Dark Triad: Is Meghan Markle one?

Spread the love

Originally posted 2021-03-31 11:00:37.

Dark Triad is a personality type characterised by three traits: Machiavellianism, Narcissism and Psychopathy. The world has seen, in the antics of Meghan Markle, how they behave.

Individually, two of the traits in Dark Triad, Machiavellianism and Narcissism, can actually be positive, in appropriate measure. But when combined with the third, Psychopathy, they become dangerous.


Psychopaths have no empathy for others, even though they may be good at giving the impression they do. They have no moral restraints at all. This is the classic baby kissing politician who cares not a jot about the babies, but about getting their parents’ votes and making himself appear human.  But in the right circumstances, a psychopath can kill without compunction, even on the grand order.

Dark Triad
Nixon being Nixon

books by rod fleming

No brake on behaviour

Most psychopaths, thankfully, are at the Nixon end of the scale. But it is important to realise that the brake on their behaviour is not those moral restraints that the rest of us feel, but simple fear of punishment. If for any reason that fear is diminished, they are capable of being monsters.

Life for a psychopath is a constant numbers game, as they weigh the benefits to themselves of any action, against the potential cost. The disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong, whose reputation was destroyed when it was shown that he used drugs to cheat, later said in interview ‘I would do it again.’ He showed no remorse for his actions, only irritation at having been caught. This is psychopathic mentality.

Dark Triad
Lance Armstrong


Narcissists always put themselves first; indeed, Dr Sam Vaknin, a leading authority on the condition, describes them as being in love with themselves. They adore themselves, put themselves on a pedestal, or perhaps an altar, for mere mortals to worship before. They are desperate to be liked and will go to extravagant lengths to gain popularity.

Altruism is not part of the deal, however. Every act of kindness has a price and woe betide he who sees through the superficial largesse. He’ll be denounced as a traitor, a betrayer, faithless, a cheat and so on.

books by rod fleming

Nearly all actors and most artists are narcissistic but again, alone or in combination with positive traits, this can be a good thing, or at least, a manageable one. Narcissists can be the life and soul of the party, because their need to be loved is so powerful; but they can also wreck it and will, if they feel under appreciated. It is when their moral compass is compromised that they are most dangerous — and nothing compromises morality quicker than a dose of Psychopathy.

dark triad
NIccolo Machiavelli


Machiavellianism is named after Niccolo Machiavelli, a Renaissance writer. In fact his subject was Cesare Borgia, a ruthless despot — but Niccolo’s name stuck. Machiavellianism is the manipulation of others to one’s own purposes. It is sometimes described as believing that the end justifies the means and again, in combination with lighter traits and a positive moral compass, this can be useful. These people will move heaven and earth to see the job done, although they won’t care if toes get trodden on doing it or, for that matter, a few bodies get buried in the woods.

Often they believe themselves to be highly principled and acting for ‘the greater good’ (which they define and understand better than anyone else.) However, when their empathy or reasoning fails they too can become problematic. Greta Thunberg would be an example as would Nicola Sturgeon, but there are plenty of males too: Tony Blair is a classic, as is Peter Mandelson. Need I mention Josef Stalin?

kurtz dark triad
Marlo Brando as Kurtz in Apocalypse now, Coppola’s interpretation of Conrad’s Heart of Darkness

The Classic Dark Triad

When all three combine in the individual, these traits form the classic Dark Triad. The presence of Psychopathy in the mix is especially toxic. Lady Macbeth, Julius and several other Caesars, notably Nero, Kurtz in Heart of Darkness and Humbert Humbert in Lolita, are all Dark Triads. They are typified by a complete lack of moral restraint, an obsession that their will — and theirs alone — must be done and that they are always right. They display a ruthless willingness to crush any opposition, insensitivity to any harm or hurt they may cause and a total failure to comprehend the nature of truth; for Dark Triads, truth is just whatever they say it is.

(As an aside, beware anyone who talks about ‘their truth’. This is an attempt to elevate opinion to something that cannot be challenged, indeed, that challenge itself is fundamentally an accusation, a suggestion that the speaker is lying. Truth is not subjective and can always be substantiated. It is the same for everyone, so always suspect those who use forms like ‘my truth’ are liars trying to pre-empt discovery.)

Unburdened by integrity or empathy and completely amoral, Dark Triads will make the lives of those around them hell. They manipulate the weak to do their will and anyone who tries to help the person so used will become an enemy, to be defamed and destroyed.

books by rod fleming

Dark Triads will have either a dysfunctional relationship with their families or they will dominate them completely. Those who dare to stand up to the Dark Triad will be attacked, but not usually physically. Triads may use the courts, public opinion and slander to silence or destroy them; or they may shower them with gifts and profuse apologies for any wrong they may have done. Of course, the Triad does not recognise such wrongs but considers the offended person too valuable to lose — just yet.

