Glover sort of gets it, while at the same time completely missing the point. He seems to get close to understanding the securing of the future for the Monarchy but can't help sneer still.
Out of all of the attacks, though, this is one of the less vitriolic and abusive, if a bit patronising and wilfully ignorant.
STEPHEN GLOVER: We oldies may be left bemused by Meghan Markle's guest edition of Vogue, but the Duchess of Sussex has millennials on her side
An analysis of the Royal Family’s remarkable success in modern times — barring the occasional hiccough — might run as follows.
At the top sits the Queen. She is a great unifying figure. One of the reasons she can bring almost the whole nation together is that she has striven all her life not to offend any part of it.
Indeed, we don’t know — though we may guess — what she thinks about almost anything. Admittedly there are a few subjects, such as her passion for the Commonwealth, about which she has made herself plain, but these are unlikely to be controversial or divisive.
She symbolises the nation, and stands for all of us except a few unpersuadable and curmudgeonly diehard Republicans. It is quite an achievement.
Meanwhile, other members of the Royal Family have identified themselves with particular causes or groups. One associates Princess Anne with Scotland, and the Duke of Edinburgh with the testing and improving scheme that bears his name. Also with the odd risqué joke.
Prince Charles has championed environmentalism, and terrified us over global warming. He has also attacked modern architecture with gusto. Unquestionably he splits his audience. On the other hand, one can disagree with him about one issue while cheering him on over another.
As for Prince Andrew, he has upheld the interests of business. If he ruffled a few feathers in the process, this was not so much on account of the cause he embraced as the one or two shifty characters with whom he rubbed shoulders.
Most of the Royal Family, including the Queen, are happy to encourage showbiz and almost all varieties of sport, which goes to show that they identify with the People’s pastimes. Their support for countless charities also confirms that their hearts are in the right place.
I suppose that a royal strategist looking ahead several decades might reflect that there is one group which has not been properly catered for. I mean the millennials, and the subsequent cohort, Generation Z. Let’s just say anyone under 35.
If the monarchy is to survive and prosper, which is its central and enduring aim, it must win the support of the younger generation who do not necessarily share the interests of all the Royals, though Prince Charles’s obsession with global warming doubtless plays well with them.
And so we come to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex — Harry and Meghan.
I admit that whenever either of them opens their mouth these days, I am apt to be apoplectic — and I don’t expect I am alone. A few months ago, I blew a gasket after Prince Harry flattered a young audience with a lot of hippy nonsense while taking gratuitous swipes at the media.
He told them they were ‘the most engaged generation in history’ who ‘care about values [and] doing the right thing’. In contrast to those who have gone before, they were ‘progressive, open-minded change-makers’. Unlike, say, those silly fuddy-duddies who fought for their country.
The latest contribution from the Harry-Meghan double act is her guest-editing of the September issue of Vogue, and his suggestion in an article in the magazine that many of us are racist without knowing it.
A contentious charge — and perhaps an over-judgmental one from a young man who, while at Sandhurst, had to apologise publicly after being caught on video using two highly offensive racial slurs when referring to ethnic minority comrades.
Nor was I much bucked by his disclosing that he and his wife will limit themselves to two children. The birth-rate in some developed countries is so low (1.33 children per woman in Italy, 1.11 in South Korea) that indigenous populations are likely to dwindle at an alarming rate.
Unless we can envisage a world without Italians or South Koreans, or for that matter without Germans or Japanese, people in these countries had better start breeding faster. Two children per couple is the bare minimum, not the maximum, to keep the show on the road.
Suffice to say, much of what Harry says in his piece, and a great deal of what Meghan has put in her magazine, irritates me.
But that is not necessarily the point. Millions — perhaps tens of millions — of people probably share my views (or prejudices) but relatively few of them are millennials.
When I look at Meghan’s Vogue front cover, and see the face of Salma Hayek Pinault, a Hollywood star married to a French billionaire businessman whose luxury goods companies are some of Vogue’s chief advertisers, I wonder why she deserves to be put on a pedestal.
However, I can imagine that many young people will regard Hayek Pinault and the other ‘change-makers’ in a more positive light and will probably warm to Meghan for extolling them.
Just as millions of the couple’s Instagram followers will have been touched after Meghan recently penned motivational messages such as ‘You are brave’ and ‘You are loved’ on bananas in food packages to be given to prostitutes.
Perhaps I am being rather rude to the young. Lots of millennials will doubtless be thrilled to see the faces on the front cover of Vogue of Meghan’s ‘trail-blazing change-makers’.
But, equally, I am sure some won’t be dazzled by these usually mega-rich, often divisive, radical women whom the Duchess admires, and upon whom the future of our civilisation apparently depends.
And I wonder whether some young people may not be troubled by the reflection that, however progressive and right-on Meghan may seem, she is a very wealthy and privileged woman whose issue of Vogue recommends several exorbitantly priced products.
But I concede that the 37-year-old, hip, Californian-born, former TV star is on the same wavelength as many millennials, and that she could be as popular with them as she may be becoming unloved in bowls clubs, the members’ pavilion at Lords, and the snug bar of the Dog and Duck.
In other words, if there is indeed a royal brainbox plotting the future of the monarchy, he or she may be quite pleased with Meghan and Harry for connecting with their target audience so effectively.
Yet it seems to me that such a person — or perhaps someone of greater royal authority — should issue a health warning. The main danger is not, as some commentators have suggested, being political. It is the risk of being divisive and sectional.
Prince Charles has been political for most of his adult life, and he has doubtless sometimes alienated a lot of people, including me on several occasions. But he has never, I think, set himself to leave a whole generation a little bewildered.
By all means, let Harry and Meghan cultivate those whose future backing the monarchy will need. Let them nurture those in whose minds the Royal Family may seem distant and old-fashioned.
But they need to take care — and those who I hope are supervising them would be equally wise to ensure — that their proselytising does not offend the millions of non-millennials upon whose support the monarchy also depends.
This person a just a fucking weird curtain twitcher...with a hell of a lot of support from fellow Mailites:
Norfolk Nurse, Diss, United Kingdom, 10 hours ago
Harry, what a disappointment you have turned out to be. You have let down the Queen, the Country, the Commonwealth. There is no excuse for this, none. You had the goodwill of people worldwide, and yet you turned your back on everyone for Meghan. Remember your words," I hope she loves me as much as I love her." Well, no she doesn't Harry. It's time you take a good long look Meghan, and your situation, then figure this out for yourself.
Translation: You started expressing views that I don't agree with.