top of page
Search
  • Writer's picture738

Prince Harry *narcissism*



The official line re: Harry & Megs is that Megs has helped Harry to find his “true self” after years of abuse at the hands of his cold and indifferent family (who are also racists, btw). So now Harry can shed a tear in public and reveal “the truth” about who he really is—yeah, he’s no longer a “narcissistic asshole” like Trump and Charles.


The reality is the opposite. Harry is locked in narcissistic delusion—the delusion is that he has been helped to be “authentic” by Megs. Narcissists are disconnected from their real feelings—they hide their real feelings with a cover story; the cover story, contrary to what many think, can be grandiose but it can also be that they are a victim—or it could be that they are a “super-helpful” person. The accent is generally put on the grandiose—as associated, supposedly, with Trump and Charles; but the other types are just as common.


In this clip, Harry is angry. He is right to be angry because his wife has just attacked his family in public—in fact, she’s attacked both the senior member of the family and the most fragile member of the family (the Queen, an aged woman). So it’s a double hit. Harry is angry—and you can tell that from the way he glances away from Megan and pulls a face of displeasure. If Harry were “in touch with his feelings”, here is what would happen: he would say, “You don’t speak about my family like that, don’t mock them like that—definitely not in front of the world. And you especially don’t speak about my grandmother like that. Now get the fuck out, you dumb tart.”


However, Harry is narcissistic. The tears he cries in public are not “the overcoming of his narcissism” but his entrapment in Meghan’s narcissistic game. So he just sits there and sublimates his anger into a sideways glance. “I’m not angry with you. [I could kill you, of course, I’d like to stab you in both eyeballs—but I’m definitely not angry with you; just filled with rage—rage is more than anger, so much more; it’s murderous].” It’s doubtful he took her to task off-camera because: a. they’re still together; b. they’ve gone on to do similar things.


Narcissism stems from humiliation—a feeling of powerlessness, usually at a young age, where someone else had control over you and inflicted damage on you but you couldn’t do anything about it. Surely that couldn’t apply to a prince, who is by definition in a powerful position where people defer to him (except Meghan, apparently)? Well, let me remind you of a little thing called…the royal divorce (aka Chaz and Di—the break-up).


At a young age, Prince Harry was exposed to a situation where his parents’ sex lives were splashed across all the media for years. This included a tape recording where Charles told someone—I forget who, probably Camilla—that he wanted to be her tampon (right up inside her—you get the drift; but also, strangely, soaked in her blood). Now that’s a pretty humiliating thing about your father to be exposed to the global public for dissection—and during the early 90s there was tons of this material, some true and some not, exposed about the royal divorce; and, further, the divorce itself put Harry in a position of powerlessness.


Then Diana died in a car crash—which is another situation where you are totally powerless and a negative event happens to you. Fact is, if there was no divorce and no media circus Diana would be alive—but Harry didn’t have any control over that. He didn’t even have the minimal control an adult has which is to say “it’s all a show, it’s all bullshit—ignore it”. Rather, it was totally real for him—a load of bad stuff happened to him, much of it humiliation, and he was powerless.


Narcissism can be caused by excessive negative and positive feelings—Harry experienced both. At first, there was humiliation because his parents divorced and the details were splashed everywhere. Then it was turned to positive feelings when literally millions of people poured onto the streets to lay flowers for Diana—suddenly, for at least half the nation (world), “the princes” were the most darling special continuances of Diana. So Harry was flipped from massive negative emotion to massive positive emotion—he had no control over either situation.


Hence Harry has a narcissistic screen that conceals his massive rage—he is angry with the media, and that leaks out sometimes in his law suits about their intrusion into his personal life that are really frivolous. He’s trying to get mastery over an event that happened almost thirty years ago by suing the press and attacking them now. It’s fighting an illusion, really—everyone who published those stories or consumed them is dead or has moved on, the whole landscape has changed; but he couldn’t hit back then, so he hits back now indirectly. He’s probably also angry at his father, his mother, and a lot of other people—but it’s not expressed.


Unfortunately, he has been captured by a woman who is more narcissistic than he is. I don’t hate Meghan Markle like some people do—and maintain that she is better in bed than Kate (a statement that causes mock shock from royalists). However, she is very narcissistic—her whole family is like it if you watch them. After all, her dad worked in Hollywood—behind the scenes, on the lights, but he’s not adverse to the lime-light himself (and perhaps he was only a technician in the end because he couldn’t make it otherwise, centre-stage—there are a lot of failed actors and directors in LA, one way or another).


So the Markles are all as bad as each other when it comes to accusations and counter-accusations—that’s just what they’re like, they’re a soap-opera family. By contrast, the royals are minimal soap opera—being about duty, primarily; they’re actually about modesty and self-abnegation in service to a higher idea, the nation and the Church. It’s true that they get pulled into soap operas, but that’s because we live in a mass democratic age where there’s a media that thrives on trivial dramas—but they need to use the media to generate legitimacy for a constitutional monarchy, so they get pulled into the drama.


Just for Harry to cry in public doesn’t mean he’s “overcome his narcissism”—his family’s tradition of service being construed, in this upside world, as narcissism (just like Trump’s demonstrated success). It could be Harry needs to cry, could be he doesn’t—but if it’s on-camera it’s unlikely to be genuine tears either way.


Actually, he largely doesn’t need to cry—at the moment he needs to tell Meghan to fuck off, or to behave or else fuck off. But he can’t do it—because he’s detached from his feelings, because he’s in a monumental rage but he’s afraid to be in a rage and out of control (he’s partly caught by the royal reserve that doesn’t function well in a mass society where people shout things at each other openly). So Harry is further away than ever from “his true self”, even though that is the narcissistic story retailed by the Harry-Meghan axis.


It should also be remembered that his mother was a massive narcissist (check out her pics with Aids patients—she didn’t care about Aids patients, she cared about her self-image). So Harry has that narcissistic element from his mother (how she fawned, like the doe Diana shot with an arrow) and he has married a woman who is a massive narcissist as a mother substitute and also to copy his mom (who, remember, died with her Egyptian boyfriend in Paris—swarthy like Meghan). When he married Meghan he said to his family, “I take mom’s side” (his older brother resembles his father more, so there’s sibling rivalry too). “I take mom’s side”. It’s your fault she died—unexpressed anger.


And, just like his mother, Harry is involved in “causes”—like his paralympics idea for veterans; although he doesn’t get that Di did the whole “people’s princess” thing as a parody of genuine service—partly encouraged by democratic forces, like those behind Megs, who want to attack the royal idea. Of course, Charles ultimately married his mother—Camilla, a maternal figure who looks like a horse (those teeth). “Camilla” derives from the Latin for “noble youths attending sacrifices”, whereas “Diana” is a huntress—it sums up the two women: Camilla is this dowdy dutiful woman, whereas Diana is this fast exciting sexy woman.


Anyway, Charles has married his mother—Harry has married his mother. I don’t know what happened with William, but he has chosen a woman who fits in with “early Diana”—remember that before Diana got into divorces, Aids patients, and mixed-race action she was idealised as this “golden princess”. Kate is like the “early Diana”, idealised and pure—but she has a Camilla element because she’s “ordinary middle class”, a serviceable filly. The weak point in that relationship is Prince Louis btw, who is a spoiled little brat and has turned to the dark side (his sister is the light side)—but that, as they say, is another story.




127 views

Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page