A facial reconstruction of Emperor Nero

Triads who marry will soon engineer a rift with their new families. Little by little their spouses will be isolated and so lose the strength of familial support. They will become the Triad’s puppets, as intended all along.

Anyone who sees through the Triad’s lies and manipulation will be denounced. The Triad will literally try to erase them and such are their powers of persuasion, their eloquence and their acting ability that they will often succeed.

books by rod fleming

A Dark Triad will always play the victim, the long-suffering abused. They are always complete innocents, decent, if misunderstood people surrounded by the most evil individuals imaginable, against whom they need your help; and if you refuse to give it, you too will become one of the enemy. Triads pick their victims carefully and may invest a great deal in grooming them, but people are always disposable, to be unceremoniously jettisoned when their usefulness runs out.

markle dark triad
Well, is she? Looks very much like Markle is indeed a classic Dark Triad

Identifying a Dark Triad

In 2010, Dr Peter Jonason, then assistant professor of psychology at the University of Western Florida, and his co-author, Gregory Webster, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Florida, developed the “Dirty Dozen” rating scale, or a 12-item methodology, to measure Dark Triad traits.

Jonason and Webster’s measure asks people to rate themselves against these questions:

I tend to manipulate others to get my way.
I have used deceit or lied to get my way.
I have used flattery to get my way.
I tend to exploit others towards my own end.
I tend to lack remorse.
I tend to not be too concerned with morality or the morality of my actions.
I tend to be callous or insensitive.
I tend to be cynical.
I tend to want others to admire me.
I tend to want others to pay attention to me.
I tend to seek prestige or status.
I tend to expect special favours from others.


Do these seem consistent with Markle’s reported behaviour? I think on balance and from what is known, the answer must be resoundingly affirmative.

dark triad
Sometimes I think she’s amazed she’s got away with it this long.

The Race Card: today’s Ace of Spades…really?

Markle has also played the race card to protect herself, in a double backstop strategy, though frankly, few Britons would consider her ‘black’; she looks like an Italian. But that trick was for the US American audience anyway, and it worked. She knew how powerful this tactic is there and that it would encourage many who know nothing about her to believe her and see her as the hapless victim who can do no wrong. As always; a Dark Triad inhabits victimhood and uses it ruthlessly.

If Markle is Dark Triad and it seems probable that she is, then Harry is in deep trouble. He lacks the will to resist her; just like Macbeth, he is putty in his wife’s hands. He was already weakened by the tragic and public death of his mother, Diana, and his father’s scandalous betrayal of her. Charles used her as a breeding cow while maintaining an affair with a married woman, Camilla Parker-Bowles (now the Duchess of Cornwall).

books by rod fleming

Both William and Harry have every right to be critical of their father’s behaviour but William has, in public at least, handled the trauma of parental infidelity and death well, while Harry is a basket case hanging together by threads. And those are exactly the targets that Dark Triads seek out.

Harry clearly suffers Childhood Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD). He’s none too bright either, so his emotional and intellectual toolkits are depleted, leaving him weak and easily manipulated. He loved military service, because he is an institutional character. Without the peer support and the discipline he had in the forces, he’s a rag doll, directionless and drifting. He has completely lost control of his life. We Scots have a word for such personalities: fushionless. They are perfect prey for a Dark Triad.

Harry would be wise to separate from his Triad as soon as he can and make peace with his own family. He would lose custody, of course; we already know how persuasive Markle is and no Triad would hesitate to put her children through the meat-grinder of court, especially when she could blame everything on the man who failed her and his racist family. This would be especially hard for him, because he is reliving his own shattered childhood through those of his children, using their love to repair himself. He feeds, like a wraith drained of love, on their positive energy. But that just gives Markle even more power over him.

dark triad
Caption this!


Moving to the States, where she knows the courts would be sympathetic, hardly counts as a surprise: it was a classic Machiavellian gambit, lining her ducks up so that when she needs them — and it is when, not if — they will be in a row. Markle is preparing for the next stage of her life already, the one without Harry. She intends for it to be as she has planned it.

Harry’s own children will be used against him; he will be another evil man who betrayed the most perfect princess, whether he leaves or stays. Whatever he does now, he has broken the most important promise, the one he did not make but Markle assumed: to make her the glittering fairytale princess. That this failure is entirely of her own doing is not something that any Triad could ever accept; it must always be someone else’s fault.

books by rod fleming

There is a price for Harry’s folly and one way or another, he will have to pay it. Typical Triads, after extracting all they can from their victims, will move on, either through divorce, in which their partner’s remaining reputation will be trashed, or through sequential affairs that they will make no effort to hide.

Why would they? Their purpose is not sexual pleasure or romance, but the gaining of a new victim, new powers and the schadenfreude of embarrassing further the partner who failed them. Meanwhile, that partner, for whom the Triad once expressed such love, will be abandoned. Many sink into the pits of depression, alcoholism or substance abuse; others quietly hang themselves.

