Prince-in-name-only Harry Windsor and his wife Meghan Markle really, really care about the planet and climate change.

We know this because they often tell us.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex (who reside eight time zones away from their monarchical fiefdom) now grace the cover of the latest issue of Time magazine for being among the “100 Most Influential People.”

This, after last July when they received an environmental “award” from the group, Population Matters, for stopping at two children, which is further evidence they care.

As the familiar expression goes, talk is cheap.

The fact that Harry and Meghan live in a 9-bedroom, 16-bathroom mansion in the Montecito enclave of Santa Barbara, California, drive a Cadillac Escalade SUV and still use private jet travel evidently are beside the point. They made the choice of stopping at two children so as to not add to their family’s long-term carbon footprint. This begs the question, why does a family of four need triple the number of bedrooms? Would not, say, five bedrooms be enough to obviate bunkbeds and host visitors?

Their extravagant home looks as an upgrade from their royal digs when they lived in London as newlyweds, at the Frogmore Cottage.  Though their Montecito pad has one fewer bedroom, it appears to have more appurtenances.

The upshot is that you can be awarded as an influencer for having only two children ostensibly to help the planet, even as you amass square footage and consume energy sufficient to support a Cub Scout pack.

In reality, Harry’s and Meghan’s actions reveal they care as much about the climate as they do about their privacy – meaning, not at all.

This couple, who uncannily fits the definition of critical mass narcissism, interviewed with that famous media personality, the one and only Oprah Winfrey, where they were assured a series of softball questions and millions of viewers (they got both). During this televised spectacle, they played the victim and trashed the British royal family.

They are not done. Harry is working on a tell-all memoir for mega-bucks that will plunge the knife deeper into his family, revealing more dirty laundry. This is one of the ways he earns a living; after all, it’s expensive to maintain a mansion, use private jets and play polo – all while preening concern about the planet’s sustainability.

This current issue of Time magazine, that once great media organ that has long since jumped-the-shark, has a dolled-up cover photo of Ms. Markle standing prominently with her quasi Prince dutifully in his place behind her. The article describes them this way:

“Springing into action is not the easy choice for a young duke and duchess who have been blessed through birth and talent, and burned by fame. It would be much safer to enjoy their good fortune and stay silent… That’s not what Harry and Meghan do, or who they are. They turn compassion into boots on the ground through their Archewell Foundation. They give voice to the voiceless through media production.” 

This reads like parody, written by their friend, Jose Andres.  If he was not paid handsomely by Harry and Meghan for such propagandistic drivel, he should have been because he earned it.

If these two poster-children for narcissism and excess were serious, principled people, they would eschew such recurring vanity, go about their business and, in Harry’s case, renounce his title of Prince and whatever ancillary royal titles remain.

If Harry and Meghan were sober-minded and committed, they also would live more modestly and set a better personal example for environmental stewardship. Two years ago the radical group, Friends of the Earth, requested that Meghan “consider less carbon intensive modes of travel.”

Not a chance.

Incessantly carping about climate change while consuming exponentially more energy than an average family to air-condition a 15,000-square foot mansion and much more does not make for ideal spokespersons for the cause.

If the climate cottage industry writ large was serious, and the “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” was really about a healthy environment and saving Earth, it would not be spearheaded by indulgent, wealthy hypocrites like the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, former Vice President Al Gore, Jane Fonda, Leo DiCaprio, Bill Gates, et. al.

All of this reminds that the climate change agenda is not, and has never been, about the environment and preserving the planet. It is about a political agenda of power and control; about governing society to subjugate the masses while the elite class preserves and enjoys their possessions and virtue signals to the rest of us in order to feel good about themselves.

That arrangement of elites controlling societies has largely prevailed throughout history, from ancient to feudal times; and through communist and dictatorial nations in modern times.

The United States as a mostly free society has largely deviated from that historical condition. Climate change politics threatens to remove such American exceptionalism – if we allow such. Pushing back includes calling out craven influencers like Harry and Meghan who obtain publicity for all the wrong reasons.

Featured image North Ireland Office under Creative Commons License