IT’S not quite as bad as the sweep-the-homeless-off-the-streets scandal but it tells us just as much, doesn’t it?

Ms Meghan Markle and Prince Harry require certain of their guests to provide their own wittles at the royal wedding on May 19. Can you guess who those certain guests are? Why yes, of course. The commoners. 

Surely by now, one must think, we could have come up with a slightly more aesthetically pleasing term than “commoners”? But commoners it is. Common as muck, we are, and muck we’ll have to eat unless we prepare a picnic for the Big Day.

I say “we” in an entirely loose sense. I have no invite to Windsor Castle. My Blue Peter Badge and expertise in gift bag hoarding (308 and counting) were not enough to catch the attentions of the Lord Lieutenants and genuinely I am disappointed.

You can tell from the gentle wit and good grace of those who have been chosen to represent the peasants exactly why they were extended an invitation. 

I quite liked the sanguine take of Saeed Atcha, the founder of Bolton-based youth magazine Xplode, who has been researching his non-castle catering options. “There’s a McDonald’s, but I’m not sure I’ll be able to bring in a filet meal.” Surely he will. 

Similarly Rashid Bhayt, leader of a youth charity from Coventry, is taking a wry approach. Mr Bhayt will be observing Ramadan, the fast observed by Muslims. “If you hear I fainted, it won’t be because I was starstruck,” he clarified.

These are not the sorts to storm St George’s Chapel halfway through the principal trumpet’s solo, demanding hors d’oeuvres and a saucer of Champagne and more’s the pity because quite what this pageant needs is some commoners willing to put their dukes up at the dukes. 

I’m one of those people who really should be a republican but has an inexplicable soft spot for the Queen and spent her teenage years genuinely believing she would marry Prince William. 

And so it is, despite a general antipathy bordering on loathing for weddings, I find myself disconcertingly anticipating this month’s nuptials.

It was honestly quite pleasing to think that 1200 members of the public would be at the ceremony, following all the right noises made by the royal couple. Turns out it's a bit more akin to Mark Twain's phrase: “You aim for the palace and get drowned in the sewer.” 

Kate Middleton, a nice Home Counties girl, was seen as a radical modern royal step for being “middle class”. It made me snort every time the right wing press trotted out the old story about Middleton being derided by

Prince William’s set - for the upper classes have sets, in common with philatelist and badgers - for being “middle class”. Middle class, with her £31,00-a-year-school and £5 million family home.

Prince Harry, though, further radicalised by choosing a woman with an opinion, a career and a life lived. He also talks openly about his mental health, despite a family firm founded on the principal of the stiff upper lip.

It was even vaguely heartening to see Meghan Markle described by Clarence House as “Ms”, an honorific rejected by the royal household until now.

At the Queen’s Garden Party a couple of years ago, I’d put myself and Ma Stewart down both as “Ms Stewart”. Our invitations came back “Miss Stewart”. The elder of us worried the Queen would think she had been an unmarried mother. The younger was irked at the intrusion of a sexist, outdated honorific messing up the pleasingly rigid cream cardboard. 

Now it seems “Ms” is not a shot across the bows at sexism. As a divorcee, Markle is neither a Miss or a Mrs. Ms is nothing but an attempt to deal quietly with a tricky problem. 

So here we are, business as usual. 

Simon Dudley, the leader of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, caused outrage when he asked police to use legal powers to move homeless people from the area ahead of the royal wedding. He entirely misread the mood and was lambasted for his appalling stance.

Harry and Meghan seem to have read the mood quite clearly: the superrich are no longer admired, the vast chasm between royal and commoner is no longer respected. So they have made noise about an egalitarian wedding where the commoners are made to feel included. 

Inclusion for royalty means allowing the citizens proximity. It is not to give those citizens the same trappings of respect afford to other guests.

A real statement of intent from Harry and Meghan would have been to fill the pews with royalty and commoners side by side. To allow guests to mingle, rich and poor together, all fed from the same table. 

The outdoor seating and the bring-your-own food is mean, it's a sop. Good luck to them, the young couple, but this wedding is business as usual - for richer, not for the poor.