The smart move, for Harry, would be to take it on the chin and separate now, because things will only get worse. The trouble is, I don’t think he has the strength to do it.

books by rod fleming

40 Replies to “Dark Triad: Is Meghan Markle one?”

  1. “… he will be another evil man who betrayed the most perfect princess, whether he leaves or stays.”

    Oh, good grief…that was my ex-wife in a nutshell. I can admit objectively by now, over 15 years after the fact, that I did plenty to aid in the destruction of my marriage. I was immature, unfocused, and not ready for that kind of commitment. My being all about the notion of “polyamory” (a lie I’ve long since seen through and realized how stupid I was to fall for it) didn’t help at all. The difference between her and me these days is that I can admit to my failings and learn from them; she is likely never to do so based on the traits you described here.

    “Typical Triads, after extracting all they can from their victim, will move on, either through divorce, in which their partner’s remaining reputation will be trashed, or through sequential affairs that they will make no effort to hide. Why would they? Their purpose is not sexual pleasure or romance, but the gaining of a new victim, new powers and the schadenfreude of embarrassing further the partner who failed them. Meanwhile, that partner, for whom the Triad once expressed such love, will be abandoned. Many sink into the pits of depression, alcoholism or substance abuse; others quietly hang themselves.”

    Yup. Been there, done that, have the emotional scars to prove it. The guy she moved into our house as her live in boyfriend within a year became top dog when she dumped and divorced me after getting her ducks in a row. I was forced to stay in that house for over a year after this to pay off my share of debt we’d accrued, and that was a hell on earth I don’t fancy repeating. She ended up marrying him because he was even weaker than I’d been in some ways. But! To his credit? They were married approximately half as long as we’d been and he was the one to drop the bomb and walk out on her because she’s crazy. I got wind of this and laughed uproariously in my own schadenfreude once I did. I finally let go of the worst of that wreckage a good couple of years ago, thankfully. Never again.

    1. Hi Christopher
      Because DT is a complex of 3 subclinical traits it was not really studied till recently. There is also Dark Tetrad, which adds sadism to the mix. It has a similar profile to Borderline, in which the components are individually subclinical but when combined can be destructive. In Borderline the subject oscillates but that doesnt seem to be a feature of DT. Borderline is also characterised by weak self ideation, but this is not the case in DT. They know very well whom they are and they are fully aware of what they are doing. All of these are to be avoided!

    2. Hi belated sorry lol. Yes when you teach women that they are the same as men, then there are consequences. If you fix the game so they win with less effort than men, it gets worse. Women begin to think they should perform masculinity and this is really bad in the corporate or military situations. How can a promoted woman give orders to a man? Only by performing masculinity.

      As a result success comes to equal ‘being masculine’, when it should equal ‘being a great mother’. The more masculine a woman is, the more success she is likely to have, while motherhood is decried. But at the same time, masculinity repulses men and mothering qualities attract them. (see Freud.) So men begin avoiding these women as sexual partners. I mean, who the fuck would marry Cathy Newman?

      We are rapidly regressing to the middle of the 18th century, when it was normal for men to be associated with feminised boys — who were often the actresses who played women’s roles in theatre. This was because omen ere not available in the culture; their virginity was protected. All of Shakespeare’s such roles were originally played by boys. These men were not ‘gay’ although the modern gays try to suggest they were. Instead they were doing exactly what we do with ladyboys. We are attracted to their femininity. This is becoming more pressing. For years now, ‘shemale porn’ has been one of the top five searches on Pornhub, while ‘cis-het’ porn is now off the radar. The studios are in competition with pirates and millions of women in their bedrooms with a wifi connection who will do anything, even stuff the pornmeisters won’t touch. Meantime, pornmeisters like Stephen ‘Grooby’ Gallon have said, again for years, that it’s a waste of money marketing his product to gays. He only markets to straight men.

      At the same time we are increasingly increasingly from live sex to virtual models, partly due to the risks of being in any closed space alone with a woman (other than a sex worker) this was commented on by Sam Vaknin recently and Sam is always worth listening to (he is in despair.)

      Enter our darlings. The feminised male, whom a vicious combination of the masculinist New Gay Man and the rabidfems had sought to erase, is back with a vengeance. They have already won the porn war. That’s a given. Now they’re asserting themselves as partners for men. They are the direct equivalent of the Shakespearean actresses, the dan in China and loads of others from all over the world — highly feminine, sexy, loving and caring. The perfect women from a man’s point of view. Perfect. Meantime the rabidfems and the NGMs are going into meltdown. Look at them. But what they don’t get is that even if they did succeed in stopping officially sanctioned transition in the West (which they won’t) they seem to be blind to the fact that there are literally millions of drop dead gorgeous trans women all over Asia who are only too willing to accept men’s sexual advances. Believe me, they are.

