It’s quite simply really. Harry does not like playing second fiddle to his brother William and neither does Meghan Markle to Kate Middleton. They have a score of grievances – imagined or real – to justify airing their accusations publicly of which they must surely appreciate could be damaging to the reputation of the British Royal Family. Fair to say, they are counting on this so that they emerge blemish-free from their platform of anti-establishment as the post-racial golden global couple of a rival kingdom based in the US. A glamorous, influential, couple to be sought out by the crème of liberal high society in the US committed to breaking down racial barriers as real people leading real lives. Most definitely not stuck in an ivory tower of a palace or castle.

They want their cake and to eat it too. They enjoyed all of the perks in the lead up to their wedding in 2018, basked in the limelight of public adoration, and were bestowed royal titles by the late Queen Elizabeth before doing a very public runner for a new life in California. The Queen retaliated stripping them of their HRH royal titles and other honours. Then the proverbial ‘shit’ hit the fan with Harry indulging in bombshell revelations disguised as truth.

Harry doesn’t want to set the record straight, to tell his truth, as he claims, he wants to punish his family through smears and insinuation so as to get back at them for hurting him as he believes he and Meghan have been. It must have been hard for him to swallow sitting behind William’s kids at the Queen’s funeral. Again, it’s quite simply really. Actions have consequences.

A heap of stuff has been published in the press and online on his goings-on most notably his recently released memoir Spare. I am less interested in debate on the content than the means Harry deploys to take down members of his family. Carefully crafted so that each word delivers maximum damaging effect whilst making it near impossible for those on the receiving end to refute. After all, who can deny someone their truth? This is the grubby side of truth-telling since to question someone’s truth is the ultimate no-no helped by the fact that his family’s long-standing motto is “do not complain, do not explain”. They are effectively sitting ducks.

Harry plays a word game of double negative. Negative 1 – “I was not invited” to join the rest of the royal family on a private flight to Balmoral to say goodbye to Queen Elizabeth. Negative 2 – exploit this to accuse his family of excluding him. But where was he at the time and would it have been possible to make the flight if he was invited? Did the family not invite him knowing this or because they are not predisposed to his public outbursts? Did he ask if he could join his family? Did they say “no”? And could his family have presumed, since he is no longer a working royal, having opted out from royal life, that he would make his own way to Balmoral Castle?

This is indicative it is what Harry does not say that is crucial since this could then tell a very different ‘truth’. For that reason, he tells part of a story to avoid having to explain himself. Furthermore, he chooses media figures sympathetic to his cause in order that they stay away from asking questions that potentially challenge or contradict his ‘truth’. There is little chance of right of reply for his family, which is illustrative in itself that what constitutes truth can be hugely problematic when there is only one side to the story and when that story does not come under scrutiny. The Wales would have their own truth.

Harry could have told his ‘truth’ for nothing but opted instead to sell it to Netflix. Of course, Netflix wants its pound of flesh having reportedly paid the Duke of Sussex $US 40 million thereby ensuring that he would have to deliver by creating controversy so as to generate conversation and in the process create global buzz. The irony is, though, if it was not for his royal family connections hardly anybody would be interested in what he has to say.

Harry and wife Meghan have adopted a ‘burning bridges’ mentality – making sure in effect that there is no way back for Harry to his family. With sturdy egos they are perfect for each other. They see themselves as cool 21st century vanguards of anti-establishment, anti-discrimination, including anti-racism, as well as holding media to account for its exploitation of them, to savvy youth who identify with ‘call out’ culture. Whilst they effortlessly articulate progressive values of the left, they really don’t fully appreciate what they are actually talking about. For instance, criticism of the conduct of a person, who is bi-racial, does not automatically equate with racism. It could in many instances simply be criticism (as unwelcome as this is) of behaviour not the actual person per se. I get it though that Meghan has copped a barrage of hate mail.

I suspect that critics see through Meghan’s beautiful and angelic visage with a steeliness in her eyes. She played her friend Oprah Winfrey, the seasoned veteran interviewer, to perfection. Oprah made all the right leading questions for Meghan to lean into especially the insinuation of racism around discussion of the colour of her to-be-born son’s skin. This is a load of rubbish. Many members of my Maori family, including myself, have partnered with non-Maori and when a baby is coming, we chew the fat on the likely colour of the baby’s skin. No harm done at all. If anything, it would seem absurd not to say anything about the colour of a bi-racial baby’s skin.

While I’m at it, something just does not sit right in Meghan’s claim of being suicidal, her desperate response to not receiving help from the royal family. It all depends, of course, on the type of help she wanted and whether this was ignored by the Palace. Did she think that she could dictate? She is no flighty or vulnerable creature like her late mother-in-law, Dianna, who was suicidal. The naive layback girl persona, who does not understand protocol, just does not wash. She is savvy personified. Hence, her claim of ignorance is no excuse for rudeness. That is to say, she had no right to mock the late Queen with her over-the-top display of a curtsey, which by the way is a curtesy not a rule or requirement.

Harry says he happy and in love with wife and family life in California. Then why so bitter? It is possible to be in love and bitter at the same time. Does love not cast a softer glow on things?

Harry has singlehandedly tarnished his own good reputation and contribution to public life. He was well liked and respected yet he undoes this in giving himself permission to publicly trash his family and then opine his sadness at being alienated from them. Seriously, what did he expect?

To summarise: Harry does not appear to take responsibility for his own behaviour. He has found the perfect foil to hide behind in Meghan, has dug his heels in and cannot get out. He’s not a victim. He’s a perpetrator, out for revenge so as to humiliate his imperfect, flawed, family. No caped crusader for the oppressed, his secondary intent is racking up the talking points in his memoir Spare. Hardly truthful.