The Thing With Harry - an analysis

It's like an altered fairytale. Some weird alternate universe where instead of the frog turning into the prince, the prince has turned into the frog!

I wasn't going to write anymore about Harry and Meghan. The frustration with all of this is the ability to see the behaviour and have no power to do anything about it. But I changed my mind last night after watching his interview with Tom Bradby because while I have been firmly on the side of the King and the Prince of Wales, and I still am, last night while listening to Harry's own words, a small smidgen of sympathy for him began to creep in. For weeks I have felt anger at his behaviour, at his unfair attacks on his family, our royal family, our late beloved Queen, anger at his selfish, gauche, un-princely actions, but last night that changed as I listened to him speak.

It was a minute, tiny moment that showed me what I think is going on here. So tiny, that unless you know what it is to be in this place, you would miss it. It was a moment of recognition, a fleeting pulling back of the curtain, a shared-experience moment. A moment of empathy. I will get into that, but first I have to lay the foundation of what I want to say.

The account of his experiences around the death of his mother, Princes Diana, is truly moving and as an 11 year old boy the trauma of that altered the course of his life. I understand what trauma does to children, because I have seen it in my own children when they watched their father essentially 'die' before their eyes with his cardiac arrest - he survived, but a traumatic event in a child's life is irreversible in the damage it does. No matter how much you try and protect your children from the harsh realities of the world, sometimes events are out of your control as it was with William and Harry experiencing the death and loss of their mother. William, because he was older, was able to cope better. This is not minimising his experiences at all, but rather putting into perspective how time and age and maturity makes a huge difference to internal emotional development. My eldest child at 17 years old coped better with his father's cardiac event than my youngest child at 9 years old, and this is purely due to the age and maturity factor. Prince Harry's development was arrested and altered at the age of eleven upon experiencing the loss of his mother and he probably did not receive the help he needed. This is not anyone's fault - therapy in those days was not seen as important or as accessible as it is now, there have been huge developments in psychology over the 25 years since Princess Diana's death.

So, I start with this as a baseline. This is an explanation for his behaviour now. This is why he sees killing Afganistan soldiers as 'chess pieces' and not as humans. This is why he says he 'couldn't cry' at his mother's death. This is why he always thinks the world is against him. This is why his behaviour and words are seen as childish. It's not because he's a raging psychopath - though these traits can be characteristic of psychopathic behaviour, I personally don't think he is, but because he has arrested development due to childhood trauma. There is perhaps another diagnosis, but I am not going to go there.

My own sympathy began to creep in for Harry while watching the interviews because while taking this all into consideration, the tragedy of Harry's life - the sadness of Harry's life, is something that is all too familiar to me. I recognise the hallmarks of it. I feel the blinding loyalty that comes with it. I cower remembering the hurtful, lonely place that this is. I remember in ways I don't want to remember. It's a visceral, devastating place to be. 

I also know what it's like to be the pawn, the victim, the toy of the narcissist.

I know what this is like and I see it in Harry.

This is why I can find some pity for him, in my heart.

This is also why I think, surmise, guess -  that the Royal family are trying to leave a crack open in the door. I think they understand, on a deeper level than the media and the general public do what is really going on, and they know that one day they'll need to be there for Harry. To love him, to give him a place to go back to when the bottom drops out from under his world as it ultimately will. 

I posted this picture on my Instagram last week as we were drip-fed excerpts from his early-released book, 'Spare.' Harry claims to love his family, but everything this verse says, Harry has been doing the opposite of. Why? Perhaps, as I see it, because he is in the grip of a narcissist and he cannot see anything else, or any other perspective. This was excruciatingly revealed in the story of his argument with Prince William after their grandfather's funeral, where William is seemingly desperately trying to get through to Harry, and Harry chooses to not believe him. This is what a narcissist does - blinds you so much to outside perspectives, pulls you in so much so that all you can see is the narrative being fed to you. When I was with my narcissist, friends also tried to get through to me, expressed worry about me. It didn't work. My default was to defend the narcissist.

What I took away from the interviews is that Harry is telling himself - making it his 'life work' to bring accountability to the press, to the media. He kept on and on about it - to the point that at times he wasn't making much sense and you could literally see the frustration on Tom Bradby's face.