      This phenomenon is increasing exponentially. I mean that. Even in ten years, the difference is remarkable. Ladyboys are everyhere here no, hereas then, you only saw a few and then at night. Not a bit of it now. And they are all on OnlyFans or whatever and the desire of most, certainly the HSTS, is to land a MAN. you don’t have to be Johnny Bravo, just recognisably masculine and NOT GAY. That last is important.

      Women’s adoption of masculinity was repulsive enough, but it gets worse. They refuse motherhood. So what is the point? What do they have over a ladyboy? Nothing. And while it is absolutely true that LBs in sex work are incredibly provocative, most are not and anyway, it’s an act. I mean they might camp it up for their selfies but in real life they want to blend. So they’re discreet. Contrast this with the ‘slut-fem’ movement of the West, where women deliberately appear to be tramps. That’s fantastic for a stripper, but who the hell is going to marry one? And the same goes for sexual partners – who wants a woman half the city’s been through?

      At the same time, if a man does want a family and most do, southeast Asian women are a good bet. They have not been poisoned by feminism and see motherhood as the most valuable role a women can play. By and large they’re remarkably attractive and maintain their looks longer than is now normal in the West. They are genuinely loving partners. Especially in the Philippines, girls are brought up to be decent. You may see them performing pretty wild dances on television but you can bet that under those little dresses they’re wearing cycle shorts. Why? Because part of being feminine is NOT being a slut and putting it around the town — because that’s masculine behaviour.

      Men in the West today have on the menu, women who act like men and won’t have babies anyway, sluts you wouldn’t dare take home to your mother, who won’t have babies either, and gold-diggers who see motherhood as an income either from the state or the poor men she’s vagina-raped. And then a cute little HSTS who’ll love you till you die slips onto your radar. So which are men going to choose?

      1. It seems as though the women of the west are engulfed by their animus just as Jung described it behaviorally. They are vampiric and parasitic and relish vulgarity.

        1. Yes I agree. Modern feminism has encouraged women to pretend to be masculine men, while absolutely slamming any men who are masculine. It is inevitable that Animus Possession would be the consequence of that. As a result, women behave in manners that they think are like men, but because they never socialised as men, and in particular never faced the consequences of stepping over the line, they are far more offensive, rude and unpleasant than a man would ever be, because a man would know that at a certain point he might provoke a violent response; feminists and the women they have perverted rely on female privilege to prevent them getting a bunch of fives when a man likely would. And of course, if a man were to deck one of these mouthy bitches as she might so royally deserve, he gets to be the baddy.

      2. Feminism has ruined the lives of both men and women. Feminism hasn’t been about equality, fairness, voting rights for over 60 years.

        Feminism is currently led by subversives who not only hate men, they hate babies and all of humanity. They are ultimately perverse nihilists and psychopaths.

        1. I agree. I was sympathetic to the Goddess feminism movement, which vaunted motherhood and I wish it had won. But it was destroyed by radical feminists and their vicious Marxist agenda.

          1. This appeared in the 1960s. In later years its most successful and powerful advocate was the late Dr Marija Gimbutas. Today, Dr Peggy Reeves Sanday is another who carries on. Goddess Feminism was associated with the hippy/New Age movement of the last part of the 20th century, although not in any formal sense, although it did also have an academic and political base. It was subject to continuous attacks from both radical feminists, who hate men and masculinity, who consider motherhood to be an oppression (!) and who, as Marxists, are opposed to the inherent spirituality of Goddess Feminism. On the academic side it was attacked by people like Dr Colin Renfrew who objected to the idea that there had ever been societies governed by women, as well as by radical feminists.

            Goddess feminism is associated with specific elements of spirituality, obviously Goddess worship but also animism and Wiccan. You would find many of its ideas in my work and while I do not claim to be a Goddess Feminist per se, I do revere the Goddess as the physical and spiritual manifestation of the divine feminine, the eternal Mother. (This is why I had to abandon Atheism.)

            The myth that there has never been a matriarchy, is still being promulgated but in fact and despite all protestation to the contrary, matriarchies do exist, all over the world, in non-urbanised societies. Even in the Philippines, which is largely urbanised, the urban spaces are essentially run by women. Yes, the Barangay Captain probably is a man, but he does as his mother and his wife tell him. Men provide, women decide. The Men/Away group, which is patriarchal, looks out, while the Not-Men/Home group, which is matriarchal and led by the senior grandmothers, looks inwards. Goddess feminism focussed on this side of these societies while the academic critics only saw the Men/Away group and assumed it was dominant. You only have to live here for a few months to realise it is not. Men defer to women.

            This model is found all over southeast Asia and elsewhere, eg Latin America and southern Europe, First Australian cultures and so on. These cultures are absolutely focussed on protecting and raising children — in which mothers and the Goddess are the leaders.

            There are still Goddess feminists in the West, but they are individuals rather than being a movement.

            I would hazard, though it is speculation, that the failure of radical feminism to corrupt societies outside the West is simply because the Goddess is so well established there. She is everywhere. She is Mary, who is Isis/Aset, Hathor, Semiramis, Ishtar, Astarte, Ereshkigal, Ki and Ninhursag. And that is just in the Levantine tradition. She is the Queen of Heaven and the Mother of God. Here, for example She is Ikapati/Lakanpati, the fertility Goddess who is both female and male. It may come as a surprise, but Catholicism has been instrumental in assuring the survival of the Goddess; probably a reason why the radfems so hate it. It is to Mother Mary that 1.2 billion faithful pray ever day. In a classic mirror of reality, she can grant their wishes because she has the ear of her Son, who is God; and sons do not gainsay their mothers.





            NB: I do not necessarily agree with all the viewpoints expressed in these links, I add them for information and debate.

        2. Exactly. These are the people I think of when I think about “feminism” at all, not anything good or constructive for women. I get it, it once served a good and valid purpose, but those days are long gone, and any man who dares to comment at all in the negative AKA telling the truth gets talked down to at best and shouted down at worst. This is why I went my own way (yes, I’m one of those MGTOW sorts), but minus the excess of drama and toxicity that characterizes those circles these days. AKA those guys have become exactly what they claim to hate, just like the left in America and feminists in general. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t have my moments of “ARGH, women are horrible, they’re not worth the energy/time/effort/money,” but for the most part I still maintain a polite and gentlemanly attitude towards them–at least to the few who appreciate it anyway! I even give compliments, at least to those I suspect will appreciate them, and thankfully? I’ve yet to offend anybody with a well timed, polite, positive and classy remark to the effect of “Oh, and you look fabulous, BTW.” Get in, make the point, get out, that’s my strategy. Has yet to fail! But do I exert any more effort than that? Nope. Not worth the potential hazard anymore–call me paranoid, but it works for me so far.

  2. Wow! This should we widely circulated as a PSA. This women needs to be stopped. It disturbs me that she will have 2 children soon in her lair. Hopefully the fake pregnancy stories are authentic and no children are with her.

    1. Thank you. I just thought, watching her ‘interview’ that it was all completely false and looking back we’ve seen the same behaviours again and again. I’m sure her father and sisters are not perfect, but I think I know which one in that family is the must to avoid.

      1. Apparently Meghan’s mother served time in prison for tax fraud. She tried to frame Thomas Markle. Thomas Markle seems to be an enabler who spoiled Meghan and was tricked in to marrying Doria. Doria played a helpless victim. She doesn’t look in love Om her wedding day or while holding a baby Meghan. She has that same satisfied look that Meghan had on her wedding day of the cat who ate the canary.

        1. I knew that Doria was a freak when I saw her at the wedding wearing that nose ring.

  3. Lady Colin Campbell has said that Charles did love Diana and did not have an affair going on simultaneously with Camila Parker-Bowles.

    Have you read any of her books? She has a great YouTube channel. Highly entertaining and informative. She can dissect people and their motives so well and with such flair.

    1. Hi Donna lol I was a senior newspaper journalist in the UK at the time. The affair was hardly a secret. In fact it was absolutely common knowledge amongst the press that it was going on. There were many stories that got spiked because publishing them would have meant media exile. You have to remember that those favoured with intimate details of Royal life are sworn to keep their secrets too. That repulsive slimeball Omid Scobie is another one. Charles may have briefly belayed the matter (indeed more than once), because the Queen Mother was always dead against such shenanigans and she was truly ferocious, but the suggestion that he ‘loved Diana’ I am not about to buy. Just look at the footage of them together.

      Diana was procured as an obedient breeding cow for the Royal Family, a nice but not too bright daughter of the Spencer family, who were next best thing to Royal anyway. Camilla had been deemed ‘unsuitable’ when Charles first struck up with her, years before Diana was procured; probably because she was seen as too hard to manipulate.

      It took no great skill to find girls like Diana in those days and they were all the same — sexy and dim. The upper crust universities were crawling with them, all desperate to lie back and spread their legs for a scion of the sceptre. The Royal minders (who basically worked for the QM) just homed in on one.

      As it turned out, Diana might not have been bright but she was bloody-minded and that there was the problem. She and Charles had nothing in common and frankly he should have married Camilla, since obviously he couldn’t keep his hands off her and she felt the same. As Diana herself said in 1995, ‘There were three of us in the marriage, so it was a bit crowded.’ — she was referring, of course, to Camilla. So no affair? Aye right. I’ll take the horse’s word for it. As an aside, I think Charles permanently soured the relationship between the Press and the Royals by his behaviour. Many, after the death and the nastiness surrounding it, just thought ‘They’re no good. Look what they did.’

      William actually has the opportunity to redeem the Royal Family and that might have piqued Markle’s fury even more. She would never have been the kind of consort who could have helped with that; her instinct is to destroy, not to make amends. She started by destroying her own family, why would she stop? There is a still hope that Charles might hop the mortal coil early enough for William to realise his potential. We’ll see. But frankly, Charles is a shit.

