The Queen, despite being The Queen, lived through the Depression and wartime shortages. That leaves an impression even on the rich. I think the royals tried to keep to what they were allowed with rations during the war. The Queen Mum made it clear that they weren't better than anyone else during wartime conditions and the people knew it. Of course there was the huge PR aspect to all of this, but the fact is that people loved them for it.
My parents were lucky, through the Great Depression, to live well, in retrospect. My father was proud of the fact that he always had a job and worked his way through college and law school. My grandparents continued to own their own homes and keep their businesses going. My parents attitudes toward money and waste were formed during this period and it was a mindset that was always with them. A lot of it rubbed off on me as well. I found myself being more careful with things during Covid because certain things were in short supply or getting unreasonably expensive for what they were. I can safely say that neither Harry nor Meghan thinks like the above. They are wasteful individuals in all aspects of their lives. I think they are wasteful of their children as well, if they do exist.
Yes, I think you're right about the invisikids.
IF they exist in biological, human form, how is it not neglect if they rarely go out with their parents except nursery school, never get a chance to socialise in the real world with ALL their family, don't go on holidays with their parents and family (except for very rare PR purposes), never go into shops to buy sweeties and little toys with their pocket money, never go out to help buy groceries, have fun at fairs and theme parks, restaurants, libraries..?
Then there's the burden of parents who seem to be endlessly in conflict with something or other, away from home very frequently, and at least one parent who is a substance abuser and the other said to be a 'narcissistic sociopath'.... in other words, they seem like children who are not of any healthy priority in their parents' lives.
Good grief, poor children. Their plight is damn near tragic.
Children of families with money, power, status and fame are not any more protected from neglect and abuse than a lowly paid road sweeper's children. (In fact, they're too often less protected.)
My parents were also well off as little children during the Great Depression. It really hit me as a child when my mother told me about the time her family were driving (that is, they were amongst the very few who had a car) to visit relatives in the North of England who were hugely well off. They passed through some poor towns and were shocked to see all the little children playing in the streets with no shoes on. In England in the 1930s.
Her parents made their children aware of their good fortune and not to squander it. Mum saved everything from rubber bands and brown paper bags, glass jars, 'silver paper', string, socks to darn, clothes to mend, newspapers....anything that could be repurposed and repaired...tch, and these youngsters today think they invented recycling! She never spent a penny where a ha'penny would do (mind you, that might have been her Scottish blood!).
This is rather like Diana used to do with her sons...taking them to visit homeless shelters and those who weren't well off. The lessons were very valuable for them. They helped make William who he is today. But what of the other on whom the lessons were lost....? Will he be teaching his children that poor and vulnerable people make for great PR photo-ops...? (And how much money will those children have to spend on therapy!)