going on. In that sense you don’t have to come from a poor home to be abused, as we know, so being from a middle class home won’t have necessarily saved her from a LOCE.

            I do think Andrew being the ‘favourite’ was part of his LOCE, and you can see how he is oblivious to others in that sense. As a narcissist, it’s all about him. Does the ‘all about him’ include sleeping with underage girls? It’s a sad fact narcissism leads to all kinds of boundary breaking behaviour where the impact on others is not taken into account. It is eminently possible that he did what he is accused of and it’s also possible he was too self centred to see how his relationship with Epstein could lead to his downfall. The narcissist’s blindspot. Being untouchable. He is also oblivious to how others might target that fatal flaw for their own nefarious purposes.

            LOL to trying to herd meerkats, AspEmp 😛 They are the cutest things <3

            Thanks for the chat again xox

          20. Asp Emp says:

            Hello LET :-), LOL RE: control over dead people! I suppose there is an element of truth in that, in my perspective, via my journey on KTN, I have ‘killed’ muvver – so effectively, she ‘died’ twice, or rather, many times (LOL) 😉

            What you say about interviewers, look at what Piers Morgan did, he seemed to get a ‘kick’ out of “persisting” on winding the interviewees up. Piers gives the impression of ‘it takes one to know one’ yet is unaware of what he is. His narcissism ‘acts’ out, hence him being rather good at interviewing, albeit crass at times.

            Yes, I would be inclined to agree about Andrew’s ‘stance’ (defensive posture). Because he knew it was not going to be an easy interview ie not comfortable when this line of questioning came up. I think it was the fact he is sat there, being filmed and talking about things where his narcissism would have had to continuously ‘adjust’, and it was not necessarily a ‘situation’ that was always in his ‘favour’, despite the LOCE being quiet. Consideration, how many interviews had he been experienced enough to be ‘used’ to it? There is a big difference in being interviewed and being filmed at an event. Yes, they want the ‘focus’ (attention) but not be ‘scrutinised’ (analysed). Maybe his narcissism may be ‘evolved’ enough at ie events, but not as ‘evolved’ in interviews? The ‘environments’ and ‘situations’ are different. At the same time, he was aware that the Virginia “issue” and the Maxwell “issue” had not been put to bed so to speak.

            The paragraph about Sarah & Andrew was interesting but not surprising.

            Yes, the information RE: Guiffre’s younger years seems to vary. Having said that, there are occasions of my past that I did not recall until some of my more recent abuse was understood and put to one side ie ‘dealt’ with. Abuse can do quite a bit to memory ‘suppression’. We will know more on her story at some point.

            Apparently, Andrew was ‘Baby Grumpling’ (LOL). I’d wondered about Charles and his title ‘awarded’ when he was 9 years old had some bearing on, ie from a condescending ‘aspect’ towards Andrew since birth (haughtiness etc) contributed to the LOCE Andrew was in? One photograph of the family at Frogmore in 1968 was interesting, as Andrew is at a ‘distance’ from the rest of the family when he was 8 years old, assuming that he was already ‘formed’ so to speak. Having said that, in another photograph (same day) is he ‘glaring’ at Edward?

            Andrew seems to lack a ‘moral’ code and some apparent ‘blindness’ when it comes to the question of the under-aged girls. Considering that he is a father at that time too. One could suggest that his narcissism is not as ‘evolved’, hence his spherical vision being narrower than more evolved narcissists? Either way, he is involved in it all. Much to the chagrin and embarrassment of the Royal Family.

            Meerkats herding 😉

            You too, LET, thanks for chatting xx

          21. lickemtomorrow says:

            AspEmp, you are not a narcissist, so therefore you don’t need to exert control over others, including your mother x What you are doing is expressing those long held in emotions which deserve an airing and probably were never aired while she was alive. I know you know this and empaths have their needs, too. Just not the same motivation. My dreams seem to provide an outlet for me and often surprise me with the strength of the emotion. One way or another it’s good to get it out.

            Good point about Piers! I think it’s called ‘provocation’ and the aim is control. You have control when you get other people to react. The provocation will cause the opposing narcissist to use one of the three assertions of control. We might see a ‘dummy spit’ or walkout as the third assertion of control as in Piers’s walkout on Good Morning. Classic example, even if I agree with his perspective on the whole affair.

            I think I need to be reminded of the other assertions of control 😛 I guess confronting the interviewer might be another one, as in becoming aggressive related to the ignition of fury. That’s probably the ‘dummy pit’ without the walkout. Swearing, hitting, shouting, etc.

            Andrew did neither of those things, so I need help on the second assertion of control! Maybe that’s the denial/deflection, etc. That would fit with Andrew’s interview as a means of asserting control. He’s not going to lose his shit at being questioned, he’s not going to walkout in a huff, he is going to give answers that deny responsibility and supposedly prove his innocence. The problem with that is his narcissism wasn’t up to the task.

            Good point about the differing circumstances of being put in the spotlight. As a Royal he could rightly be used to people tugging their forelocks and a “Yes, Your Highness”, “No, Your Highness.” Not much of a challenge in that. He may have been under scrutiny with Royal protocol to dictate how that should normally play out, but a situation as dire as this requires a different level of scrutiny and a lot of journalists as narcissists themselves (e.g. Piers Morgan). They are going to go in for the ‘kill’, or the ‘win’ in narcspeak and try to get the ‘scoop’. Journalism (albeit not always) is about exposing things rather than covering them up. Andrew may have expected to be exposed, but only in a sense where he could tell his side of the story, and he has a right to do that. A television interview with a journalist is probably not the best way to go about that. Especially as he is seen as the perpetrator. It would be interesting to see how interviews with the victim, Virginia Roberts are conducted. What everyone should be aiming at is getting to the truth.