      1. Sad but true in regards to Diana (her being a brood mare more than anything). Though I found her to be far more a class act (as well as prettier) than Meghan is, by far, with all said and considered. Prince Charles is a nonentity, far as I’m concerned, and philandering is something I have issue with since my household was undone by it when I was younger. William seems a class act like his mother was, and I do hope he’s able to redeem the British Royals, figureheads that they are and have been for a long time, now–and hey, at least he married a classy sort like Kate Middleton, right? Meghan Markle was a single mother and failed actress who was desperate to latch onto money, like single mothers tend to be for obvious reasons, and she lucked into it by finding a weakling like Harry to manipulate and exploit. On some levels I pity the poor guy, on others I shrug and say “It’s his problem, he needs to get himself out of it.” Unfortunately, there was a reason she coaxed him into moving to the US with her, a reason we’re well aware of. Though I don’t know if the UK is any better in that field?

        1. What do you mean Meghan Markle was a single mother? I have not heard of her having any children before she married Harry. ??

          1. According to Lady Colin Campbell Diana was referring to Tiggy – the boys nanny – when she said there were three of us in the marriage. Diana bad been led to believe that Charles was having an affair with Tiggy and later Diana believed that Tiggy had had an abortion. Diana was so convinced and jealous that she made a beeline for Tiggy at an event and said something to the effect ‘so sorry to hear about the baby’. Tiggy complained and the Queen forced Diana to apologize – publicly if I recall correctly. Much of Diana’s paranoia was heightened by Martin Bashear who told her many lies and even had Diana questioning whether she could trust her son William.

        2. According to Lady Colin Campbell Diana was referring to Tiggy – the boys nanny – when she said there were three of us in the marriage. Diana bad been led to believe that Charles was having an affair with Tiggy and later Diana believed that Tiggy had had an abortion. Diana was so convinced and jealous that she made a beeline for Tiggy at an event and said something to the effect ‘so sorry to hear about the baby’. Tiggy complained and the Queen forced Diana to apologize – publicly if I recall correctly. Much of Diana’s paranoia was heightened by Martin Bashear who told her many lies and even had Diana questioning whether she could trust her son William.

        3. If you get a chance to read any of Lady Colin Campbell’s books you won’t have a high opinion of Diana. She intentionally caused everyone in the Royal Family a great deal of grief. She had a lot in common with Meghan Markle – both having personality and mental problems.

        1. By a long way, the most natural and gracious of her generation in that family. I’d far rather have her as Queen than Charles as King. She has all of her father’s dry and pointed humour and is a genuinely agreeable person (I have met her). Her sense of duty is straight from her mother and she never talks down to people either (unlike Andrew or Charles.) The other of that generation who is much undersung is Edward, another pleasant man who understands duty.

      2. According to Lady Colin Campbell Diana was referring to Tiggy – the boys nanny – when she said there were three of us in the marriage. Diana bad been led to believe that Charles was having an affair with Tiggy and later Diana believed that Tiggy had had an abortion. Diana was so convinced and jealous that she made a beeline for Tiggy at an event and said something to the effect ‘so sorry to hear about the baby’. Tiggy complained and the Queen forced Diana to apologize – publicly if I recall correctly. Much of Diana’s paranoia was heightened by Martin Bashear who told her many lies and even had Diana questioning whether she could trust her son William.

  4. Thanks for this, very interesting. I have thought for some time that Markle checked off several pain points for Harry. Being a bi-racial divorcee, (opportunistic) actor, high functioning, and American, she was certainly the ax to the turkey. Could this have been the toxic combination that attracted Harry? As she was someone who would or could never really fit in with his family, and so, someone who (in his mind) would need his heroic saving protection. This marriage re-created a situation similar to his mother’s, but now, he would prove to be the husband his father never was.

    I recall reading somewhere that Markle commented she treated men like carpet. Lay them right and you can walk over them forever. Not sure about the forever part, but it really rings true with what is known of her.

    During the Oprah interview, Markle’s implication of racism toward Archie by a member(s) of the Royal Family is quite sinister. And Harry’s sheepish reticence to give details regarding this is evident he didn’t know he was having a racist conversation until he relayed it to Markle.

    What kind of parent would tell all the world that the boy’s own family saw him as less than he is, and so label him publicly and forever in this way? A crap parent does this -to answer my own question. Then bring the boy to America where, according to all the tails wagging the dogs, his chances of being shot dead by a cop for taking a stroll down the street are absolute? I know, it’s not supposed to make sense, right?

    Possible caption: “Yoo-hoo William! I’d make a great Queen.” It’s not that good I know, but a great glimpse of her ambition.

    PS: I’m a fan of Sam, too.

