It seems there are similarities to Edward VIII in that he abdicated over his love for another and was basically never forgiven for it, treated like an outcast and regularly groveling for state salary. Of course in his case it was a shame that such stupid rules led him to such a life of isolation over simply wanting to be with the one he loved.
However, the difference here is they're choosing it when they didn't have to. I just don't find Megan to be a genuine person, she comes across more as someone who would play you and Henry seems quite infatuated with her, you get the feeling that she's calling all the shots.
Re Edward VIII, yes, the reason for the abdication (she was divorced, while he was Head of the (Anglican) Church of England - something that dated from Henry VIII's break with Rome - when the Pope was replaced by the monarch as Head of the (State) church - in the 1530s, and, so, Henry VIII's peculiar love life notwithstanding, the individual who is Head of the Church of England was not supposed to be in favour of divorce, or want to marry someone who is already divorced), would, normally, render me sympathetic to their situation, (for, of course, you should be able to marry whomsoever you wish) but...
But:
The "but" here is that the Abdication (in the long run) was probably A Very Good Thing, as Edward VIII was unusually sympathetic to the German Government led by Adolf Hitler, and, there seems to be some evidence which suggests, that, had Hitler's forces defeated Britain in 1940, (that) Edward might have found his way back to his abandoned throne, restored to it under a German occupation, or an administration sympathetic to German hegemony in Europe.
As a teenager, I used to side with Edward, but, when I read more of the murky stuff that he seemed to be sympathetic to - his actions in France in 1940, his clear sypathy for the Nazi regime - I am less well disposed.
Agree re Megan - in that while I have small doubt that the Royal Family were racist (and sexist, obnoxious and everything else - and their tolerance of - and indulgence of - the appalling Andrew's behaviour is in stark, depressing, and striking contrast to how Megan claims she was treated), I don't believe - or credit - her claims that she wants "privacy", not when, her actions, (and Harry's actions), since they quit the shores of the UK, suggest a desire for remaining in the public eye (but exclusively on their terms, i.e. without any accountability), yet lavishly bankrolled by others, or at someone else's expense.
Notwithstanding all of that, I think that Harry sees her as a version of his mother (who, for all of her charity works, also had a peculiarly symbiotic and quite mutually destructive relationship with the media, one which cut both ways, one where they each needed yet despised and detested the other), and is clearly besotted with her.
I also think that - since he left the Armed Forces in 2015 - he (the classic dilemma of the "spare" in any such system) lacked focus and direction in his life (he wasn't the heir, and had no clear role), and, I suspect that he never fully processed or came to terms with the circumstances of his mother's life or death.
If they really wanted privacy, (a matter on which I would have complete sympathy for them), there are ways of ensuring that, and granting interviews to Oprah on prime time TV is not how you set about creating a new (and private) life for yourself. They strike me as seeking to create a brand.
Moreover, while I don't doubt that the disgraceful remark about the possible appearance of their first child may well have been said, - for the family is famous, actually, infamous, notorious, for its retrogade attitudes - it is manifestly untrue (and Harry should be more than well aware of this by birth and background) that their son was deliberately deprived of the use of the title "Prince" (or HRH) on account of his possible racial or ethnic background.
They can't have it both ways: Seeking to be "modern liberal" types, yet claiming that they were deprived of titles expressing appropriate royal rank for their son.
Besides, while Harry is the Queen's grandson, his son is the Queen's great-grandson, and thus, is too far removed, (by a generation), in the direct line of succession to be awarded a royal title as a matter of automatic right. To suggest (or imply) that this was on account of race is - I think - somewhat disingenuous, and deliberately provocative.
On this, I have far more respect for Princess Anne's stance; she refused royal titles for her two children, - who are, after all, the Queen's grandchildren, and were thus automatically, entitled to request, or be conferred with, royal titles, instead insisting that they must learn to make their own way in the world without titles.
However, to my mind, there is no justification for such a bloated, obscenely wealthy, and unaccountable monarchy, an institution which is, by its existence, the very definition of inherited unearned privilege. Personally, I'd like to see a slimmed down version, answerable to the rule of law, the courts, and parliament, of the sort of find in some of the Scadinavian countries.