Surely, then, if Wallis was not deemed suitable as bride, the simplest and most honest thing thing to do would have been for George VI to refuse permission for the marriage to take place altogether? It seems to me that the crux of the Duke of Windsor's bitterness was that he had been prepared to consider a morganatic marriage, and this was part of his discussion with Baldwin. Advised that this was not possible in British law, he then abdicated in order that the marriage might take place, only to have his brother perform an action which implied that the marriage was morganatic after all. One can argue over whether an unequal marriage was the status implied by withholding the "HRH" from one partner, but this was the reasoning behind the bitterness. As you know, other legal experts (writing in 1936, and themselves close to the court) did not agree with you, and were of the view that George VI had no right to withhold this style.
A few separate matters seem to be merged together above. First, since there is no morganatic marriage in British law, there can be no link between morganatic marriage and the status of HRH. That may have been practice in the rest of Europe, but not Britain.
Second, His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 specifically excluded Edward VIII from the provisions of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 upon his abdication; George VI therefore had no legal authority to refuse permission for the marriage.
Third, yes, some scholars argued that George VI had no right to deny Wallis HRH. However, the prevailing conclusion held that granting (or withholding) HRH is entirely at the pleasure of the Sovereign.
Of course Edward was bitter over the matter - he didn't get what he wanted. Frankly, that's just too bad..... it was his own actions that launched the ship. George simply steered it to the best of his abilities afterward.