    1. I think the racist issue regarding Markle’s unborn child is just ridiculous. They’re a mixed-race couple ffs. It’s absolutely normal to wonder what colour the child’s skin would be, without imputing anything untoward. It’s like wondering about eye or hair colour. You can bet plenty of black people wonder the same thing. But there is no lever a Dark Triad will not pull to advertise her own assumed victim status.

      As for Harry, his goose is cooked. She’ll use him, abuse him and leave him. She’s a very nasty piece of work. Just look at the way she has treated her own father. Tells us all we need to know.

      A wise man by the unlikely name of Joe Steele once told me: ‘If you’re thinking about marrying a girl, get to know her mother really well, because in 25 years, that’s whom you’ll be waking up next to.’ He should have told Harry.

      Under the hand of their Matriarch, the late Queen Mother, the Royal Family was held together because she was one ferocious Scots woman, that one, from a family you do not mess with, the Bowes-Lyons. She knew her power and responsibilities both as Matriarch and Queen and there is no limit to my respect for her, in life or in memory.

      When her country needed her and her husband’s brother, Edward VIII, acted like a spoiled brat, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon grasped the nettle and turned her husband, George VI into a decent King. She set the rules for the Royal family, and they were the rules every Scot of that era knew well: ‘Dignity and decorum before all other; bite the bullet and never reveal your emotions.’ While her daughter Elizabeth is a fine woman and an example, she has not the cast iron backbone of her mother and so, as Matriarch, she has been less successful at containing the proclivities of her brood. William is dutiful and uninspiring, but his wife, the Duchess of Cambridge, has the air of a woman with a decent dose of ramrod spine about her. She could yet be the fire-breathing Lola that family needs — and so save the Monarchy.

  5. I’ve read articles that claim Diana suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder. If true, is it possible to be one of the reasons why Harry was attracted to Meaghan, who I believe has a full fledged personality disorder.

    1. Hi yes I had heard that too and it fits though I don’t think Diana’s was really severe. She was able to organise her life, at least as an adult. Was Harry attracted to Meghan because of the latter’s clear personality issues? Maybe but it’s more likely that Meghan targeted him. Dark Triads have a very high functioning radar for potential victims. I suspect Harry sees her as strong, assertive and competent, rather the opposite of his mother. She’s older than he and much more confident (it’s the narcissistic component of Dark Triad).

      Harry was clearly happiest when he was serving in the military, probably because of its institutional nature. I think Meghan gives him some of that comfort – but it’s at a price.

      Harry appears to suffer CPTSD, certainly as a result of his mother’s tragic and public demise. He has no real defences against a Dark Triad.

    2. You and Rod both raise thoughts in my mind about how my birth mother was decidedly on the bipolar end of the spectrum and was abused on top of that, and in hindsight? Most all the women I’ve been with in my time were awful people who often manifested the traits of Dark Triads, and that explains a lot to me of what was embedded in my psyche since Day 1. I’ve been known to think that the way women are in the West these days is a combination of feminazi rhetoric being inculcated from an early age and possibly the largest eruption of Antisocial Personality Disorder that America has yet seen in its history, though I’ll be the first to admit I’m far from an expert on such things. These days, one of the reasons I don’t date is that I know what to look for in that field better than I used to and I see it all around me; the entitlement, the false bravado masquerading as confidence, the brashness, the disrespect and contempt towards men so casually expressed…no thank you. I’m abstaining from beans, as it were.

      1. Hi Christopher

        I understand that fully. There is simply no point in trying, with Western women being as they are now. Feminists complain and ask ‘Where are all the good men?’ and the answer is, they’ve fucked them over already and they’re no longer interested. I know it’s not every single woman and that there are still decent ones, but the odds are against finding one. And it’s not just the States: I can attest that France is royally fucked these days and Britain is not worth the toss.

        My advice to young men now is to forget women. Do not explore relationships with them. Work, study, travel, start a business, have fun. Follow your dreams, not someone else’s. If you want some sex, and who doesn’t fancy a decent fuck from time to time, hire a professional. It’s far less risky, much cheaper and they know what they’re doing.

        Today, in Scotland, men are advised, if they meet a girl they like, not to even take her home for the weekend. If they decide to set up house, and are property owners, to rent out their homes, rent another property to live in and move the girl in there. Why? Because the property will become a ‘marital home’ the instant she throws her bags in the door and when she goes. she takes half of it. Unfortunately, changes in the law may make even this impractical as a defence against a gold-digger, so is it worth it at all? Better do as I said. Enjoy your life, do not give it to a woman to ruin. Harry’s entrapment by Markle should be a beacon to all men: avoid this at all costs.

  6. I enjoyed reading about the Dark Triad and the comments here, although I wonder sometimes that you seem to be bitter and hateful against all women? I’m not a feminist by any means (they let me know I’m not allowed in with them, and no worry there from me!) But not all women are like this! Not all women are the femi-nazis you remarked upon. The trouble is, the quiet women, the non-crazy normal ones; the truly caring ones that want a good man and to stay home and be mothers, well…men just don’t seem to care about them/us. I’ve always said that the women some men choose must have truly magical p**sies, because they date and marry women like Meghan and others that clearly look like a psycho hot mess to the rest of us women! Do they though? Was I in the wrong line when the magical p**sies were being handed out? Meanwhile, the normal women are over here saying “Hey, what about me?!”