So what is going on here? Is Harry really that concerned with negative stories about himself and his family in the media; ie, Meghan and the children, and the stories not being corrected by the Palace?

I don't think so. In my experience of life with narcissism, my opinion would be that this is the narrative that he is telling himself, trying to desperately convince himself, prove to himself that it is the media, the press, the journalists that are all at fault here - but I believe he is projecting because he knows deep down that the real issue here is his wife and he doesn't want to believe it. He doesn't want to see it. He doesn't want his brother and his father to be right. His intuition is telling him and he's not listening.

I saw it. I saw it in that tiny, minute fleeting nano-second. 

It's almost like that saying, 'he doth protest too much.'  

If you go back through the interview and exchange every mention of the British Press or media etc with his wife's name, it puts a whole different perspective on it. Now, of course he is not going to do that. He is still deeply entrenched in the narrative that is being told to him. At the moment his current way of life depends on him believing this and he still wants to believe the best of his wife because he is still in love with her. He tells himself (and the world) that he is the happiest he's ever been, but happy men don't go on television and trash their family. 

I noticed that he was fighting against emotions when he was talking about how he used to hope that he and William and Kate and 'whoever' he married would get on well and work together. He held this dream. We have seen him when it was just the three of them - yes he was sometimes the third wheel - but his brother and sister-in-law seemed to include him happily and have a good time with him. He wanted this. He wanted this dream future. He wanted a partner that everyone would love and get on with. He wanted the fairytale. But it didn't go as well as he had hoped and it hurts him.  

Narcissism is an evil beast. It is cruel and relentless. It destroys families. It's abuse turns you into a shadow of your former self. It makes you paranoid. It makes you believe lies. It makes you see others as the enemy. 

It makes you sacrifice yourself to protect the narcissist.

Is there any hope for Harry?

The only hope lies in his family back in the UK. 

Eventually, he will either come to a realisation and admit to himself that he has been groomed and used by a narcissist (I believe this is unlikely, but I did see a glimmer of hope in that interview). 

Someone could potentially get through to him and like a leaking tap, keep drip, drip, drip with love and reminders of who he is and who he could be. A good therapist would do this - this was how it worked for me, but often it is a close friend just keeping at it and not giving up. In Harry's case, this seems unlikely because his close friends have been isolated and he views them with distrust.

Finally, the narcissist will eventually move on. This is inevitable.

Why do I think the only hope lies in his family back in the UK? Because they know the real story of what went on before. They know Harry and they love Harry genuinely, authentically, not as a narcissist loves. 

They have been the true definition of I Corinthians 13 and this is why King Charles is reluctant to cut all ties with his younger son. He loves as a father should love, unconditionally, with forgiveness and in the end, Harry will need this to repair his life.

Opinions expressed in this post are my own.

This Game of Narcissistic Revenge

Einstein once said:

Weak people revenge.

Strong people forgive.

Intelligent people ignore.

I've been thinking of our royal family this week. Well, in fact, for many weeks since, but especially this week as that terribly self-indulgent documentary is released by Netflix.

If you've ever experienced life with a narcissist and you've been following the royal drama that is Harry and Meghan, you may have started to feel something awfully familiar in the narrative coming out of Montecito, but not been sure what it was. 

"By the pricking of my thumbs, something evil this way comes." A quote by Agatha Christie.

I recognised it.

I didn't see it at the beginning. Like most of Great Britain and the Commonwealth, we saw Meghan as a breath of fresh air in the royal family, an exciting addition, young, modern and with Prince Harry being one of the most popular British princes at the time, there was huge bonhomie and elation to see him finally find someone and be happy. What an amazing asset they could have been. What an incredible platform for change and good they could have had. Britain welcomed her with open arms.

Mark Jones, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

How sad are the words, could have been and could have had. 

I could write entire essays on what my opinion is on this situation, and some wonder why I am interested at all, why does it matter to me? Why do I take up brain space thinking about these people I've never met and who don't live in my country.

It matters because the royal family is tied up with our democracy. The greatest (though flawed) form of democracy that exists in our modern world in my opinion. New Zealand has a legal binding to the UK, from our historic dealings with them, and apart from that, when you grow up learning about the royals and seeing them on everything it feels like, as Harry rightly said in the Netflix documentary, they feel like an extension of our own family. The Royal family are non-political and as Queen Elizabeth kept reiterating, they are there to serve the public. The royal family do an incredible amount of work with charities and awareness around issues impacting society. 

