How did the formal relationship with the narcissist end? Whether it was a romantic, social, work, business or familial entanglement what brought about its conclusion? Did you tell the narcissist friend you no longer wanted to be friends? Perhaps the narcissist said nothing to you at all and you learned he or she was parading a new partner around town? Maybe that narcissist relative stopped communicating with you and never replied to your calls or messages? Perhaps you imposed a total no contact on that narcissist colleague and moved jobs? Whatever it might have been and no matter how many times it occurred, select the relevant circumstances from the list below and as ever do expand on the circumstances and your thoughts in the comments section.
On Saturday 19th May, Rachel Meghan Markle (“RMM”) will marry Prince Harry and this forthcoming union is attracting just as much attention for the debacle surrounding the bride’s family as the event itself. I will be far more interested in the FA Cup which takes place on the same day, but one cannot avoid the repeated mention of the forthcoming royal nuptials and thus Miss Markle comes under scrutiny.
Is she a narcissist? Her half-sister, Samantha Markle certainly thinks so as she has been particularly outspoken about RMM calling her
“a narcissist, a shallow, social climber”
She has also criticised RMM for failing to provide any emotional or financial support to her and RMM’s father once RMM became famous. Others have described Samantha Markle as being jealous and exhibiting a sense of entitlement. Are Samantha’s remarks accurate and demonstrate what RMM is and those attacking Samantha are the coterie and Lieutenants of RMM, as they attempt to limit any damage and discredit Samantha or are they the remarks and the ramblings of a jealous sibling? It is difficult to assess in isolation. However, it is interesting that Samantha chose such a description. If she wanted to insult RMM she might have chosen other unpleasant descriptions such as branding her a whore, a gold-digger, stand-offish and such like. Thus, might there be some grain of truth (when viewed cynically) in what Samantha Markle has said?
Samantha Markle also commented that RMM watched the royals on television when young (hardly anything unique in that) and that RMM preferred Harry as she has a soft spot for gingers and it was always her ambition to be a princess. It is hardly a revelation that a young girl wants to be a princess, many do aspire to that dream as part of their childhood and drop such a notion as they grow older.
Other family members have not been shy at expressing their opinion about RMM. Her Uncle Michael Markle stated
“I’m upset and surprised about not being selected but if they don’t want me there, then I don’t want to go.”
Half-brother Tom Markle Jnr remarked
“She’s torn our entire family apart. She’s clearly forgotten her roots.”
He claims he sent her a congratulatory letter on her engagement which was not replied to.
Two other uncles have been snubbed, one a bishop (admittedly of his own church) and the other a retired US diplomat. It appears only two family members of RMM have actually been invited and the farce surrounding her father’s attendance/non-attendance on her wedding day has clogged-up many a newsfeed. It transpires that it is her mother Doria Ragland who will attend and give RMM away. Her mother has only arrived in the UK three days ago where one might have expected a longer attendance given the high-profile nature of the wedding. Did she not want to come sooner or was she not permitted to do so?
Is it the case that RMM is surrounded by a dysfunctional family and thinks it better that they should not attend or is it the case that whilst her family may have their issues they wish to share in RMM’s happy wedding day and would do so without complication, but RMM sees their attendance and involvement as embarrassing, a reminder of where she came from (which she wants to forget now she is in the rarified atmosphere of royal life) and thus is most content to keep them an ocean away and uninvited? A caring individual would most likely invite family because, well, they are family. Yes, the odd relative may not be invited for cogent reasons but to only have two family members attend does smack of a calculated decision to keep them away because they no longer serve any purpose and would damage RMM’s image. If so, such behaviour is in line with the narcissistic behaviour of maintaining a particular appearance and cutting people off quite readily.
Such a conclusion gains credence with the revelations from former friend Ninaki Priddy who was friends with RMM for thirty of RMM’s 36 years on the planet. Miss Priddy commented
“Meghan was calculated, very calculated in the way she handled people and relationships. She is very strategic in the way she cultivates circles of friends. Once she decides you’re not part of her life, she can be very cold. It’s this shutdown mechanism she has.”
Miss Priddy’s observation, if accurate, paints a picture of significant narcissistic behaviour by demonstrating
calculated behaviour to achieve an aim
friendship is developed for ulterior gain, not for the friendship in itself
the switching behaviour – white to black
the swift execution of such behaviour evidencing a lack of empathy
Having been a friend for such an extensive time period Miss Priddy must have some basis for the remarks. Might she however be a jealous friend? Her friendship ended with RMM owing to the way RMM treated her first husband, Trevor Engleton. A disapproval of such behaviour does demonstrate empathy on the part of Miss Priddy and lends credence to her credibility with regard to her observations.
