Harry was easy prey for a domineering, woke and professional victim type woman. SJ can suss the vulnerable out too and destroy them mentally. I have noticed that all her victims who have been on film, do that awful woke speech and earnestly stare into the camera for some kind of reassurance. Wonky AF.
You could call me domineering and woke, if not a professional victim.
And I recognize many a sista of every gender here.
All those things are completely different from narcissicism, which is a personality disorder.
My relative was absolute catnip to Ns, and managed to attract at least two partners, and two best friends at the end of her life, who were card-carrying Ns. I have to think about how Harry -- and Jarvis' victims -- fit the
narc supply profile.
My rellie was highly intelligent and well-employed (the result, I suspect, of having succumbed to a narcissistic mentor as a student, who took her all the way to a very classy PhD). She was very unsure of her looks, something her mother did not hesitate to exploit, while also torturing her on her unsurpassable intellectual and academic accomplishments (sent mum her first book, waited three weeks for a response, and telephoned. Mother said, maybe next time you'll write about something we can understand). Mother was a hypochondriac and a
witch on wheels, and trained her children from an early age to be co-dependents. Doormat is too high a threshold for what she did to her children. All three are, with different personality disorders (one OCD, one clinically depressed, etc.).
If William and Harry were encouraged or allowed to fight to the death as boys.....they certainly were little princes locked up alone in the house of old people, as Jarvis was. Diana confided in William, always a bad idea. Eyewitnesses have Harry driving his tricycle full speed into the legs of a uniformed general (per Patrick Jephson?) without Diana's saying anything; and when Harry asked Diana who Camilla Parker Bowles was, after the Panorama interview, William already knew it all and smirked. I can't decide whether it was worse to be William or Harry.
I think Harry is to be believed. He gets things half right. Both Charles and William were allowed to bully him -- Charles saying, I'm not your father, after Diana's death. This is called soul murder in the annals of child abuse.
Did Isabelle confide in Stephanie that way? All I know is she said no Christmas and sent her away to Shanghai. The paintings suggest Derek confessed or imaged much more than he should have to Stephanie. As Isabelle is dropping her off at posh parties she's not invited to. I think perhaps Jarvis' not working is related to Isabelle's social ambitions? In short, there really is a poor little princess story there like Harry's.