When Harry Met Meghan

The UK's longest-running soap opera continues to enthral. We all loved and adored that sad little red-headed boy from the day he walked behind his mother's casket. He held himself with dignity, and we all wished happiness for him.

We forgave his occasional blunder, such as dressing up as a Nazi — after all, we've all done it. Then we cheered him on as he piloted his death-spitting attack helicopter to bring carnage down on Afghan sheep-farmers and their arcane communities. 

We all giggled at the nude Las Vegas holiday snaps, as some minx provided our hero with a well-deserved opportunity to vent his dirty water. 

Then Harry met Megan. I wished them well, as he's in love. Then, like many, I soon detected that Ms Markle held strident opinions, and while there is nothing wrong with that, caution must prevail. Her new role touches on domains that a TV script cannot, with terrible consequences if she ab-libs.

Remember, Fergie. She didn't play the game, went rogue and paid the price. In the process, she became something of a national joke. That's worse than getting booted from the 'firm'.

I commented that Megan shouldn't change her views, except to remember that the English have satire instead of revolution. This approach doesn't mean we are too kind.

After all, to the English irony is a lethal weapon that can collapse a government. Yet I feared Meghan's opinions could expose her to ridicule as someone who is 'pushy'. 

Many worried that the marriage would have its difficulties as their backgrounds are so very different. Nothing made their differences more apparent than their wedding day, as we watched her mother sitting in the pew as the lone representative of Megan's family. Harry's side was awash with relatives.

I've often wondered why her mother didn't even have a single friend or relative from the US sitting with her. It didn't bode well. The fact that her father wasn't even there to walk her down the aisle was a huge red flag.

And events are starting to confirm the fears. First, we had the alleged tussle with Prince  William and Kate. Second, we've Megan refusing to meet the US President on a state visit because she's too busy with the child.

Meanwhile, she has enough time to act as a guest editor of Vogue magazine. You can only conclude that this piece of petulance suggests she's willing to put her personal views before duty — not a good omen.

Then this week, we have the virtue signalling announcement from Prince Harry that they intend to save the planet by having only two children.

That, of course, is his choice and no one can take issue with that.

Except, at best, the thinking behind it is somewhat confused. He wants to reduce the impact on the planet of more humans. Unfortunately, he doesn't understand the science and the numbers.

For starters, all the evidence points towards us having far too few humans in the not too distant future. Yes, that has positive outcomes, and it also has terrible consequences. Further, if Harry wanted to reduce his carbon footprint, here are a few suggestions. 

Give up the four-litre diesel Range Rover. Then layoff the accompanying train of bodyguards and hangers-on in their Range Rovers.  Harry might want to tell Meghan that many of the flowers she accepts are flown in from Kenya.

While on the subject of flight, Harry could curtail his next mercy dash to Africa. That would reduce the carbon footprint a bit. That large house that could accommodate five families is also an issue. 

Could Harry not stick to one child? Why? Well, the data is clear, 150 Ethiopian babies emit as much carbon one ordinary British baby. Figures for a Royal baby are likely much higher.

​And, Harry, you are no average person. You are only 34, and you have already emitted more CO2, and other greenhouse gases than most of us will do in our lifetimes.

Harry's gesture is obvious nonsense. If not having children is the answer, why have any at all? 

To me, the Royals serve a useful purpose; nobody can fault the Queen for her sense of duty. She acted like a rock at times of national instability. Moreover, she never felt the need to wag her royal finger at us from the glossy pages of Vogue. 

​Most of us would struggle to think of anything she has ever said, despite being the most famous person in the world since the middle of the last century.

That is why even republicans respect her, and that is why the monarchy will struggle once she passes. Harry and the rest of them would do well to take note that the Royals are there, so long as citizens tolerate them. And people don't take well to a lecture by those whose only 'achievement' is being born.

That said, we could cut the lad and his Hollywood lady a bit of slack. It's tough living your life in the limelight, especially for her when you're seen as the Yoko Ono of the Royal family. 

​Then again, it doesn't help that your bodyguards threaten people at Wimbledon not to take pictures. People who didn't even recognise your presence. Nor does it play well that you deem it necessary to issue staff with instructions on how and when they can say 'good morning'. 

Their defenders would claim Harry and Meghan can't win. That's true when they keep putting 'foot in mouth' — take a page from the Queen's book or channel Princess Anne. Then you'll stop looking absurd.