            Thank you for sharing around your own experience of abuse as well. This is where some of the experts will likely come in with notions of False Memory Syndrome. In some ways it’s a disgrace to challenge people over painful memories which they are forced to share. There is nothing worse than not being believed in relation to a traumatic event. Every one of us could probably recount instances where we are not believed in relation to the narcissist. One of the hot topics at the moment – “Why Can’t They See It Too?” It would terrible to be abused and for your accusations to fall on deaf ears. It’s happened all too often. At the same time, the waters of the accusation need to be tested for truth and reliability. You can’t accuse someone and just expect them to be judged guilty. They have to have their day in Court where evidence is brought forward and an element of proof is offered. It’s traumatic either way for a true victim.

            I’ve read some items that indicate the favoured position Andrew held with his mother, the Queen, meant Charlie had it in for him, even up to the most recent events which I believe Charles also had some say in. I know I’ve seen one clip of the Queen arriving at a function with Prince Philip when Charles was only 2 or 3yrs and he seemed very lost and lonely in the context of the arrival with no one to hold his hand or even look back to see if he was OK. Obviously the Queen has to focus on her role, but I did wonder what happened to the Nanny. Maybe there is an element of spitefulness amongst the narcissistic members which plays out mostly behind closed doors. At this stage we have to be grateful for Wills and Kate and their children!

            I don’t think narcissist’s have a ‘moral code’, AspEmp. That’s why we find them tied up in nefarious activities. They are entitled boundary breakers and that could really lead them anywhere. Andrew thought he was untouchable. That is a blindness in itself. He doesn’t need to do anything wrong for that aloofness and arrogance to paint a very dim picture of him. If he has done something wrong that aloofness and arrogance won’t save him. Sometimes this obvious flaw can be utilized by others for their own nefarious purposes. I know I’m repeating myself, but it’s a point worth repeating. With so many narcs involved the truth can be very hard to come by.

            I do want victims to be protected and for justice to be done. I hope that is the final outcome xox

          22. Asp Emp says:

            LET, thank you for your validation (me, not narcissist). In some way, I am effectively ‘exerting my control’ over my mind in relation to the past = the ‘reprogramming’. That is my ‘power’.

            LOL, the “dummy spit”, that is hilarious. But true. In Piers case anyway 😉 Yes, you agreeing with his ‘reaction / response’, in that respect, I agree. Narcissist or not, he was ‘exercising’ his right as a human.

            Andrew’s denial / deflection could be viewed as both direct and indirect assertions of control via projection RE: his responding to the interviewer / he does not regret. Hence his way of maintaining his ‘facade’. Yet his mask did drop a bit when he’s ‘clasping’ his hands (re-adjustment of his narcissism as it scrabbles to regain control) and the same happened while blinking over the repeated saying ‘of a photograph’, 3 times, in succession. As if his narcissism is drilling that into his mind, as if a machine is stating “correction, affirmation”.

            Andrew has no need to assert control, (as they are already in control) when the “Yes Sir” is said. Yes, Andrew has a right to tell his side of the story but whether his perception is ‘accepted’ by outsiders is another matter.

            I suppose, Charles may be inwardly “delighted” at his brother’s ‘downfall’ from grace and he didn’t have to do anything. The Queen was 22 when she had Charles and her position within the Monarchy, and at that age it is a massive undertaking. I read somewhere that after Andrew was born, the Queen, as a mother, had more time to be the mother as she was ‘getting’ into her role in ‘preparation’ prior to Andrew’s being born. Sometimes there are occasions where some form of ‘sacrifices’ has to be made. 70 years, as the longest reigning Monarch, speaks for itself. Elizabeth I (Tudor) also made personal sacrifices for her country.

            RE: “Sometimes this obvious flaw can be utilized by others for their own nefarious purposes”, I agree. It’s the principle. Like Piers and his ‘walk’ out. And his ‘winning’ against MM (RE: Ofcom case). In this respect the ‘moral code’ overrides the ‘nefarious’ against the ‘nefarious’. It depends on how the moral code is applied and to whom.

            Justice will prevail. 🙂

          23. lickemtomorrow says:

            AspEmp, thank you for your thoughts again. I’ve taken them all under my notice and your understanding reflection on the Queen is interesting. Becoming Queen at such a young age and unexpectedly must have had an enormous impact on her at the time and the children would have necessarily garnered second place next to that. It is a sacrifice which the children are forced to make as well. That is a definite LOCE in some ways and one that is forced upon everyone concerned.

            “Justice will prevail” – very encouraging 🙂

          24. Asp Emp says:

            Thank you, LET x

          25. lickemtomorrow says:

            Well, it looks like a settlement has been reached out of Court and according to a Royal Protection Officer at the Queen’s behest. That is unfortunate from my perspective. The air needed to be cleared on this one and that opportunity has not been given. No admission of guilt, as is usual when it comes to settlements, but an acceptance the plaintiff has suffered in some way. For me, there is no justice if there is no truth. The money is a way of keeping the affair shrouded … maybe its avoiding a criminal case and prison, and maybe it’s a way of making the whole thing go away during the Queen’s Jubilee year. I don’t think it’s satisfying for the victims at all … and I think she got away with it. That is my gut instinct. She got her money, she will be happy.

          26. Asp Emp says:

            LET, yes, I just caught it on the news last night and read a bit more about it today. $12 million now, is it? From what I gather, there will be a donation to the charity she set up as well as the settlement. Andrew ‘accepts’ that there was abuse ‘involved’. Apparently, Charles also had a ‘say’ about Andrew settling out of court. No doubt, the Royal Family are pleased that it is not going to be ‘aired’ via the court route. At the same time, Andrew’s position within the Royal Family will not be the same because of what came to light. In my view, the amount of the settlement is also a kind of ‘admission’. Who knows, maybe Virginia may give some of the settlement to the other victims as well as the charity itself?

