SARAH VINE: The real cost of Meghan and Harry’s £2.4million refurbishment? Our goodwill

With her penchant for ancient electric heaters and Tupperware cereal boxes, the Queen has quite a reputation for being thrifty.

Which makes it all the more astonishing that she has indulged what seems to be one of the most breathtaking examples of royal extravagance in recent times.

How is it possible that Harry and Meghan have spent £2.4 million of taxpayers’ money (with another £600,000 potentially in the pipeline) renovating a five-bedroom cottage?

Of course, every grandparent wants to do their best to give the younger generation a leg-up; but this is something else.

It’s not just the vast sums involved which, at a time when hospitals and other front-line services are having to make serious cutbacks, seems so out of touch with the challenges facing ordinary Britons.

It’s mostly the knowledge that the couple could, had they wanted to, have been accommodated in perfectly decent splendour at Kensington Palace in a 21-room apartment adjoining the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s.

It’s not just the vast sums involved which, at a time when hospitals and other front-line services are having to make serious cutbacks, seems so out of touch with the challenges facing ordinary Britons. It’s mostly the knowledge that the couple could, had they wanted to, have been accommodated in perfectly decent splendour at Kensington Palace in a 21-room apartment adjoining the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s (pictured at the Royal Ascot)

Say what you like about William and Kate — and the renovation of their own apartment 1A cost taxpayers £4.5 million — both are consummate corporate royals, acutely aware of the obligations that their privilege confers.

The same, sadly, does not yet appear to be true of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

And that is why this expenditure sticks in the craw. They have — so far, at any rate — shown little more than an ill-concealed contempt for the very institution that sustains them.

Meghan’s extravagant jewellery habit, her eye-wateringly expensive designer wardrobe, her star-studded baby shower, combined with their raft of glitzy celebrity friends; Harry’s peevish determination to ignore protocol and play hide-and-seek with Archie’s birth details, not to mention their Instagram approach to self-publicity and their overall obsession with controlling their image — all convey a sense that they see traditional royal duty as somehow beneath them.

In particular, Meghan’s refusal to participate in this month’s State visit for Donald Trump, and Harry’s petulance around the subject, show a distinct preference for putting the personal ahead of the public, a notion the Cambridges simply don’t indulge.

I have no doubt that, privately, the Duchess of Cambridge was equally ambivalent about meeting Trump; but she nevertheless did so with impeccable grace.

Meghan and Harry, by contrast, seem to think themselves above all that tedious protocol, seeking instead to cast themselves as figures on a wider stage (they have just hired a hot shot social media manager to boost their online profile).

I have no doubt that, privately, the Duchess of Cambridge was equally ambivalent about meeting Trump; but she nevertheless did so with impeccable grace. Meghan and Harry (their house Frogmore Cottage, pictured), by contrast, seem to think themselves above all that tedious protocol, seeking instead to cast themselves as figures on a wider stage (they have just hired a hot shot social media manager to boost their online profile)

Of course, there is nothing wrong with wanting to be a celebrity: plenty of people harbour similar ambitions. But you cannot expect to be treated like a member of the Royal Family when you’re behaving, quite frankly, like a Kardashian.

The bottom line is that Harry and Meghan are blessed: they have the love and goodwill of the British people, as we saw from the rapt reaction to their engagement and wedding.

But if a perception is allowed to grow that they expect all the privilege without any of the responsibility, they risk seriously squandering all that goodwill.

The bottom line is that Harry and Meghan (pictured with her bodyguard in Fiji in October) are blessed: they have the love and goodwill of the British people, as we saw from the rapt reaction to their engagement and wedding

For as much as we love and indulge this generation of young, dynamic royals, the fact remains that the kind of admiration and respect the Queen enjoys doesn’t come easy.

It has to be earned, day in, day out, in the service of those who make all these glittering prizes possible: the British people.

I wish Harry and Meghan every happiness in their new home. But the time has come to start taking their privilege seriously.

