Dark Triad: Is Meghan Markle one?

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.

Fifty-Two of the Best! Rod Fleming

  • PlashMill Press


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.

Fifty-Two of the Best! Rod Fleming

  • PlashMill Press

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

Liked it? Take a second to support Rod Fleming on Patreon!

15 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?

  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.

  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. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *