This bit interested me:
"They wanted to find a compromise whereby they could live part of the year abroad but carry out some royal duties at home. No such compromise was found. Instead, they lost their royal duties, their patronages, Harry’s military affiliations, their security, their income from the Prince of Wales and, for official purposes anyway, their HRH titles. They pretty much lost everything, except for the freedom to do exactly what they want."
How is what they wanted a "compromise"? It's entirely what they wanted not a compromised version of what they wanted.
It looks to me as though HMQ was the one willing to compromise by saying yes you can have your part-time royal work and also live part-time in another country but if you remain as working royals in any form, that comes with a set of rules ie "They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends". That's the compromise between the extremes of having everything they wanted and nothing they wanted.
No doubt there were frustrations about how it all was handled on both sides but ultimately, HMQ was willing to meet them half-way and they rejected that offer because they wanted to make money and have the freedom to say/do anything they wanted to.
I feel quite maternal towards Harry but his 'anger' has been an issue for years (well before Meghan) and he's still blaming his family / the courtiers for slighting him or not letting him do what he wants to. He's the product of a tragic but indulged childhood and I feel torn between wanting to excuse him and telling him to 'man-up', as they say in the services.