Gillian Anderson, 50, who stars in Sex Education

Speaking out gets results

For years, women have been moaning (quite rightly) about a lack of opportunity for those of us with — how shall I put this — more mature talents. But now, it seems, the tide has turned.

Of the various successful shows currently on our screens, several feature women who, in the past, would barely have made the casting call. Sandra Oh, 47, and Fiona Shaw, 60, in Killing Eve; Meryl Streep, 70, Nicole Kidman, 52, Laura Dern, 52, and Reese Witherspoon, 43, in Big Little Lies; Emma Thompson, 60, in Years And Years — and Gillian Anderson, 50 in the teen comedy Sex Education. Who says nagging doesn’t get results?

Stay schtum, Boris

There are many reasons why Boris Johnson’s enemies might think he is not the right man to succeed Theresa May as PM. But refusing to discuss the ins and outs of a late-night bust-up with his girlfriend is not one of them.

As the wife of a Parliamentarian myself, I have experienced first-hand the stresses and strains that come with the territory. And while I would not wish to exaggerate, I can assure you they are considerable.

There have to be moments when people can let off steam — and if you can’t do that in the privacy of your own home, where can you? 

Fashion on the slide 

Is there any more pointless or unflattering item of current fashion than the so-called ‘slides’, the backless, open-toed shoe du jour?

I only ask because out shopping at the weekend, I was plagued by the damn things in all their many hideous incarnations. It’s not just that they’re ugly — especially the overpriced plastic ones emblazoned with sports branding — they are fiendishly uncomfortable and harder to walk in than 5in heels, since most are as rigid as planks and provide no grip whatsoever for your foot.

The only way to keep them on is to shuffle about in a slatternly sort of way, or risk your heel spilling over onto the dirty pavement. I can only imagine they’re cheaper and easier to make than real shoes, which is why the shops are full of them.

Is there any more pointless or unflattering item of current fashion than the so-called ‘slides’, the backless, open-toed shoe du jour?

Sinners can be winners

Dame Judi Dench says that the work of Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey should not be shunned because of the allegations of sexual misconduct against them.

As she rightly points out, both have made invaluable contributions to the film and theatre landscape, and while that should not excuse bad behaviour, it should also not preclude appreciation of their talent. Dame Judi cites Caravaggio as the ultimate example: a murderer blessed with a God-like talent for painting.

Is she right? I think so. In fact, in some ways, it may be precisely because of their personal failings that such individuals are so able to capture the complex nature of the human condition in all its many shades of morality.

Whether the same is true of potential Prime Ministers remains to be seen…

Donald Trump’s assertion that he couldn’t have sexually assaulted a columnist 20 years ago because ‘she’s not my type’ speaks volumes about how he really sees women. 

It’s the classic defence of the misogynist bully: ‘Don’t flatter yourself, darling.’ What a revolting man.

According to researchers in Australia, increasing numbers of young people are sprouting ‘horn-like spikes’ on the backs of their skulls due to the amount of time they spend looking down at their phones.

Proof, perhaps, that smartphones truly are the work of the Devil?

All credit to Theresa May for seeking to ensure better rights for the disabled before she finally leaves office.

But for this initiative to be anything more than a token, it needs to be spearheaded by someone with a real understanding of the challenges people with lifelong learning difficulties face.

To my mind there is only one woman capable of achieving this, and that is campaigner Rosa Monckton, whose trailblazing work in setting up her charity, Team Domenica, (named after her daughter, who has Down’s Syndrome) has been exemplary.

With Rosa involved, this idea would stand a real chance of becoming a meaningful reality.

 If you think reports that Britons are using cooking oil as suntan lotion defy belief, think again. The Italians — who yield to no one in the pursuit of the perfect ‘abbronzatura’ — use udder cream, aka the stuff farmers use for milking cows.

Neither, I fear, offers much protection against harmful UV rays.