I, for one, will not stand by and be silent in this audacious attack against our democracy and our hard-working royal family by an American production company and two people who feel grieved against their own family.

I wasn't going to watch the Harry and Meghan show on Netflix. I was steely determined to NOT watch it, but in the end, I had no self-control and pressed play the minute it dropped onto our screens. It's like watching a train-wreck in slow motion and I don't watch because I have some kind of pleasure in seeing it happen, I watch because I care about what happens to our royal family and especially to the Prince and Princess of Wales who do not deserve the vitriol or underhanded comments being levelled at them. They are hard workers and appear to be very genuine, caring, kind people trying to do their best in a role that has been thrust upon them and who will one day make a splendid King and Queen. 

I do want to talk about revenge.

Meghan, and it must be said, Harry too, seem to insinuate a lot with barbed remarks. It's quite a cowardly way of getting revenge, especially knowing that the royal family can't fight back. We used to call that cowardly behaviour when I was growing up. Nowadays its called being a bully.

But regardless of all the rhetoric, today I'm not here to discuss the sad downward spiral of Harry and Meghan's character in the eyes of the world, I'm here to talk about narcissism and to raise a question I've been mulling over for a few weeks now.

There has been a lot of talk online and in news articles and social media from royal commentators and authors and in-the-know people about what King Charles III needs to do. Most people are saying, even calling for the King to strip them of their titles, to not 'keep calm and carry on' as has been the tradition of the royal family in the face of criticism, but rather now is the time to speak up, the time to defend themselves.

I've been thinking about this and thinking back to my own experiences with an alleged narcissist, in a public arena, albeit a smaller one than this world stage the royals are on. What would I do? 

If I was in a position to give advice what would my advice be?

Dealing with a narcissist is not something to be undertaken lightly. Responding to a narcissist is like walking across broken glass in bare feet - full of dangers and hidden threats as well as obvious threats. 

At first I thought that for sure the royal family would have to say something in their own defence this time. The amount of lies and fabrications brought against them are staggering (well documented in other places). The audaciousness of Meghan and Harry is staggering. The complete un-self-awareness is staggering.

But the general rule with narcissists is to ignore. The term widely used for this is to 'grey rock'.

What is a grey rock? It is stone. It is dull, it is immovable. It doesn't talk. It doesn't move. 

Should the royal family ignore this time?

Yes. They should. 

The advice is solid to 'grey rock', ignore the narcissist. To give them any response at all is to give them pleasure. To respond is to give fuel. If the royals want this to go away, the best advice is..... ignore. A narcissist cannot stand to be ignored. 

Narcissism is an extreme selfishness but it is also an extreme low self worth. The narcissist believes deep down in their subconscious core that they are worth nothing, so they manufacture, manipulate, strive to prove they are worth something, so if you ignore them, you are showing them that their worst fears about themselves are valid and it does two things....

1. It sets them on a path of revenge at you.

2. It ultimately silences them and they will move on to their next fuel for validation (or next victim).

They may still occassionally fire arrows at you, but those arrows are never as effective as they once could have been.

As it appears in this documentary, Harry and Meghan's obvious hatred and jealousy of the royal family practically oozes out of their pores. You have to know how a narcissist works to see it. Don't be fooled by the jaunty narrative these two would have you believe. It's there in the snide little remarks......

Example:

"Even when Will and Kate came over, and I met her for the first time, they came over for dinner, I remember I was in ripped jeans and I was barefoot. Like, I was a hugger, I've always been a hugger. I didn't realise that that is really jarring for a lot of Brits. I guess I started to understand really quickly that the formality on the outside carried through on the inside." quote by Meghan Markle in the Netflix documentary, 'Harry and Meghan'.

Not only is this culturally insensitive, it also demonstrates a disrespect for other people's personal boundaries. It also makes out as if the Prince and Princess of Wales are cold, unfriendly people.

It's there in the barbs against members of the royal family. 

Example: the very disrespectful demonstration of her supposed courtesy to the late Queen Elizabeth II.

It's there in 'H'. Narcissists devalue. You are an extension of them. You have no identity. By calling Harry 'H' is devaluing his identity, it reduces him to a letter of the alphabet.

