Maybe the members who ignored Harry wanted to be selfish or rude. Every other Tom, Dick or Harry get to be rude to relatives, sometime. What are we saying, that the royals have to be perfect all the time, but aren't perfect, so we want our tax money back?
Why don't we give them a break from having to attend every single family event (which could of public interest) in the public eye? Say they can do it behind closed doors and without the cameras , sometimes. Then it won't be as rude as it won't be a public slight - it will be a private one.
Yes, it may have been ill-mannered, but who expects them to behave with aplomb , all the time? It's up to them isn't it? Meghan said they were too stuck up and hide bound, and needed to ditch the form, and the curtsying , and do things without always having to ask the rhetorical question: 'Is this appropriate?' So whoever turned their back was just telling it like it is. If they'd stuck two fingers up at Harry, it would have been rude - but translucently human, also. So it's wrong to be perfect and plastic all the time, but it's wrong to show your true feelings when you're relative whose Queen is anxious and bereaved.
.
So the royals can't win any which way.
I saw Catherine speak to Harry, and that was friendly, and she had been the one who had been 'thrown under a bus' in the Oprah interview. You can say: " That report of me making Kate cry was inaccurate" without saying , "And by the way, it was the other way round: I was made to cry." You can set the facts straight without disparaging the other person.