            Justice may not necessarily have been ‘served’ yet the principle has been ‘made’. “The end justifies the means”. Kudos to Virginia for not giving up. It does not necessarily mean that Andrew has got ‘free’ as yet, as maybe something else will come up at a later stage……(me finks anyway).

            LET, I am thankful we had the opportunity to have this conversation and it was good to do so. Much thanks, too, to HG for moderating time 🙂

          27. lickemtomorrow says:

            Hi AspEmp 🙂

            Yes, I believe she is receiving a payment and there is also a contribution being made to the charity she set up. I don’t know much about it so I need to look it up. Both these payments appear to be part of the settlement agreed. The settlement does acknowledge harm to the Virginia Guiffre through the association with Epstein, at least that’s how I understand it. I also hear Charles had a say along with their mother, the Queen, and I’d imagine a great deal of pressure was applied in the circumstances to keep the whole affair from overshadowing the Jubilee. Andrew is now officially persona non grata and no doubt it’s a bitter pill to swallow after being considered the ‘favourite’ over all these years.

            I could go on about so many things 😛 but it’s pointless now the deal has been done.

            Settlements usually look like admissions and often they are of one kind or another. Could be an admission you can’t afford the Court costs when someone has you over a barrel. Could also be an admission that Andrew caved to pressure from his family. Could be an admission that he made such a hack job of the TV interview there’s no chance you could sit him down with her two shark lawyers and expect him to survive the onslaught. It could also be that he would not be able to maintain his innocence and therefore has taken the easy way out.

            She did not do what she said she was going to do, at least I don’t see this as a vindication. She has not been forced to produce any real proof of her accusations except for a photograph which some people consider questionable and which has never been forensically examined. She said it was probably in some boxes she left at her in-laws along with children’s toys. Who leaves a photograph of that magnitude anywhere except locked up in a bank vault? She didn’t know where to put her hand on it. She had given it to the FBI, but apparently it was returned to her or she had a copy made. Either way, she may have been unable to produce the infamous piece of incriminating evidence for a forensic exam and now never will. It seems a shame not to finally be able to find out the truth of the matter, whoever it might incriminate.

            I can’t see Virginia sharing her portion of the settlement, but she may surprise me yet. I have no idea how she manages her charity, but she could also contribute her portion to the charity since she’s already been paid out by Epstein to the amount of $500,000 previously. I have no idea of her current financial situation.

            Ah, AspEmp, “the end justifies the means” is very Machiavellian and part of the narcissistic dynamic. I could attribute that to Virginia in terms of my thoughts shared here already. I know you mean it in a positive and empathic way, much like in the fight back against the narcissist where we get out whatever way we can. If you can bring someone to justice for what they have done then any means are fair in order to do that. I’m sure that’s how Virginia and some of the other victims and supporters are feeling. Make the perpetrators pay. I’ve only been speaking of revenge here recently myself. Yes, I want the perps to pay, but I also want the truth to come out.

            Time will tell what else may be in the works, and I’ve appreciated your insights and feedback on this one. It’s been quite intense and not at all straightforward in some ways. No doubt HG will enjoy time off from moderating this one 😉 Thanks, HG x

          28. Asp Emp says:

            LET, yes “Andrew is now officially persona non grata and no doubt it’s a bitter pill to swallow after being considered the ‘favourite’ over all these years” – this very rarely happens within the Royal Family. Never mind to such a high-profile narcissist. In my opinion, he was ‘informed’ by the Queen and Charles (because he will be King at some point), explaining what they will be forced to do – exile Andrew with no support from the family should the case go ahead. I have know doubt that they know more of the ‘behind the scenes’ information that we have not. No matter, either way, Andrew has been ‘spared’ in more ways than one.

            No doubt, the filmed interview being ‘analysed’ by experts may have also contributed to the Royal Family’s issuing ‘ultimatums’. Andrew was fked either way.

            HG’s ‘The Fading Narcissist’ article is timely posted in this instance 🙂

            Who knows whether Andrew experienced ‘The Narcissist’s Reality Gap’ during recent weeks?

            Who knows RE: the ‘incriminating’ evidence? Some facts will never see the light of day.

            The case with Andrew may be “closed”, at the same time, Virginia’s hands are not necessarily ‘tied’ so to speak. She can still be a witness elsewhere, should it be required. She is ‘done and dusted’ where Andrew is concerned on her personal journey.

            At least, the Queen and the rest of the family can now focus on the Jubilee.

            Yes, thank you for your input / feedback. It was a healthy debate and I appreciate your contributions to it. Thank you, LET xx

            Thank you, HG for your time, it is much appreciated xx

          29. lickemtomorrow says:

            AspEmp, thanks for your response 🙂

            Yes, behind the scenes info goes both ways and what’s sickening to me is that we don’t get a complete airing of the dirty laundry in this case. If Andrew needs to fall on his sword then let it be in a manner the whole truth comes out. If he’s been ‘spared’, there is no justice in that and as a victim I wouldn’t be satisfied to agree to it.

            “I want money, that’s what I want” … somehow this song is playing in my head, but maybe that’s because I’m also watching the program about Anna Sorokin.

            I will have to take a look at “The Fading Narcissist” again.

            I’ll be interested to see where Guiffre’s journey takes her from here. There are multiple other victims without such a high profile. I hope they get their justice. One who was paid out 5 million by Epstein’s estate (owing to the fact he could never be brought to trial) said she had no interest in the money. I’m sure for many of them that aspect is the least of their concerns. It is little compensation at the end of the day for the loss of innocence.