It's there in body language. It's there in the manipulation of the media and its viewers. It's there in the exploitation of the word 'racism'.

Revenge is an inevitable step in a narcissist's cycle. It's the final shot that a narc has to shoot. It's when they know the game is over, they have lost the game, and there is nothing more they can do, so they go for broke. They fire everything they have at their target, the enemy of their power to control; in this case, the Crown; the King and the Prince and Princess of Wales and by extension, the people of Great Britain.

When a narcissist reaches this step, they have metaphorically dug their own grave and are about to fall into it.

So, I say again to anyone listening.

Ignore.

These Games of Thrones - Part 2

It was a strange feeling for me that hours after publishing Part 1 of this series, the news was announced to the world that our Queen Elizabeth II had died. 

Great Britain and the realms and the Commonwealth (of which New Zealand is a part) entered into 10 days of mourning and King Charles III ascended to his role of King.

What this past week has shown me and confirmed to me, is that our political system with the Crown as the constitutional head, is the greatest form of democracy in the world, bar none. In the next month, I will write a post on why I think New Zealand needs to stay with the monarchy and not become a republic.

Much of my belief stems from strong opinions around the Treaty of Waitangi, but also, paramount above even this, is the core belief that human nature craves power and control. There is something within the depths of all mankind that cannot help himself but given the chance will elevate him or herself, or when he finds himself treated as a god, to enjoy this, to bask in this, like a pig in muck, and countries choosing to become a republic is sometimes the means of doing this, lofty ideologies descending into self-centred political manoeuvrings. But more about that next month.

When thinking about the Westminster system, it got me thinking about how it all began. I believe there were two pivotal points in history that had long-lasting impact on our political system. Those two points of change in British history began with King Henry VIII, and then later with Oliver Cromwell's dealings with King Charles I. You might also be surprised to learn the the British monarchy has been abolished in history more than once, but somehow they survive and come back from this.

As a result of these changes, the Crown is now 'above politics'. It gives the countries who are under the Crown leadership that tries to bring people together. In the great jostle for power and control, under the Westminster system, nobody can really have total power. The Sovereign can't. The Prime Minister can't. Isn't that a good check and balance for true freedom? Given mankind's propensity for absolute power and control, I think it is.

With the passing of Queen Elizabeth two weeks ago, Great Britain and all her realms and those who have her as Head of State (as we do in New Zealand) are now going through a transition period of change-over. I've always thought one of the most incredible moments in history must be that moment as the Sovereign dies, as their spirit leaves their body, attention immediately turns to the heir presumptive. In our case, Prince Charles, now King Charles. The transition is immediate. When Victoria became Queen, she wrote about the moment in her diary, 

"I was awoke at 6 o'clock by Mamma, who told me the Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Conyngham were here and wished to see me. I got out of bed and went into my sitting-room (only in my dressing gown) and alone, and saw them. Lord Conyngham then acquainted me that my poor Uncle, the King, was no more, and had expired at 12 minutes past 2 this morning, and consequently that I am Queen."

This painting depicts the constitutional act of 'kissing hands" - effectively an acknowledgement of the transition of power, a declaration of that transition from the dead monarch to the new.

Painting by Henry Tanworth Wells, 1887.

So how has lust for power and control manifested in the British Royal Family? How has history been impacted by it? How did it change from absolute power to what we have now - a balanced sharing of power. Judge for yourself whether these games of thrones still continue. 

I want to start with the War of the Roses in the 15th century - which was one of England's most bloody and unsettled times, but was crucial in setting up the system we now have. It is actually a wonderful love story also (after the War of the Roses ended).

It began in 1455 and ended in 1487. 

It's an incredibly messy, complicated, brutal, tragic story with way too much killing. I have spent the last three weeks researching it and I still don't feel that I fully grasp everything that went on.

I do remember briefly covering it in history class in high school, but it was delivered in such a boring way all I could remember about it from then are the two rose emblems. So let's start there.

Basically, to break it down and over simply it, these related families, the Lancasters and the Yorks - cousins and descended from King Edward III (House of Plantagenet), both wanted the Throne of England. So they kept fighting each other in the hopes that one would stay alive long enough to be all powerful, or perhaps wipe out every living soul from the opposing family that would be the war that ended all wars.

The King in 1455 was King Henry VI.