RMM and Mr Engleton were together for six years and married in 2011. Soon after, RMM achieved her breakthrough role as an actress in the series ‘Suits’ and moved to Toronto. Mr Engleton was the one who travelled back and forth from California to Toronto to support his wife. He put in the miles as he shuttled to and from RMM with no suggestion she reciprocated. Not withstanding his dedication, the marriage did not last long and they split and divorced in 2013. Mr Engleton commented that the split “came out of the blue” and that RMM posted the engagement and wedding rings back to him to show it was over. Did RMM disengage from Mr Engleton without explanation, just relying on the symbolic act of returning the rings? If so, such haughty and dismissive behaviour would accord with the behaviour of a narcissist.
Miss Priddy explained that once the nuptials had been secured between the two, RMM behaved “like a light switched off”. This is further indicative behaviour demonstrating that once RMM felt her relationship with Mr Engleton was secured through marriage, she had control and therefore need not behave towards him in a favourable way, in other words, the golden period came to an end. Apparently, RMM had commented about Mr Engleton previously
“if anything were to happen to [Mr Engleton] she wouldn’t be able to go on”
Yet, RMM ended the marriage. Of course people’s feelings can change, but there was no suggestion that Mr Engleton did anything to invite such treatment, on the contrary he remained a faithful and devoted husband, but it appeared he had outlived his usefulness and with RMM’s career rising and in the ascendancy he was no longer required and thus jettisoned with familiar callousness and swiftness which is the preserve of the narcissist.
During her time in Toronto, there were suggestions that whilst married she became close to a Michael Del Zolte, whether there is any substance in this is unknown. It was also rumoured she had a fling with the golfer Rory McIlroy but again this is unconfirmed. If those suggestions were true then this would accord with the behaviour of a narcissist who has no concern with regard to infidelity and serving a sense of entitlement. Indeed, if this was the case then with Mr Engleton secured by marriage and ensconced in California, he would be in devaluation as the Intimate Partner Primary Source and it would not be a surprise for Mr Del Zolte and Mr McIlroy to become ensnared also as Intimate Partner Secondary Sources. However, the extent of any veracity with regard to these rumoured extra-marital relationships remains unconfirmed.
It is however confirmed that following the end of her marriage, RMM moved on to Canadian Chef Cory Vitiello and the pair dated through 2014 to 2016. Further comment has arisen that her relationship with Prince Harry arose whilst she was still with Mr Vitiello and she then ended the relationship with him because Prince Harry was in the picture. If accurate, such a shift from one person to another, especially one which would be regarded as a ‘trade-up’ in terms of wealth, status and position would appeal to a narcissist. Of course, people do move from one relationship to another with some overlap and this is not in itself determinative of that person as begin a narcissist, but such behaviour, which is ultimately self-serving and selfish whichever way it is looked at, is not flattering and when added to other indicative factors, then the evidence begins to mount up.
RMM and Prince’s Harry’s relationship has naturally been well-documented and they became engaged after just 18 months of meeting. Some may see that as rather quick, but it is not unduly hasty and certainly many narcissists would outstrip that time period with room to spare.
A number of RMM’s behaviours certainly weigh against her in terms of narcissism –
She was a stripper ( a role, as with being an actress that appeals to someone with high narcissistic traits even if it does not make them a narcissist)
She stated she was a stripper on her CV, clearly unconcerned about how that would appear – evidencing a sense of entitlement and lack of accountability
The reference to her being a stripper was then later removed from her CV as she began to move in more refined circles – facade management
Her body language in interviews and engagements with Harry has shown her to stare at him for an overly long time, clasp his hand and place her hand repeatedly on Harry’s back (the Trump power pat) all of which denotes a desire to dominate and signal that she is in charge whilst no doubt using plausible deniability to reject such an accusation by claiming that she is being supportive
There have been suggestions that she has not actually graduated from North West University although claiming to do so – if so, this is the grandiosity, telling of lies and stage management that narcissists engage in
Mirroring – she wore a blue bracelet identical to Harry’s and has repeatedly worn outfits and also adopted poses mirroring Kate Middleton (the Duchess of Cambridge), Princess Diana and Pippa Middleton. The photographs and footage show this repeated narcissistic trait.