            Yes, the focus for the most part now can rest on the Jubilee. I think Harry’s book won’t be coming out until the end of the year, after the main celebrations. Apparently Harry’s wife has no intention of ever returning to the UK according to Tom Bowers, which I thought was a real ‘bitch slap’ to Britain as she expressed her intention to focus on US politics. She’s really showing her true colours now, and Brits are expressing relief at the idea from what I can see. It’s a dream come true for me. The nightmare is now on US soil.

            Enjoyed the conversations, too, AspEmp <3 I watched a Tedtalk yesterday about communication and it was one to make you stop and think. How we communicate with others makes a big difference to how we all get along xox

          30. Asp Emp says:

            LET, well, we may not get to see it in our life time. Who knows? Someone, somewhere may be writing “memoirs”? Ghislaine’s case is not ‘closed’ yet. No doubt, Andrew will have been royally “advised” to be a GOOD boy from now on, just because his case has been “closed”, it does not mean the world has stopped ‘watching’……

            Yes, I understand, totally RE: ‘money’ and the connection to watching Anna’s story – if I may suggest, it is ‘playing’ on your mind a bit, I can totally understand. It’s the empath in you ‘responding’.

            I think Guiffre may be called up as a witness not relating to Andrew this time. She may return to the quiet life she was living before she was contacted by the investigating authorities that the ‘whole case’ was started by the 14 year old’s parents raising the ‘alarm’.

            Your compassion is really showing in regard to the victims here RE: their innocence.

            MM not returning to the UK? She’s a coward! At the same time, maintaining control over Harry and the kids, keeping them ‘imprisoned’ in US. Isolation. In my view, this will not be long term. Her narcissism has not evolved enough to ‘win’ this one. I’d be very surprised if she gets into politics, she is not smart enough. Other narcissists who are in US politics will not have her. At all.

            Thanks for the heads up RE: Tedtalk – I’ve bookmarked that to peruse later 🙂

            LET, thank you for such an interesting discussion :-). I feel guilty now (LOL), poor HG (thank you x).

          31. lickemtomorrow says:

            AspEmp, it’s done and dusted for now and I’m sure everyone will hope it settles down, but it seems further revelations are never far away. Epstein’s death meant he would never be fully answerable in this life, but the Judge made sure the victims were heard and settlements made from his estate. An element of that would have been satisfying considering he made an attempt before he died to move his money so it would be secure from any claim over it. The lack of remorse and sense of entitlement is beyond, but that is also the narcissist’s need for control.

            MM is a Mid-Range narcissist and Mid-Rangers are cowards. I think you’re right on that being the reason she isn’t returning to the UK. She hasn’t got the balls after shafting the RF and the British people. Your point about Harry and the children is on point and I’d like to think it’s not long term, but so far she is ‘winning’, Harry is completely ensnared, and there’s little hope of a change in the near future from my perspective.

            We’ve already seen her make an attempt at a foray into politics. Not being ‘smart’ enough doesn’t seem to bother her, and sometimes it depends who your backers are – the people that will pave the way and prop you up. She’s been paved and propped to a certain extent and I honestly don’t know how many people have had the wool pulled over their eyes at this point in time. One narcissist that won’t have her is Donald Trump 😛 Might be a reason to vote for him next time round. Anything to keep Harry’s wife out of politics 😉

            Oh, the Tedtalk I listened to was by Celeste Headlee, “10 Ways to Have a Better Conversation” which takes into account how many opposing views there are out there these days and how we might approach that. I’m going to have to get out of my bunker more <3 Having said that, so will everybody else xox

          32. Asp Emp says:

            LET, thank you for your response 🙂 LOL RE: Donald T, that amused me. Thank you for the information regarding which video it is. I’ll have a look into that 🙂 I’m hunkering down into my ‘bunker’ – it’s pretty windy out there right now. xx

          33. lickemtomorrow says:

            AspEmp, glad to know you were amused and not offended 😉

            I see you have mentioned another video on communication in the comment you linked so I will check it out.

            Hunker down as necessary! I heard wild weather was on the way xox

          34. Asp Emp says:

            LET, it was pretty windy out yesterday. Now it’s wet non-white snowing but the wind has eased up, a lot! Despite the wind last night, it was a lovely moon.

            Yes, thank you for pointing me into the direction of those ‘communication’ videos. Will confer on ‘Found In Translation’ – thanks for your response on that 🙂

          35. Asp Emp says:

            LET, I sent a comment to you on ‘Found in Translation’ https://narcsite.com/2021/10/02/found-in-translation-17/ – thank you 🙂

          36. lickemtomorrow says:

            AspEmp, found it and will respond x

          37. Truthseeker6157 says:

            LET,

            Yes, I thought the recent comments from Guiffre’s lawyer were interesting. I read it as, “ We won’t settle without Prince Andrew publicly accepting responsibility for his part in this, unless it’s a large enough sum, then we might.”

            Money isn’t justice to me. Money is just money. Different thing if you are on your arse, can’t feed your kids, can’t afford to make ends meet. Then I might look at it as “If I sell out, then I’m doing it for the sake of my kids and my kids’ future.” They would come first, justice second. I don’t see those factors in play here. That’s just me though, money might be justice to someone else.

            Different people will see different motivations and a lot of it is lawyer game play too. Then we get the press spin on top. It’s really difficult to establish what is coming from Guiffre herself and what is essentially the lawyers turning the screw on either side.

            I have to stick with my gut instinct and say, “Something isn’t quite right there.”

