I think it will be better if the Royals back off from modern good causes and just do what their modern constitutional role in a modern democracy requires them to do, and no more. They are the icing on the Christmas cake of diplomacy, not supplying the little nuggets to sustain the health of the nation, such as the trade deals, scattering the international work like currants in the cake. But supplying a nice and validating bit of ceremony to show foreign dignitaries: "Yep. Britain values it's ties with your country." The Queen managed to side -step controversy and show Donald Trump photos and souvenirs of Britain and America's history as allies. It can be done - and she did it by sticking to her proscribed role.
The royal receptions and garden parties are a super way of thanking volunteers for their sterling work in communities and royal visits to community centres to find out what these worthy citizens actual do is a sensible and validating use of their time.
If the Royals stuck with this, nobody, including Harry, can really complain. There was a job to do; Hazza didn't want to do it any more - end of.
Taking the moral high ground, by being woke and espousing right on environmental causes and of-the-moment missions, gives their Royal role a new pretence at relevance. It suggests they are seeking to be agents of their own destiny. That all goes wrong, because of the luxury of their official homes and their personal wealth and privilege. People are always going to say: "What do you know about this?". It is better to stick with being an antiquated but charming hang over from a past age, which has a kind of football mascot role to play in uniting and symbolising the nation's values. They need to be demonstrating that there are fine houses and carriages, but that these really belong to the people. They are actors on the stage of pomp and pageantry, but essentially in the service of the people. As they say, ruling with approval and in licence.
As long as the Royals stick to their proscribed role, I don't think Harry's complaints will stick. Unless he can genuinely say that they were prevented from going here, there and anywhere, it will seem like: " Well, they did leave, didn't they? And they have a nice life now, on the back of their royal life and inheritances. What actually is the problem?"
Eventually, people are going to have to compare the mistakes of the Royal Family with the mistakes made in every family, and say: "Nobody is perfect. Nobody always does and says the right thing."
Time is a magic worker. The more the months and years pass, the more that episode of married life within the RF, will start to look like a tiny sliver of experience in relation to what they are choosing to do independently now. It will be like: "Yeah. That came and went. Stop going on about it."
Their kids will grow up, have their own non-royal identities: coming across like celebrity children, eventually date billionaires or stars, a la the Beckham clan, I guess, and the royal lives will go on, with Charlotte and George being photographed in their school uniforms or at royal occasions and the contrast with the Californian cousins and lifestyle will seem wider and actual, and people will ask of Meghan and Harry: " What are you actually doing? Because you can't go on carving an identity from being an ex-Royal.".
It could be that in ten and fifteen years that Meghan will start to focus on promoting her kids instead of herself, and being a kind of matriarchal Kardashian, and pulling the strings of their lives. That might be more financially rewarding and emotionally stimulating than dragging her in-laws
The new and actual will take over from the what might have been, and I suppose, eventually, the couple might find a project that they actually enjoy and which they want to be their new identity.