Born at Windsor Castle, to put this into perspective he is our current King Charles' 15th Great Grand Uncle.

I want to say that royals named Henry are a bit of a mixed bag as far as character and success. I'm not sure I'd be naming my child Henry, if I was descended by any of these kings, but it is definitely a name that runs in the family (our modern Prince Harry is actually Prince Henry). 

Henry VI - a Lancastrian - was King twice, such was his tumultuous life. Probably the most memorable thing about this soft-spoken, gentle (some say feeble) King is that he married Margaret of Anjou, who became a force to be reckoned with, within the royal family and in the War of the Roses. She was behind many of the Lancastrian uprisings. Ultimately, she was triumphant, but history has a funny, twisted way of rewriting victories such as hers, as you will discover eventually, if you follow my series.

In a largely patriarchal society, where women were commodities in the relentless manipulations for power, it is interesting that many of these women, especially in the time of the War of the Roses, were powerful and clever and key to many events. Margaret of Anjou, Elizabeth Woodville and then her daughter Elizabeth of York each had a significant part to play in the War of the Roses.

These Queens, the powerhouses behind the Wars of the Roses - were reportedly beautiful women, so I feel that their medieval portraits don't really do them justice, so here are their 'modern' portraits, as portrayed through the popular dramatised series about their lives.  The White Queen (Margaret of Anjou portrayed by Veerle Baetens and Elizabeth Woodville portrayed by Rebecca Ferguson, and The White Princess, Elizabeth of York portrayed by the incomparable Jodie Comer) - dramatised versions of Philippa Gregory's novels about these women. They are excellent portrayals, I think.  Notice in some of the original art, Elizabeth of York who married Henry VII holds a white rose, and in the original art (below) Henry VII holds a red rose. If that's not a spoiler alert, I don't know what is!

But returning to the reason we are here - the Kings.

We began with King Henry VI. We end with King Henry VII, and a few other Kings and wanna-be kings in between, and Warwick the Kingmaker, a York cousin who featured prominently across the lives of the Kings and who if he was alive today, could probably go on Oprah and whinge about the royal family. 

King Richard the III and King Henry VII were the last two Kings to fight for their throne on the battlefield. 

Spoiler Alert: The Red Rose wins. No wait. The White Rose wins.

Ah - that is the plot twist at the end of this tale.

Image Credit: Bill Sibly (image has been modified).

I want to do a whole blog post on King Richard III, because as it turns out, he is a much maligned King. He is known through history as the worst King England has ever had, but many of his supposed wicked deeds are unproven and possibly the work of the propaganda machine from the Lancasters at the time. Imagine that! Propoganda in the 1400s! It is fascinating! His body lay undiscovered for 500 years and was recently found. A movie is coming out about it soon!

This is a brief summary of some of the key characters during that terrible, bloody time in England known as The War of the Roses.

If any of this has piqued your interest, I highly recommend this YouTube documentary series on the War of the Roses, because I have found it too complicated and I'd be writing about it forever, to try and unpack everything that went on during this time, and this series breaks it down, makes it understandable and is a rip-roaring watch!

These Games of Thrones - Part 1

As a woman ten years older than Meghan Markle, I feel like someone of my maturity or older needs to sit her down and remind her of that old adage, "if you haven't got anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all." It was the sort of thing my mother would say when my siblings and I would squabble as children. Of course, most people grow out of that kind of petty behaviour. At least they learn that it is socially unacceptable.

A couple of years ago I wrote on my social media page why I thought Meghan Markle was a narcissist. It came after the Oprah interview and I laid it out pretty clearly, using examples such as family and friends isolation and minimising her primary partner - that is Prince Harry, and reducing him to subtleties such as "H," among other examples.

I was vilified by a few American women who disagreed with me. The trouble with that is that I have had a lifetime of dealing with narcissists and I stand on the authority of that. Up until 2019, my life has been an education in how narcissists function, and now I am studying abnormal psychology at university. So, frankly, you can try, but you will never convince me that it is otherwise in this case.

My sympathies lie with the Royal Family. The behaviour of Prince Harry and his wife has offended my sensibilities, so I can't imagine how it must feel to be 'stabbed in the back' as they have been, time and time again. It goes against everything decent and honourable and is, quite frankly, unfair, dirty, and mean to put his family in this position, knowing that they are unable to defend themselves. It's an unfair fight. It's bully behaviour. 