            Xx

          38. lickemtomorrow says:

            TS, looks like you’ve interpreted things in a similar way to me. The quote in your first paragraph is exactly how it sounds, and while I agree with AspEmp that money as a compensatory mechanism is also valid in terms of providing justice, it seems to negate Guiffre’s original intention expressed in bringing him to Court in the first place. I thought she wanted to prove her case and expose him regardless of the risk to herself. And there is a risk any time you decide to bring something like this to Court. Regardless of the truth of the matter, it’s possible she’s far too embroiled herself to survive being put under the microscope of the justice system. That’s not saying anything about her as much as it is about how the system works and how she herself may be answerable in the circumstances. Lawyers are likely to light on that lack of her own innocence, her own predatory manner in bringing girls to Epstein, and she will look much less the innocent victim. I don’t mean to downplay the trauma she suffered in being made part of Epstein’s wicked world, and her escape from him was fortuitous, but it’s hard to maintain the appearance of a victim when you were also acting as a predator.

            You make a good point about ‘needs must’, and it will often be forced on someone to take a lesser compensatory financial mechanism if the cost of bringing their case to Court is prohibitive. It’s not necessarily that their case won’t stand up, it’s that the cost if they fail could mean financial ruin. If you are leaving it in the hands of jurors, or even a Judge, to make the decision based on the case being presented by both sides then there’s a possibility it could fail as two sides of the story are presented. So where money isn’t justice, sometimes you are left with no option but to accept what is offered as a way of avoiding the possibility of even greater loss.

            I think we’re both coming from the sense that originally Guiffre’s purpose seemed to ‘altruistic’ and her intentions were to prove her case come hell or high water. My mind changed somewhat when I read her remarks about literally taking him to the cleaners financially. Something didn’t sit right with me about that. If she wanted to prove her case in Court, then the financial aspect should not enter into it. That is an afterthought once the case has been proven, and she seems to have a good case by all accounts. For some reason she put the emphasis on money and that element of compensation, which changes my perspective on the kind of justice she is seeking, and ultimately it sounds more like retribution. I can understand a desire for that as well, but having her day in Court would say a lot more about Andrew’s guilt and help bring relief for other victims, too.

            People will see it differently – I didn’t realize how many people thought Andrew was so evil until I started reading more about it – and lawyer game play plus press spin is going to provide a variety of perspectives and interpretations. You and I seem to be on the same page in terms of our instincts on this one and saying “something isn’t quite right.” The fact is there was nothing right about Epstein and his antics or the people who were involved with him. There is a real darkness surrounding the whole affair and who knows how much will ever come to light in the circumstances? Money will just continue to shroud the situation, IMO.

        2. Truthseeker6157 says:

          LET,

          You make a really good point about costs incurred if Guiffre lost the case. That has to impact the decision making process too.

          The problem I have, is that I rely so much on my intuition and emotional empathy that my cognitive empathy is reasonably weak by comparison. I get the feel of a person in real life, far harder for me to do that from a distance through press articles. When I see Guiffre interviewed, I don’t feel anything for her other than mistrust, yet I do feel sympathy for the rest of the group. There has to be a reason for that, there’s usually a reason.

          I find it frustrating that I can’t better verbalise the reason I simply don’t trust the motivation of Guiffre then or now. I’ve seen her interviewed, I’ve seen her interact with the other victims ( she appears very separate from them in my opinion) and I’ve seen other victims interviewed separately. I feel an emotional response for the other victims, I feel absolutely nothing for her. I can’t just turn on my sympathy, I can’t ‘bring it on’ like an orgasm, it’s there, or it isn’t. In the case of Guiffre it isn’t there.

          Yes, Prince Andrew is a very suspect individual. I think he’s outstandingly self centred, and quite happy to make the dodgy deals if it means lining his own pockets. There was one interesting point I noticed in that car crash bbc interview though, that I thought was unusual. He was asked about his friendship with Epstein and Maxwell. It was pointed out to him that they had both visited a royal lodge at the invitation of the Royal Family. He interrupted at this point and said, “At my invitation. Let me make this clear, at my invitation, not the invitation of the Royal Family.” He made a point of distancing the Royal Family from himself. It appeared very much like an attempt to accept responsibility / protect the Royal Family from being guilty by association. I find it confusing that a narc would do that. It made me wonder it it was to do with conditioning. ‘The institution is bigger and more important than its separate parts.’ I don’t think normal people can fully comprehend what it means to be raised within that environment. The survival of the institution is paramount. Did Andrew respond as a result of conditioning? Facade Management seems a stretch.

          Xx

          1. lickemtomorrow says:

            Hi TS, appreciate your response and if Andrew is prepared to challenge her then she may have to reconsider her position, once again not on the basis that it didn’t happen, but on the basis of her ability to prove it in a Court of Law and without herself being painted in a very unsympathetic light. There has been more information coming out since I made my last comment and some of that is around her ‘boasting’ about having slept with Andrew to another victim. It’s a ‘he said, she said’ type scenario in that sense where you have to wonder who to believe and how many people are just serving their own interests without any real evidence to back it up. I am reading some negative commentary about Giuffre and from more than just one source. That seems kind of damning in its own right.

            Having a moment of confusion between ‘cognitive’ and ’emotional’ empathy now that you mention it. Cognitive to me is along the lines of ‘thought through’ or ‘reasoned’ empathy – as in it is the correct response to make in a given situation. Emotional to me is more ‘intuitive’ and ‘impulsive’ – as in it is an automatic response to a situation. I’d imagine being ‘in person’ is going to mean a stronger reaction in terms of emotional empathy or intuition, or at least it being harder to read from a distance. At the same time, it seems you’ve experienced a response which is less sympathetic to Giuffre. I’ve watched her in interview again and while I didn’t necessarily sense a difference between her and the other girls the first time round, revisiting it with other information that has now come to hand I am watching it with a slightly different perspective. I sensed a real trauma coming from some of the other women being interviewed, some of them were younger at the time of their experiences, too, but I can’t say I felt my heart breaking for Giuffre in the same way.