Allegations that her wealth is over-stated. She is said to be worth US $ 5 million yet was living in a poor area of Toronto in property apparently paid for by the studio responsible for suits – if this is correct this show grandiosity and facade management
Touts herself as a feminist and taking up progressive causes, caring about mental health however was content to wear a £ 56 000 engagement dress (so much for being a humanitarian), has apparently done nothing to assist her own father who has health issues and as for her commitment to progressive causes so far this appears to have been writing a letter aged 11 or thereabouts to a soap company complaining about a sexist add and writing a piece for Elle magazine about her struggle concerning her racial identity. Hardly a litany of fire-brand commitment and therefore evidence the hypocrisy, facade management and fake empathy of the narcissist.
She has expensive tastes and likes to show off her connections as evidenced by the list of famous friends and high end products which existed on her Instagram account before it was closed down – again grandiosity
Prince Harry has never met her father which seems a very strange step given he is the father of the bride and Prince Harry has no difficulty in travelling around the world. Does RMM want to keep those troublesome facade damaging relatives away from her target perhaps? The typical narcissistic behaviour of compartmentalising their lives and isolating perceived troublemakers.
Many of Prince Harry’s childhood friends have not been invited to the wedding but many celebrities have. One doubts this is Prince Harry’s doing but rather the actions of a controlling and calculating mind who does not want reminders of a world she did not occupy and instead prefers to fill it with vacuous status-boosintg celebrities who are only really there to say ‘look at me’ anyway.
The cumulative effect of these behaviours, the treatment of family, the intimate relationship pattern (especially towards her ex-husband) and the observations of a longstanding former friend do cause the conclusion that RMM is a narcissist, to be reached. All of the above, some of which are confirmed and others remain speculative as stated, if all taken to be accurate demonstrate
A sense of entitlement
A lack of empathy
A lack of accountability
Black and white thinking
Use of inter-personal relationships as devices for self-gain
A manufactured version of self
A desire for recognition and response (fuel)
All of which support RMM being a narcissist.
This conclusion is also heavily supported by Prince Harry himself. This is a man who lost his mother in tragic circumstances and at a very young age followed his mother’s hearse with the eyes of the world on him. He has faced repeated rumours about his real father not being Prince Charles but James Hewitt. It is clear that these experiences have had a significant impact on him and would suggest he has suffered some form of damage, a trait which is attractive to the narcissist.
Prince Harry no doubt has a significant extrovert streak. He is not academic but is industrious, well-liked and enjoyed something of a reputation as a party prince. However, be under no illusion that those in the upper echelons of society have always enjoyed a good knees-up and engaged in substantial bacchanalian excess – the difference then was the world’s media and social media was nowhere near as brazen and intrusive. Furthermore, those around the royals were far more discrete. Prince Harry is no different to many of his family and ancestors – he has just been seen enjoying himself raucously rather than it be hidden.
Prince Harry is an empathic individual. He has inherited Princess Diana’s caring and empathic traits. He has evidenced this through his career in the army, his establishment of the Invictus Games and charity work such as his trek to the south pole. He admires Kate and William’s settled and stable family life – contrast this to his own childhood – and it is patently clear that this vivacious man is one of empathy who craves the establishment of his own settled life and his various traits are a magnet to the narcissist.
The traits and behaviours of RMM, coupled with her selection of Prince Harry and his own traits confirms that come Saturday 19th May, the Very Suited Narcissist will achieve her childhood ambition and become a royal and so with it the creation of a Very Royal Narcissist.
The lesser of our kind is a creature of instinctive reactions and knee-jerk responses. In common with all our kind, he or she must always avoid blame and swerve accountability. Denial is often used by the Lesser Narcissist to achieve this with a blunt rejection of the comment that you have levelled against him or her and if you persist you will invariably find yourself on the receiving end of some heated fury in order to beat you down from asking your questions and apportioning blame. The Lesser Narcissist will offer denial with little or no supporting evidence. It is not a topic for discussion any longer. The lesser will also engage in the art of deflection. He or she does not think carefully being launching these phrases and comments in a bid to deflect the nature of your questions and accusations but rather they are an immediate response. Indeed, they will often appear to be raised out of context, appear to be non sequiturs and even almost nonsensical. They are not to the lesser. In his world these are instinctive responses which he or she has to come out with on order to deflect your questioning of them. Your questioning creates unease and discomfort and the lesser will issue these phrases from a stockpile he or she keeps. They lack the higher function to think of a high-calibre response which brings about deflection but instead utilise these phrases below in a “one size fits all” approach. They will be hurled back at you, often with venom attached, a standard response to what you are saying to the Lesser Narcissist. Expect to hear them may times in the course of your dance with the lesser. He is not capable enough of conjuring up new ones and relies on these “old faithfuls” to deflect the force of what you are trying to achieve. The deflection at this level works usually by causing disbelief and confusion on your part. You like everything to make sense. You like things to follow an order and be logical and therefore these stock responses will make you stop in your tracks as you try and figure out either what is actually meant by them or if you understand the thrust of the comment how on earth they are applicable to what the discussion is about. This is the beauty of these deflecting comments for the Lesser Narcissist. He cannot think up clever or articulate responses but he does not need to because there are just as effective in halting you in your tracks. They may not always result in your behaviour being questioned (as is more the hall mark of the deflecting comments of the Mid-Ranger of the Greater Narcissist) which then takes the conversation of discussion in a different direction. These comments however fulfil the aim of stopping the discussion going in the direction it was and indeed cause it to veer off at an improbable tangent into the reams of confusion and bewilderment. That does not matter to the lesser, as long as the attack, the criticism and/or the questioning stops goes elsewhere and his accountability remains unaffected. So long as your response provides him or her with a fuel, the comment need not be magnificent or well-constructed. Here are twenty stock deflecting comments used by Lesser Narcissists.
You’re nothing special yourself you know.
Why do you have to use dictionary words with me?
I’m not stupid you know. Why do you have to make me out to be stupid?
I don’t care what other people do, they are idiots for thinking that way.
You’ve been reading too many books.
You think you are so clever don’t you?
Why isn’t my dinner ready?
Been listening to her again have we? I can always tell when you to two have been talking.
It is well known that our kind operate by the wearing of masks. We have learned how to portray those emotions which we do not feel. We have ascertained that in certain situations we are expected to respond in a particular way. We know that by donning a particular mask we are more likely to charm and seduce you. We are aware that maintaining a certain mask the vicious malevolence that lurks beneath can be kept in check so that we achieve acceptability and the advancement of our agendas. There are occasions when we will give you a glimpse of what lies beneath this mask. I am not referring to when we whip the mask off and subject you to devaluation. That is a purposeful and intended act on our part. I am not making reference to when the mask fractures as a consequence of the ignition of our fury and the lesser and mid-range of our kind are unable to keep the mask in place so that the ignited fury erupts and the malicious beast is unleashed. There are occasions however when we provide you with a fleeting glance beneath the mask as to what lies beneath. This will happen during the seduction period. Sometimes it is as a consequence of the effect of a particular agent, such as alcohol. Sometimes, especially with the greater of our kind, it is done as deliberate act in order to gauge your reaction. In such an instance, we tell you of what lies ahead to see if you baulk at the suggestion, or that more likely you respond in a sympathetic manner or even by way of denial.
“I couldn’t ever imagine you doing that.”
“That won’t happen with me though. It might have with other people but I will treat you better than they have.”
“You’re not like that, don’t be silly.”
“I don’t see you doing something like that, you are too nice.”
If you respond in such terms when you have been given such a warning, then this is a green light to us that we have you under our control and that you will accord with our desires and machinations. It also allows us, when we do eventually behave in the manner described down the line during the devaluation, to throw it back in your face by saying.
“I did warn you.”
“Why are you complaining? I was upfront that this would happen.”
“I told you so.”
“It’s no use crying about it now. I told you what I was like.”
“I told you and you chose to stay with me. It is your fault.”
Not only does this enable us to avoid blame, something we must achieve, it will also result in you reacting and providing us with fuel.
With the lesser or mid-range of our kind, these comments are more akin to thinking aloud. The mask does slip, unintentionally for a moment, through the explanation of a future behaviour before it is realised what has been said and the disclosure is brushed to one side, denied or passed off as a silly comment owing to drink or being tired. Why do these comments arise in such a manner from the lesser and mid-range of our kind? Is it guilt or remorse? No, because those emotions are not felt by our kind. It arises from a lack of control. The “bad” behaviour that will arise at some point is lurking beneath the surface and like a cat fighting to get out of a sack, it is always wanting to make an appearance but is prevented from doing so by the maintenance of the mask that is worn. Occasionally, through the loss of control – it may be drink, it may be fatigue, it may be through inattention – what lurks beneath makes a brief and fleeting appearance before the control is exerted once again. Here are fifteen portentous show and tells of our kind. Should you ever hear these comments you ought to pay heed to the warning that you are being given.