The danger for the Dianas and Harrys of this world arises when they receive consistent feedback about their personal qualities exceeding the value of their elevated positions. Once they begin to believe the hype, they are on rocky ground. The temptation to overestimate your personal worth while denigrating the worldly advantages which exaggerate it can become irresistible, unless you take the attitude that Prince Philip stated he and the Queen took when, in the early days of their marriage, especially after her accession to the throne, they were revered as the most desirable, glamorous, appealing couple on earth. They decided that they would go about their business as if none of that acclaim existed. Taking the praise with a pinch of salt, they felt, was the only way to avoid having their heads turned. The ways their lives turned out proves the wisdom of their choice.
For Harry and Meghan, the danger of their initial popularity was not only having their heads turned, but also misjudging their appeal and how it could be made to work for them. Any miscalculation could do long term damage to their ‘brand’, and could result in them setting out on a path thinking they could become more commercially successful than was possible. The fact that Harry had no experience of the American way of life, crucially to include commerce, while Meghan had no real knowledge of how their royal position could be converted to maximum financial advantage, meant that they were, to an extent, the blind leading the blind, and therefore liable to make mistakes, not the least of which might be in what their true earning capacity could be. Yet there are indications that Meghan is indeed the brilliant tactician, strategist and businesswoman that Nelthorpe-Cowne assessed her as being. She has organised the best business brains for Harry and herself, and has positioned them so that they will become Hollywood’s regnant royal couple. In America, where people are often taken at face value, and where one’s estimate of one’s worth is frequently used as a benchmark of one’s true value, Meghan’s positioning of Harry and herself as regal, hyper-glamorous, stylish, down-to-earth, caring, woke, left-wing, yoga- and nature- and family-loving conscionables who care deeply about the world, their fellow humans, the environment, animals, children, and family life, has been supremely clever.
There is no doubt that Harry and Meghan made a bold move when they left Britain for California via Canada. It takes courage to strike out onto such an unscripted path. I am told that Harry’s ambitions were simple enough. He wanted a happy wife and a happy family life with her. I am also informed that Meghan’s ambitions were also simple, albeit different. They were a cocktail of elements which owe more to the dreams created by Hollywood - and which have influenced just about everyone in the world - than to the values of an older and more traditional way of life. She is Hollywood given flesh. The values she espouses, no matter how heartfelt, are basically new, cutting-edge ones. She often talks about change, but she has no cohesive overview, nor does she ever bog herself down in what the consequences of change would be. Change always brings about new problems, but these are never mentioned, much less defined; nor are the potential solutions addressed. Noble though Meghan’s motives might be, she is actually a novice in the world of realpolitik. Rhetoric does not solve society’s problems, though superb rhetoricians throughout the ages have been able to employ this gift to gain support for themselves from the public.
The palace understood that it was never going to be enough for a royal to simply deliver moving speeches. From their point of view, every word spoken by a royal must be carefully considered so that public expectations were not played upon, whether through ignorance, cynicism, ambitiousness, or even naiveté, as public expectation raised too high would result in unwanted disillusionment.
Meghan’s values, being the values of a new and to a large extent untried world order, inevitably came into conflict with the tried and tested values of an older, tried and workable order. She seemed not to understand to what extent she had set herself up to be in conflict with not only the British way of life, but with the more traditional elements within America as well. Yet any examination of the difference between Haves and Have-Nots will show to what extent Meghan’s values were those of a Have-not clashing with those who already have.
In any society, whether it be a constitutional monarchy, a free republic, a totalitarian regime, even a Communist state, the emphasis of Haves has always been on preservation and survival, while those on the make have traditionally valued change and acquisition. One was not necessarily better than the other. Each had its merits, depending on the circumstances of an individual. One might even say each was desirable, for those who were materially lacking and aspired to a richer life could not do so without changing their circumstances. They needed to aspire, while, for those already in possession of assets, the emphasis switched from more and more to keeping what one had, not only for oneself, but for future generations. Obviously, the traits, skills and mind-set were different for each group, but of one thing you could be certain. Once those who had aspired had achieved, their focus invariably expanded to include the goals of