            In that sense I usually go with my intuition and sounds like yours and mine are reading this in a similar way.

            I’ve got the BBC documentary with Andrew lined up to watch as well. I’ll take note of the part of the interview you mention and see what else I might pick up from it. There are are also rumours going around now that the photo was doctored by Giuffre and another girl in order to implicate Andrew (more red herrings?) and there’s one other thing that struck me about it. On the way back to Maxwell’s apartment, Giuffre said she was told she would need to do for Andrew what she did for Jeffrey. If someone told me that, after a man more than twice my age had been sweating all over me on a dance floor and I felt nothing but disgust for him and loathing at the idea of having to ‘pleasure’ him, there is no way I’d suggest taking a ‘happy snap’ with him prior to having to demean myself again. That part just doesn’t make sense. I’m probably going to be nervous and sick to my stomach, not requesting a photo be taken, all the while looking relaxed and smiling while that is being done.

            There are way more questions that could be asked than answered … at least truthfully, I think.

          2. Truthseeker6157 says:

            LET,

            Haha yep, that’s what I meant by Emotional versus Cognitive empathy. My emotional empathy is the part that fires up instinctively and at the drop of a hat. It’s first to the table. So, in that sense I don’t often cognitively sit and think about a set of events and estimate if I should be feeling sympathy for someone or not. I am already! Similarly though, if I’m not feeling sympathy, I ascertain cognitively that perhaps I ought to be feeling sympathy, it doesn’t mean my emotional empathy then catches up and makes me feel the sympathy.

            I’ve been thinking about this since my original comment about not feeling sorry for Harry. Emotionally I did feel sympathy at one point, now, that sympathy has gone. Cognitively I can understand that his judgement is impaired, he isn’t himself, the narcissist is influencing his behaviours etc. I understand therefore that I ought to feel sympathy. Emotionally though, my emotional empathy says no. It can’t be convinced into switching on the sympathy.

            This is where HG’s Cognitive empathy beats my Emotional Empathy and I think it’s worth noting. Due to his understanding of the influence of the narcissist plus his understanding of the empath, plus his lived experience of talking to numerous empaths ‘under the influence’, HG’s Cognitive empathy gives the instruction “Show sympathy here”. He doesn’t feel it, but he can show it.

            My Emotional empathy overrides the Cognitive understanding and says “No. I don’t FEEL sympathy so I won’t show sympathy.”
            Side by side, HG appears sympathetic, I appear unsympathetic. HG’s Cognitive empathy outstripped my emotional empathy due to his greater learned experience.

            So, if an individual has Ultra high cognitive empathy, can he actually BE more empathetic without actually ever feeling it? I think the answer might be yes. I’m not entirely sure if that’s a good thing or a bad thing. I can say ‘Ah yes but my sympathy when given is genuine, because I feel it.’ Fair enough, but to the recipient, that would be largely irrelevant. One person gives them sympathy, the other doesn’t. They feel comforted and understood by one person, not by the other. Is it the interpretation of the recipient then that’s important or, is it the authenticity of the emotion?

            The Andrew interview is really interesting on a number of levels, including body language as long as you put the body language in context of the narcissism, the speech patterns are worth watching too. Some body language is hot wired in, in an evolutionary way. I think narcissists would show similar responses to threat for example, because they feel fear, but they wouldn’t show the same markers for lying. I watched the video from the standpoint of watching for him feeling under threat more than for if he was lying for that reason. I did think that comment was odd though about the invitation to the lodge.

            I also saw the extra information coming out as regards Guiffre. I think it came from a girl that she recruited at age 14. She trained her to give sexual massages and she was the person Guiffre bragged to after having slept with Andrew. I find it difficult to understand why someone would lie about those details but that doesn’t automatically make them true as we both know. Yes, our intuition is working in unison here most definitely.

            The thing I struggle with is the question “At what point does an individual have to accept responsibility for their actions?” Even in a court of law where diminished responsibility is used as a defence, most times the defendant is still punished. They are required to accept some responsibility for their own actions. I think this concept feeds in to my view of both Harry and Guiffre at this point.

            Xx

          3. Truthseeker6157 says:

            LET,

            I just re read your comment. Yes, I agree with you, if Guiffre knew she was required to massage and likely sleep with someone she found distasteful, who had just been sweating all over her in a club, why then pose for a photo directly beforehand? If she requested the photo, then that would tie in with the later bragging to the young girl she recruited about having just slept with a Prince. Equally, I can imagine Epstein directing the girls to take photos so that he had something on the men that he was entertaining.

            That definitely does happen. I’ve known male colleagues actively encouraged to take part in suspect behaviours on business trips so that others had info on them and they similarly had info on the others. All in it together, it’s the ‘you take me down I take you down’ idea. Epstein might well have encouraged that photo. Similarly Guiffre could have requested it herself. You would think that Andrew wouldn’t have agreed to that photo in any event. It might not even be genuine! They must be able to get experts in to determine if that photo was doctored though. Really tough to say LET.

            Xx

          4. HG Tudor says:

            I find hosting a piss up in a bar and hiring attractive hostesses (working girls) with an area set aside for a more “intimate” discussion which hosts a hidden camera most effective. Those lawyers, accountants, bankers, business men and public officials love a freebie.

          5. lickemtomorrow says:

            Haha, HG, more fool them.

            Ego rules the day. They think they’re special, thus being offered a freebie, and that makes them vulnerable to the less scrupulous. It’s the pride that comes before a fall.

            I wonder how many have fallen at the behest of the Ultra’s magnificence?

          6. lickemtomorrow says:

            TS, I had to go back and re read my comment to remember what I said 😉

            I’ve been reading more and conflicting accounts of this incident in which Giuffre says she was told she was to be ‘trafficked’ to Prince Andrew. She has said she was told after the photo was taken, on the ride back to Maxwell’s place, and yet another version has her being told previous to even meeting the Prince. Which is it? Not something I imagine you’d easily forget.

            I’ve also since read she wanted the picture taken to send to her grandmother, who would be thrilled at her meeting Prince Andrew. My first thought was Epstein likely put her up to it, but it still provides no proof that he did anything other than have a picture taken with her, though other evidence to back it up would make it pretty damning. It could be fortuitous, it could be she had the photo taken prior to being told she would need to do for Andrew what she did for Jeffrey, and that would also tie in with the impression of a body language expert who says the image shows her leaning into him in the image, which is obviously not a sign of distaste in the circumstances. I find it odd the photo is taken at the top of the stairs for some reason, and not in a communal place like dining area or sitting room. Not the usual spot for a photo to be taken. All indications are the bedrooms are likely upstairs which can lead to more speculation on the photo being taken in that particular area.

            I was also curious at how Andrew described the way he dresses when in London, suggesting he would be wearing a shirt and tie and not just a shirt (as he is in the photo). No idea about that, but he also said that being a member of the RF they are generally not given to any type of show of affection in public. It seems that is Royal protocol, once again making such familiarity in a photograph questionable to me, but what most stood out was that element of being aloof from others and the general population. It went to show how cocooned members of the RF can be and no doubt that can lend itself to a sense of entitlement, never mind the narcissism inherent in the system.

            A narcissist will not have empathy for others and will be disconnected emotionally. In that sense, Andrew’s biggest mistake in giving that interview was putting his narcissism front and centre for the world to see. Whether it and he are responsible for the boundary breaking and entitled behaviour most people now believe him to be guilty of we will just have to wait and see, but his lack of empathy was obvious.

            The Boys Club mentality of nefarious activities is really disturbing, as is the need to have something on someone else in order to keep yourself from being caught. It’s a dog eat dog world at the top in terms of the level of competitiveness, and I think only a narcissist could survive. Everyone else needs to watch their back.

            xox

          7. Truthseeker6157 says:

            “I find hosting a piss up in a bar and hiring attractive hostesses (working girls) with an area set aside for a more “intimate” discussion which hosts a hidden camera most effective.”

            Definitely. In that environment, drinks, peer pressure etc, a lot of men will just go for it. Some genuinely believe the hostess finds them attractive too. They really don’t see what’s going on at all. I think Andrew conceivably falls into the latter category in this instance.

            It’s tougher to do with women I think. Though I might be naive there. I had a boss take me and a group out on the tiles one night when travelling. Really dislikable guy. I’d describe him as ‘smarmy’. I was on the dance-floor, he sidled over, handed me a drink, and asked me if I knew where I was. Me being me I answered the name of the city. He smirked, leant in and said, “You’re standing in the middle of a brothel.”

            I think he wanted to shock, throw me off balance, I was quite young at the time. I took a sip of the drink, smiled, leant back in towards him and answered. “No, I’m standing on a dance floor with a drink in my hand. It only becomes a brothel if I go upstairs.” What an asshat that guy really was. And he expensed it!

          8. lickemtomorrow says:

            What’s interesting to me is that Andrew doesn’t drink apparently. He’s a tee-totaller. When he says he doesn’t know where the bar is in Tramp’s, it sounds disingenuous (and probably is because generally you would know the layout of a place you have visited), but at the same time he could be quite honest in saying he never bought a drink at Tramp’s. Needless to say there would likely be someone to bring the drinks to them. In a ‘he said/she said’ scenario it could be an important point to highlight, especially if the idea is that you get someone drunk and take advantage of them that way. Andrew didn’t drink. It’s either more damning (he didn’t need drink to be influenced) or proof positive that everything is not as it seems.

            TS, I can’t believe what your boss did to you! What an asshat indeed. Some guys would think that hilarious, and it’s obviously to get one up on you, but you handled it magnificently. I’m not sure I would have been able to do the same. I likely would have given him exactly the reaction he expected – shock, horror, embarrassment, etc. The fact he expensed it means you got your own back on him. Hopefully you maxed out his expense account … is that the same boss who upgraded your hotel? You go girl 😉 xox

          9. Truthseeker6157 says:

            LET,

            The conflicting accounts reported as having been given by Guiffre are a cause for concern. I agree, the details of the night would be burned into my memory. I would know exactly what happened and when. Changes of detail do suggest fabrication or exaggeration in my opinion.

            It does appear that she was excited to meet Andrew and I think that’s understandable at that point in time. Establishing the time frame as to when she was informed as to what she was required to do for him is important in this respect. It shows how she viewed what she was employed to do. Something she was excited by? Something that made her flesh crawl? It ties in to the way she would view the recruitment of other girls also.

            The townhouse could potentially have a lounge upstairs. Townhouses can have a non traditional layout. Traditionally though, in British houses bedrooms including master bedroom would be upstairs unlike homes in the US.

            The clothing aspect. Difficult to say, but at this point in time, people did dress up to go clubbing and, it’s likely for Andrew he did usually wear a tie. Men often remove ties though when they congregate at a private home, so I think there’s a bit of confabulation here on Andrew’s part.

            The interview was an own goal as you say. He was totally unrepentant throughout as you would expect from a narcissist. For the general viewing public, he just looked guilty.

            In terms of the asshat manager, no, not the one I steered for the hotel upgrade haha, though he was close friends with him, joined from the same company. The asshat really made my skin crawl, all my alarm bells set off when I was in his company.

