To me, the book title 'Spare' shoes how some people can dramatise their situation and think it so much worse than everybody else's.
For most of the twentieth century, social mobility and change has formed the driving force for everything. The old class structure had been torn apart and job opportunities given on merit, not accent, or, at the top, cygnet ring. At every stage of that journey, the continuation of the monarchy has been questioned - because palaces and ermine robes are a symbol of the old social hierarchy.
Far from being comfortable in their expectation of being King, the heirs have had to worry that there might not even be a monarchy when it comes to their turn. Think how that would feel? Practice your moves, set aside thoughts of a carefree youth....but they might not want you, these people you've been raised to serve'
Within that real context, being 'spare' is not more harrowing than being heir.
The whole presumption of Prince Harry shows how misguided, and I would say disingenuous, he is.
Months ago, the publicity for 'Spare' said that it would be written by the man Harry has become, not the persona he was born to. Well, the publisher obviously weren't 'feeling' the man he has become, so he was told to go heavy on the detail the public remember: traumatic events. It is as if, going into the detail of his role as spare and the perceived slights, he has made his story about those, when his story was supposed to be about his freedom to be the man he wants to be and to care about the environment and new age spiritual ideas of collective love and new ways of reporting fact: all very vague and nebulous. What he's delivered is hard facts, and he's shaping his current story to the reactions to his book.
And he's gone back to identifying himself with his royal role. It just seems that he changes the narrative as he goes along, to suit what he thinks is going down well and where the money is. He's even backtracked on saying the Royal family are racist after accepting a prestigious award for challenging his own family's racism. He is now softening the description to unconscious bias.
In view of his changing and lack of seriousness, I think a distinction should be made between public aspects of the Royal Family and private ones. Harry has brought the Constitution into disrepute by accepting the JFK award for challenging institutional racism within the tax payer funded British monarchy. The award embarrasses Britain. The public have chosen not to vote out or agitate for a phasing out if the Royal Family. We are smeared with the taint of the award. Harry should hand back the award or, as Judge Rinder implied, suggest a recipient for it who is more aptly fighting institutional racism. If he doesn't, he should be guided on whether he should retain titles and take a part in official Royal events.
Bridesmaid dresses are a personal matter. The JFK Award is more of a public matter. Those offices who interpret the British Constitution should carefully analyse what should be allowed and not allowed in terms of the co-existence of private and official relationships within the Royal Family.
Care needs to be taken that apologies to any family members, including Harry and Meghan, are private ones. The apologies can be publically reported, but care needs to be taken that they are not given in a constitutional capacity, because the monarchy represents we the public and the tax payer, and it doesn't seem right to apologise on our behalf, or to seem to. Things like this needs to be tightened up, going forward.
If Harry wants to press a point, then he should hand back the money which the tax payer paid for his security at the Lion King premier. He didn't treat the event properly as an official appearance to boost the theatre industry. He traduced it to ask the director for voice over work for his wife. ( If accounts and recordings give an accurate reflection).
We need to make royal roles more like properly prescribed civil servant roles. So far, the senior royals have been using their role very effectively to support and applaud civic values. I think it might even be easier for them if parliament could help by saying what is proper and what should be allowed. That way, the threat of public opinion figures falling is not such a sword hanging over the continuation of the monarchy.
Private matters must be left to the royals, but keeping titles when not a working royal and other public issues should be decided formally.