IF there's anyone whose attentions might be focussed on both inheritance and extinction, Prince Harry would surely be him.

A prince, that is, enjoying all the trappings of extreme wealth while also avoiding some of the worst encumbrances of his position - say, spending £3.2 million of tax payers' money on luxury refurbishments to his cottage while refusing to publicly name his son's godparents. Tradition suits until it doesn't.

Harry, our sixth in line to the throne, has said he and his wife Meghan Markle plan to have no more than two children for the sake of the planet. The Duke of Sussex interviewed Jane Goodall, the primatologist and anthropologist best known for her work with chimpanzees, for a piece in British Vogue, which this month has been guest edited by the Duchess.

Climate worries, he said, have been on his mind since marrying and considering children and what sort of earth they may inherit. "Not too many!" said Ms Goodall. "Two, maximum," came the reply. One wonders how high his brother and sister-in-laws' eyebrows rose at this line.

It's a surprise it's taken the prince so long to reach this position given his father's preoccupation with the environment - but who of us listens to our parents?

If Harry has been listening he would have heard the Prince of Wales in 2010 make a speech on Islam and the environment, calling for religious views that prevent the use of contraceptives to be considered alongside the "monumental" pressures on the planet of overpopulation.

He lamented that traditional communities are becoming more consumerist and called on countries to retain local crafts in order to help save the planet, before jetting off to carry out the most overseas trips of any British royal.

READ MORE: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle launch own official Instagram account 

Charles, though, was a little ahead of his time. Questioning our individual impact on the environment is fashionable now and a part of current public conversation. Earlier this year the American politician Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argued that it is a "legitimate question" whether or not to have children in the current environment.

Harry's views, then, are nothing new. Nor is Meghan's decision to guest edit a magazine. The Duchess of Cambridge guest edited the Huffington Post while Prince Harry guest edited Radio Four. If anything should stick in the craw, it's that members of a royal family which vocally despises the press quite enjoy trying a hand at journalism themselves. But that's perhaps a niche complaint.

As well as mulling over who shall inherit the earth, Harry mulled over with Jane Goodall how we inherit our prejudices with regard to unconscious racist bias. "Just as stigma is handed down from generation to generation, your perspective on the world and on life and on people is something that is taught to you."

Harry's views are, though, new to him and his awokening, from Nazi fancy dress costume to nuanced understanding of racial discrimination, is no doubt heavily influenced by his educated, politically aware, feminist wife. No bad thing, yet somehow it is.

It was to be expected that Prince Harry's wife - no matter who she was - would attract public scrutiny. Meghan, a well-established woman with a mind of her own, could never have been expected to twist herself into the shape of the demur, modest royal the public and the right leaning press desire.

What Britain asks of its royals is to play a very specific game. To have insight into the struggles of their subjects despite living life at great remove. To be modest despite great riches. To be hard working without any real context for what hard work entails.

Meghan was a celebrity, an Instagram influencer and a lifestyle blogger and, now a senior royal, she has carried on regardless.

Harry and Meghan are far enough removed from the throne that we should be able to say good luck to them. Behave like the Clooneys if you so wish. Even behave like the Kardashians if you must.

We can't say this, however, and there are two sticking points. One, the Kardashian and Clooney money is self-made: the Sussexes are part publicly funded. Two, celebrities promote only themselves; the royal family is representing the United Kingdom. We should, it follows, have a say in how we want to be represented.

For a pass-remarkable British public which respects the Queen for her apolitical, wide-ranging charitable support, the Sussexes are easy targets for traditionalists. No one likes to be preached to and here's rich Harry chiding people for eating fruit wrapped in plastic, while scooting about on private jets.

The British upper lip stiffens at the notion of schmaltzy instructions to "be the change" and "live in the deep like a mermaid". Britain expects access to its royal family in exchange for their luxuries so asking for privacy - keeping the lid of Archie's christening, turning Frogmore Cottage into a fortress, forbidding photos at Wimbledon - ruffle feathers.

Yet Meghan has been protective of her privacy since day one. Think on her engagement announcement interview: she would not be drawn on the identity of the matchmaker who brought her and her fiancé together because she wanted to protect them.

READ MORE: Prince Harry and actress Meghan Markle announce engagement 

It stands to reason she would be reluctant to put her son's godparents in the spotlight and hypocritical of her to change her stance. She's basically being lambasted for sticking to her principles and this is part of the problem: so many of the things initially attributed to making Meghan a breath of fresh air have been turned against her.

The Sussexes are taking joint decisions as a household yet Meghan is the target of the associated flak. Four of the biggest gun right-wing columnists have used their platform this week to try to take her down a peg or two. Her Vogue stewardship has been the source of television debate; Eamonn Holmes on This Morning labelled her with the deeply problematic epithet "uppity".

This flak comes in response to her doing things other royals have done before and singling her out in this way smacks of racism. From some quarters it does more than smack.

She has been criticised for wearing too few British designers; for how she touched her bump while pregnant; for how she has influenced Harry; for being rude to Palace staff; for feuding with Kate Middleton. All othering, racist, sexist critiques.

It is one thing to dislike the Sussexes as a brand and entirely another to claw and claw at Meghan Markle. You'd think we might have learned a lesson about tearing at royal women in this way. It's time to stop.