Now, I don't want to spend the whole of this post ranting about Meghan Markle - there are other people who do that far better than me and have a greater audience, such as Lady Colin Campbell, Esther Krakou and Tom Bower.

I do want to talk about Ambition and Revenge.

When a narcissist seeks revenge, you then know that they have no other arrows to fire. Insider secret here:  Revenge is the narcissists downfall. Always. It means that they know they are defeated and this is their last crack at getting back at you. When I have seen the narcissists in my life fire their revengeful attacks I have learned to give a little, knowing smile of satisfaction, knowing that they are imploding on themselves. It's over. Pretty much. They might not ever give up their pursuit of revenge, but essentially it is their downfall or at the very least, marks the turn in the tide of their campaign against you. 

Ambition. There is nothing wrong with having ambition. I have ambition. Even at my age, I still have hopes and dreams for the future and goals I want to achieve. Someone like Meghan Markle has ambition too and to give her full credit - she has achieved what she set out to achieve. In Tom Bower's book, Revenge, her father says she told him as a child she wanted to be famous and walk the red carpet (paraphrased). She's achieved that. Good for her.

What is not good with ambition is when you trample over others to get what you want. That's not good, and kind of makes you an unpleasant person. A toxic person. 

When it comes to the Royal family of Great Britain, they are no strangers either to Revenge or Ambition. It comes with the territory because while they hold very little political power these days, they have high status, great wealth and influence and prestige and global recognition and there have been many, many members of the royal family and outsiders too, who have used their own egotistical greed to take the Crown and garner its power.

As a member of the Queen's great Commonwealth, I've grown up with the Royal Family. The Queen has been a constant presence in my life and we have followed the roller-coaster ride of their family joys and troubles and I have really enjoyed watching Prince William and Kate get married and start their family and just be happy. I look forward to their Coronation. I think they will make an amazing Prince and Princess of Wales and and even more amazing King and Queen. I am definitely on Team William and Kate. 

But I write this because the battle for the throne continues even in our modern day. It might not be so bloody as it was during the War of the Roses when cousins fought each other to the death for the throne, or like it was in Queen Mary I's rule where she just executed anyone who challenged her, but make no mistake, the fight for the crown still rages on and it is my opinion that Meghan, once ensconced in the family, perhaps realised she couldn't have the top job. That one day Prince William, as Head of the family would control her finances, she'd have to courtesy to Kate for the rest of her life, and also that while it might look glamorous from the outside, royal life is not really very glamorous and actually quite a lot of hard work and by chance of birth, you are destined to serve the people of your kingdom. The Queen has done an excellent job of this - uniting people, supporting people in hardship and maintaining strength and dignity and calmness through many dire situations. 

Now if you are British, or have grown up with the culture of the royal family, this is knowledge that is innate. But I can understand that an American - where the culture and values system is more individualistic - see the royal family kind of like the princesses of Disney movies. All glamour and pretty dresses and fairytale romances and would actually struggle with understanding this concept and cultural phenomena of service and duty, turning up in the pouring rain on a grim British day to cut ribbons and shake hands with strangers.

Keep in mind that William has grown into the knowledge that he will be King one day. His mother also, who had a deep respect for the Crown - she herself being of British aristocracy, knew the weight this would put on his shoulders and helped prepare him for it, just as he and Kate are now preparing their son, George for that same role that ultimately, in the fulness of time will come to him. They might not necessarily have chosen it for themselves, but it is their destiny. But with that destiny there will always be  the threat of power-hungry, ambitious, egotistical narcissistic behaviour of others that would challenge the crown, challenge the right to the throne, just as we have seen down through the annals of history.

Windsor Castle, UK

The British Royal Crown has almost never been without struggle for the power of the Crown. Just about every monarch has either had to fight for their reign, or they've had turmoil in the government during their reign. I thought in Part II I'd do a quick run-down of some of the more turbulent monarchs and what was happening at the time of their reign and how some of those old royal, parliamentary acts actually influence the royal family today. I love royal history. In fact, if I wasn't studying Forensic Psychology I might be doing a history degree. 
In Part II I will give  my extremely brief overview of significant battles for the throne throughout 'recent' history. 
Starting in 1455 with the War of the Roses.