Pity poor Princess (sic) Meghan. Just days from the launch of her new Netflix series, half of California goes up in flames.

It can be quite challenging to witness the stark contrast between extravagant lifestyles and the harsh reality of others struggling to rebuild their lives. Picture someone delicately decorating jam jars and crafting intricate petits fours in a grand mansion while nearby, people are sifting through the ruins left by a disaster.

It’s important to note that the individual in this scenario is not to blame for the situation. It’s simply a matter of unexpected events unfolding. However, considering the gravity of the situation, it seems inappropriate for a TV show featuring this person to air while the community is still dealing with the aftermath of the disaster. Additionally, if the trailer for the show hints at a tone of excessive smugness and self-congratulation, it raises further concerns.

Even someone like the Duchess of Sussex, who may not always exhibit self-awareness, should realize that under these circumstances, it would not reflect well on her to proceed with the show.

In a funny kind of a way, though, this could be a PR blessing for the estranged royals. Because if I were advising Harry and Meghan how to rehabilitate their somewhat tarnished image, the last thing I would have advocated is a sycophantic smug-fest which, in essence, rubs everyone’s noses in their lavish lifestyle.

After all their fine words about wanting to do good and using their platform to help those less fortunate than themselves, sub-Nigella style domestic goddessery seems a little… well, banal.

By contrast, their response to the LA fires has been anything but.

The Sussexes have been handing out food parcels at an evacuation centre, meeting rescue teams and visiting burnt-out houses, doing their best to comfort those who have lost their homes

I may not be the couple’s biggest fan, but even I cannot deny they have stepped up to the plate faster and more effectively than other A-listers, many of whom seem preoccupied with protecting their own patches and ensuring the luxury to which they have become accustomed is maintained.

Stories of stars holed up in £1,000-a-night hotels, sipping cocktails while Hollywood burns and summoning Pilates instructors and injectables – from Botox to Ozempic – to their suites contrast with the fate of ordinary Angelinos, casting Tinseltown’s elite in a very unflattering light.

The Sussexes could have easily joined them, remaining safe in their Montecito compound 90 miles away. Instead, they’ve been handing out food parcels at an evacuation centre, meeting rescue teams and visiting burnt-out houses, doing their best to comfort those who have lost their homes.

In the past, the pair’s actions have seemed at odds with their stated intentions but, in this case, you can’t fault them. Here they are, bringing moral support to those suffering in dire circumstances.

They have also urged others to help, while staff at their charitable foundation, Archewell, are coordinating funds and volunteers.

Meghan, we are told, was even seen to ‘stoop down and take the lid off a plastic bin’. (OK, there may be an element of mild sarcasm about that last one.)

Still, credit where credit is due: staged or not, this is precisely the kind of thing they should be doing. Making a difference and showing that people in privileged and titled positions can do something to properly justify their existence.

It’s what Princess Diana did when she hugged Aids victims or when the late Queen Mum walked London’s bombed streets during the Blitz. It is the kind of thing King Charles does all the time, along with the Prince and Princess of Wales and Princess Anne.

It’s not rocket science – it’s not even especially taxing. Just show up, smile, say a few kind words, brighten someone’s day. In many ways, it’s what royalty is for, and it’s what keeps them relevant.

Not everyone sees the point of it, of course, and that’s fair enough, but still, it’s not nothing, and for many people it means a great deal.

You might think I’ve gone soft in the head and no doubt cynics will dismiss Harry and Meghan’s efforts as self-serving. But I believe they show a genuine desire to connect with people in need, a real sense of concern and an honest attempt to help in any way they can. In short, everything they’ve said they’ve wanted to do, but so far haven’t really delivered.

It’s certainly more sincere – and let’s face it, vastly more useful – than flower-arranging or making sponge cakes for a Netflix series.

 I applaud Claudia

Claudia Winkleman is a particularly smart kind of cookie

I have always admired Claudia Winkleman’s determination to be herself in an industry that loves to turn women into cookie-cutter lookalikes. 

Then again, she is a particularly smart kind of cookie. Talking about her style inspiration for Strictly, she cites singer Demis Roussos, right, and EastEnders star Anita Dobson. For The Traitors, ‘it’s Princess Anne meets Sarah Brightman’, though next season she says she’ll dress like Gerald from Clarkson’s Farm.  Such a change from Amanda Holden endlessly obsessing about her side-boob.

• If even someone as young and healthy as Carrie Johnson can end up in hospital with flu, we should all take care. I got a chest infection before Christmas, and have been hacking away ever since. I blamed my immune system, but now realise I’m one of the lucky ones.

Are stay-at-home kids so terrible?

The number of 25 to 34-year-olds living full-time with their parents has increased by more than a third in just under two decades, according to an authoritative report. The finding has been greeted with much despair, but is the reality that terrible? It’s not just based on convenience and economy – it’s also very life-affirming. I’d much rather share my home with my children than sit alone listening to a ticking clock and rearranging my cutlery drawer. I’ve never understood this English compulsion to get rid of one’s children as early as possible, in some cases bundling them off to boarding school aged eight. What’s the point of having them at all if you pay someone to take them off your hands? Besides, we’re constantly told about the problem of loneliness for people of all ages. Perhaps multi-generational living could be part of the solution.

 ● Sir Keir Starmer rejected calls for a new public inquiry into rape gangs on the basis they are just part of a ‘far-Right’ bandwagon. Really? A poll for the Women’s Policy Centre found 76 per cent of the people want one. And 65 per cent of those who voted Labour in July agree. Are they also ‘far-Right’? Or just ‘right’?

● As the thermometer hovers below zero, I fear for all those pensioners too scared to turn on the heating now Labour has axed their fuel allowance. Apart from the policy being cruel, it’s also a false economy: these people will end up putting extra pressure on the NHS. Just another example of this Government’s pig-headed short-sightedness. 

● More than £2 million of taxpayers’ money has been spent on legal bills for members of a Rochdale rape gang battling deportation to Pakistan – with £285,000 alone going on the ringleader. When will their victims receive similar compensation?