            I was shocked by his comment. I was wrong footed as well, I just didn’t show it, I drew in and turned cold instead. I think my pride steps in for me in situations like that. All I can think of is not giving what I know someone wants. The narc traits are there for protection and we don’t even consciously call on them, they just ride in like the cavalry haha!

            Xx

          10. lickemtomorrow says:

            TS 🙂

            Yes. That experience would also be burned into my memory. I don’t think I would forget the details either. From that perspective it makes it sketchy in my mind.

            The encounter with Andrew has had a number of different connotations put on it by Giuffre herself (e.g. boasting about it to another Epstein victim), and as you say the timeline is important. Different conclusions can be drawn from and about the photo depending on this.

            Between not sweating (at all) and not taking his tie off (due to protocol), confabulation is a definite possibility. I know royalty can be ‘buttoned up’, but surely you’d feel free to remove your tie in a private home? He is trying so hard not to look guilty it actually makes him look even more guilty. Or alternatively, he’s telling lies to cover up the truth. I did read that he was not able to say she lied in accusing him because then he could be sued by her for defamation … which is the reason for the vague response around not knowing what she was trying to achieve. That will have had a lot of people stumped.

            Sounds like you were swimming with sharks in that job, TS, and your narcissistic traits served you well <3 We must not always look so negatively on them when they do often ride in like the cavalry to save us xox Thanks for that thought 🙂

          11. Truthseeker6157 says:

            LET,

            Andrew is such an unusual character in unusual circumstances, with such a gilded upbringing, it’s really tough to relate to anything he says and that’s before we start on his narcissism.

            The comment about not knowing where the bar is in Tramps is actually conceivable in some respects, he likely has never bought a drink there for himself or anyone else. You’d expect him to at least know where it was though. Pizza Express was an odd one too. You’d think that was something you could prove, surely there were photos taken that would at least prove his daughter was there that night. It was such a bizarre alibi that again, it could almost be true.

            None of the players in this are trustworthy, it’s extremely difficult to unravel. No doubt more will keep coming out over the coming weeks.

            Yes, I probably was swimming with sharks, it seemed normal to me at the time, less normal now.

            Xx

          12. lickemtomorrow says:

            TS,

            Great point in your first paragraph. He is unrelatable to so many people due to who he is and how he has handled that. It’s hard to feel any empathy due to this, never mind the circumstances he now finds himself in. We will expect, due to his status (Royalty), and know (due to his narcissim) him to be entitled. People who are entitled do not consider others. They take what they want. It’s a recipe for disaster based on the accusations at hand.

            Yes, I agree with you on Tramp’s and I’d expect him to know where it was even if he never bought a drink. But try too hard to prove your innocence and you’re going to look even more guilty. His narcissism really let him down, or showed him up depending on your perspective. The Pizza Express was an interesting one. It was in his diary, Fergie was away and apparently he dropped her off and was due to pick her up. In the interview I found an honesty from his perspective around the location of the Pizza Express. He said he remembered it because it was unusual for him to go to that particular location. How he remembered that was down to an obvious distaste for the area. I found that to likely be a true expression which could also mean it was a true account. These are the oddities which seem to exist on both sides, and I don’t understand how more of the facts can’t be proven. What about pictures in Tramp’s? Yes, Beatrice at the birthday party. Where are the spokespeople that can corroborate these things? There has to be eye witnesses, but if there is I haven’t read enough to know about any of them.

            No wonder we feel the people involved at some level are untrustworthy. It’s a murky business and Jeffrey Epstein created a very murky world.

            Glad to know you are more aware of the sharks in your world, TS <3 xox

  17. Asp Emp says:

    Thank you, HG for this video. I had read some of the news about this story. When I read that the case would process through, I thought to myself, it is only right and just. Because of all the victims that were impacted by the overall ‘business’, no matter how much Andrew was involved, or not.

    Wow, even his HRH titles being ‘returned’ too, after letters of request being sent to the Palace and the resulting actions that followed. That says a lot. A lot.

    Very interesting to read your words, HG, as you say “and is defending this case as a private citizen”.

    The ‘typical’ tell-tale behaviours of his narcissism can be clearly seen should anyone watch the interview that took place in 2019. He’s looking down when he’s sat there “denying” things. The ‘avoidance’.

    “he will now be like a caged beast”. Absolutely. I have seen that in the Lesser I knew. Of course, he took it out on me.

    Your words “why does he not launch himself out there as a loose cannon quite simply his narcissism is ensuring this is kept in check it is quite unusual for a narcissist of his school” – he is not responding as we have seen a certain ex-President of USA had acted.

    The Queen is 95 years old and still such a strong-willed woman. God bless her. No doubt, she would also be strongly supported by people she has known for many years, ie friends from outside the family, including a small number of supporters within the family.

    Thank you, HG for this video. Thank you for continuing to highlight these people, especially those in higher ranks, supposedly trusted members of humanity who legally have a duty of care of the rest of the population. Boris is another one who is now in the public ‘spotlight’ too…..

    I have, yet, to see the word ‘narcissist’ attached to their names when it comes to the news being broadcast on tv, in the papers, in social media. I am reminded of your article as I write here ‘Why Can’t They See It Too?’.

    Kudos to you, HG, for doing all of this. Your Legacy grows and becomes more powerful 🙂

    1. Violetta says:

      I’m sneaking references to HG’s analysis I to DM comment sections any way I can. Putting them as a reply to a best or worst comment is a good way to make sure that they’ll be seen by many, but not so easy for trolls to find and have taken down as stand-alone comments.

      1. HG Tudor says:

        Much appreciated Violetta.

      2. Asp Emp says:

        Violetta, that is good to read, thank you for sharing that 🙂

  18. alexissmith2016 says:

    AAAAGHHHHHH so incredibly excited to listen! I cannot wait until they make a film about this. HG maybe you could write it

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

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