From above: Yet, of course, they had to be invited, and it would be even worse if they did NOT attend. Had they not been offered an olive branch, Oprah Winfrey & Co would have seen it as the ultimate insult by the Royal Family. It would be proof that the British Establishment was anti-American, snobbish and racist – the only possible reasons, in Prince Harry's universe, for anyone finding his egomaniac wife a pain in the neck.
Besides, if they had not been invited, or if they had chosen not to come, we would have been presented with the nightmare possibility that Harry would be hired by some American television network to provide a running commentary on his father's big day.
His mixture of stupidity, malice and self-obsession would have come splurging out, dishing yet more dirt on his family and on the institution of the Monarchy.
The option of their non-attendance, therefore, would have been far, far worse, than the embarrassment caused by them actually turning up. Of course, assuming they do arrive in May, there will be concerns they will try to upstage the other royals, and will be especially determined to outshine William and Kate.
In time-honoured fashion, they will probably arrange to attend some charity event to advertise how much they care for some section of the community supposedly neglected by the other royals. Or they will be seen hobnobbing with some particularly hot A-listers.
Nauseating as this will be, everyone will have to just grin and bear it.
There remains, however, a number of unanswered questions. It seems overwhelmingly likely that their agreement to attend the ceremony has been negotiated by some third party – whether this was the Archbishop of Canterbury, who knows?
No doubt some sort of 'deal' has been struck. Can it be mere coincidence that, while Meghan cannot call herself Her Royal Highness, 'Buckingham Palace' this week let it be known that it will be permissible to talk of 'Prince' Archie and 'Princess' Lilibet Diana.
Is this a signal that negotiations have indeed been going on behind the scenes? If so, it leads to another line of questioning.
Who the blazes do they think they are? And how can they have the barefaced cheek to be 'negotiating', and holding the King of England over a barrel? And how can anyone take them seriously, when they have spent the last three years rubbishing not only Harry's family but all the trappings and flummery of monarchy, while desperately wanting to hang on to titles and privileges?
It emerged this week that the little Princess had been recently baptised at Harry and Meghan's home in Montecito, California, by the Bishop of Los Angeles, the Rt Rev John H Taylor, a former chief of staff to President Nixon.
But even this joyful news could not be disseminated without being accompanied by the obligatory victim narrative.
The King and the rest of the family had been asked to attend this momentous event, we were told, but for some reason best known to themselves were unable to attend.
Although there will be many people in this country who will be pleased to see them when they show up at the Abbey, the British people will hope, in the name of common decency, that Harry and Meghan try to behave themselves.
The Coronation is an occasion when the vast majority of the population will be rejoicing. It is not because we are members of the King's fan club. The coronation isn't primarily about Charles III or about his personality. It is about our country, and the continuity of British history.
Surely this is the time to stop the royal trouble-making, resist the urge to pick quarrels, and instead build some bridges and behave with a bit of humility and good humour.
That said, while we are allowing ourselves some optimism, let's hope that some clever person at Westminster Abbey finds a couple of seats for them which are behind a pillar, out of reach of the television cameras.