    I actually happened upon your site because I haven’t trusted Meghan from the start because she reminded me of someone who’s been a part of my life from the beginning. A relative, (and ENTJ) who did quite a number on me, for years, as I was her favorite victim. But then I grew a pair and stood up to her. She hated that and we were never close friends again. I am so glad my eyes were opened finally, and I hope Harry’s will be too.

    I came here because I did a search for Meghan and ENTJ’s (Meyers Briggs if you’re not familiar). It’s frustrating me that I can find no one who thinks Meghan is an ENTJ! They are only about 2% of the population (and I thank God for that) so not many people may have known them but they are exactly as you described. Power hungry, stopping at nothing to get what they want, choosing their victims, and having no compassion, empathy or morals. Quite scary people, and I see that in Meghan. Time will tell of course what happens, but I think we knew the outcome the minute she moved him to the U.S.

    1. Hi Amy,

      I absolutely do not hate all women. I have four kids. How could I possibly hate women? I had a mother, whom I miss terribly and think of every day. Feminazis are for me, the radical feminists who loathe men and would eradicate masculinity. I’m not having any of that. I have three sons. Why should I let their lives be blighted because some bitter bluestocking has a serious case of penis envy? We men like the kind of woman you describe yourself as being, we don’t want someone who thinks she’s a man and we don’t want a tart either. Harry is a weak and damaged individual suffering from CPTSD. A woman like Markle could easily persuade him that she was the answer to all his problems. But she’s not, she’s just the start.

      As for MB I have never had any time for it. There are reliable and measurable personality traits like the Big Five, eg extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness and neuroticism. These can be useful indicators, though they are absolutely not definitive. But Myer-Briggs is too blunt to provide accurate results even in the immediate timescale and to suggest that the results of a test done at 15yo will still hold good at 50 is sheer bunk. It takes no account of life experience or brain plasticity. MB originated at the time when what is called psychometry became fashionable. This was an attempt to counter the assertion that Freud and Jung were unscientific and to reduce psychology to a numbers game, which proposes to be able to predict behaviour on the basis of a questionnaire. It’s junk science. Psychology, like all the life sciences proceeds from observation, methodical note-taking and critical analysis. It is not about answering a few questions and then being told ‘You are ABYZ, this is how you must live.’ Unfortunately psychometrics is still with us and continues to cause confusion. At the same time, MB as become a vast business empire whose very existence depends on people believing it. It is completely closed to any scientific criticism, which is in itself unscientific.

      That being the case, I’m not going to enter discussion about BM types as regards Markle. What I can say is that she observably fits the profile of an Dark Triad, and a hhoroughly nasty one at that.

    2. I’ve known ENTJ’s and can’t say I noticed they were particularly toxic people. Their quick to judge and move on nature helps and hurts both them and others.

      The ENT aspects of their personality are quite positive. Extroversion, intuitive, thinkers….

    3. With due respect, I’m very much on Rod’s side as well, here. I by no means hate women, but as someone who went his own way 5.5 years ago? Again, I don’t hate women, but by no means do I trust them anymore. It’s no longer worth the risk to see if any given woman is going to be either one of the “quiet/non-crazy” women or one of the crazies who will destroy my life simply because they feel entitled to. Perhaps if more of the “quiet/non-crazy” women had spoken up or would speak up more loudly and regularly and set themselves apart from the crazies, it would make a difference. Unfortunately? I think it’s too little too late by now. The inmates are running the asylum and men are walking away and opting out more and more, to protect themselves, and I think we’ve every right to do so. As I like to say, when the day arrives that women are called out as hard and violently for calling us men all the names in the book and getting away with destroying us with ease as men are for opening their mouths at all, then we’ll talk. Until then? Leave me be and quit trying to shame me back onto the plantation (this last bit is not directed at you personally).

      1. I agree. We have a situation similar to the ‘good Muslim’ issue. We know that most Muslims are decent and respectful, but we also know that 10% or more of those living in the West are radicalised to the point of being prepared to carry out acts of violence, an unknown percentage, by some surveys a majority, actively support that and most of the rest refuse to condemn it publicly. As with Islam, so with feminism. We know that less than 10% of women are radicalised feminists, but an unknown number, possibly a majority, support them and another percentage refuse to condemn them. Women need to step up and actively condemn feminism. Men cannot destroy this monster, unlike the way Marduk slew Tiamat, because any man who tells the truth is immediately attacked as a ‘misogynist’. So in order to rid the world of this scourge, women themselves must defenestrate the radicals.

Leave a Reply