Like Diana, Harry has a complicated relationship with the press. His emotional pleas are doomed to fail

The most telling part of Prince Harry’s long and emotional statement about his family’s relationship with the media were his final sentences: “We thank you, the public, for your continued support. It is hugely appreciated. Although it may not seem like it, we really need it.”

Is this the first time a member of the British royal family has asked citizens to support them in peacetime? What kind of support is Harry seeking? Prayer, chanting, positive messages on Instagram?

It’s as if the royal couple imagine they are victims, and need loyal subjects on their side in a war against forces of evil: the nasty press.

In spite of Harry’s complaints about “a ruthless campaign” in the tabloids, media coverage of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex since they announced their engagement has been overwhelmingly positive. Sure, the publication (by the Mail on Sunday) of a private letter written by Meghan to her father before the wedding can hardly be justified as being in the public interest, whether you are a royalist or not. This naive and clearly vulnerable man could not have envisaged the fallout from handing over an intimate note from his beloved daughter.

Now, the royal couple plan to sue the newspaper in question – a decision which could see them giving evidence in court.

Rightly or wrongly, Harry’s decision to use a new website to make his statement sets him apart from the old way royals communicated with plebs. He’s using a celebrity lawyer and has embarked on a course which guarantees more coverage of the sort he plainly finds abhorrent.

Harry and Meghan’s wedding was watched by millions around the world and widely commented on via social media. A glittering guest list added to the glamour of the occasion. The couple were determined to forge a new kind of monarchy; one that uses their own Instagram account and their own PR team to highlight a few bits of their private lives and heavily promote the worthy causes they want us to support. But the public has just as much right to ignore them and their favourite charities: the institution of monarchy is both revered and reviled by many Brits.

As some younger royals have made themselves more accessible, we feel freer to comment on everything from their clothes to how they decorate their homes. Since austerity, too much flaunting of wealth and privilege doesn’t play well with citizens who have seen their earnings stagnate. A family who asks the public for money when they renovate a grace-and-favour home can’t expect to be universally adored. A woman who dresses in couture and whose wardrobe costs hundreds of thousands of pounds can’t expect ordinary people not to feel a little bit confused.

The same woman might wear high street clothes with Manolos, she might wear an eco-friendly charity shirt, but she’s not fooling other women. We know she generally wears beautiful, bespoke clothes, because she was wealthy in her own right before she married her own millionaire prince.

Ordinary folk are not in an equal partnership with the royals (by implication against the “evil” press), even though we contribute to their upkeep through our taxes.

In spite of divorces, toe-sucking scandals, Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Charles and tampongate, the Queen – tact and discretion personified – can do little wrong in most of her subject’s eyes. She’s still working hard and saying nothing in what must be very tempting circumstances.

Our view of what the Queen thinks, and what she cares about, is deliberately kept partial by palace insiders. Only a small handful of trusted courtiers and servants have ever been allowed to lift the curtain an inch or two. Her dresser and wardrobe guru, Angela Kelly, has recently been granted permission to write a book about the royal wardrobe. The portrayal of the Queen we enjoy in The Crown has been cleverly tailored to suit audiences with modern values. As played by Claire Foy, young Elizabeth was a bit prim, socially abrupt and deeply conscientious. All very non-controversial. We get a sense of duty, but not a lot more.

Harry lost his mother in terrible circumstances. At the time, he was too young to understand her own complicated relationship with the press – she recorded tapes of her “thoughts” and passed them to a third party, determined to fight her corner in her divorce, fearful that her husband was telling people she was “mad”. Diana lost all sense of reason: for all her charisma and beauty, she was deeply flawed. She mistakenly believed that she could use the press to her advantage in her battles with Charles.

In fact, her Panorama interview – like Harry’s long and waffling statement this week – was a horrendous mistake, a catastrophic decision from which she emerged as seriously unbalanced. Discussing the “three people” in her marriage with the former sports journalist Martin Bashir, wearing too much eye make-up and looking weepy did nothing for her cause.

Diana will have told her children about the “evil” press who hounded her. Luckily, the boys managed to repair their relationship with their father as they matured. But Diana’s machinations gave the public a glimpse of a new monarchy: one willing to engage with the tabloids, not stand and stare snootily at the press and photocalls, as their father had done.

Harry has always been conflicted about whether to engage with or take up arms against the media. The press print stories about the monarchy because readers adore them and they sell newspapers and drive media websites.

This is the same public Harry is appealing to, the people who tune into The Crown and the royal documentary series on every television channel. Newspapers cater to readers, they don’t have a hidden agenda – not matter what Harry thinks.

As a former editor, of the Independent on Sunday, I’ve watched attitudes to the monarchy change. In the past, royal stories were down played by this media group. In recent years, the rise of social media has changed all that. Some royals, like Zara, don’t have titles, take sponsorship and compete in public events. Minor royals like Beatrice and Eugenie travel and go to parties, wear outrageous hats and attend society weddings and attract plenty of comment.

Harry and Meghan hang out with movie stars such as George Clooney and his wife Amal, tennis champions like Serena Williams, and media icons like Oprah Winfrey, which only increases the thirst for media coverage which can’t be monitored or controlled.

I can understand Harry’s distress at mean stories about his wife. He should have taken a lesson from Granny and kept his mouth shut. Using overly emotive language plays into the hands of those he seeks to silence – a mission he is doomed to fail at.