Prince Harry has said he wants "reconciliation" with the Royal Family while admitting his relationship with King Charles has collapsed due to a long-running dispute over security.
In an emotional interview with the BBC from California, the Duke of Sussex said he was “devastated” to lose a legal challenge over the police protection he once received in the UK after stepping back from royal duties.
“He won’t speak to me because of this security stuff,” he said of the King, adding: “I don’t know how much longer my father has.”
Harry said the court defeat means he now feels unable to return to the UK with his wife and children. “I can’t see a world in which I would bring my wife and children back to the UK at this point,” he said.
The prince also reflected on wider tensions with members of the Royal Family, saying: “Of course, some members of my family will never forgive me for writing a book... for lots of things. But you know, I would love reconciliation with my family. I’ve always... there’s no point in continuing to fight anymore. Life is precious.”
He added: “He [the King] won’t speak to me because of this security stuff, but it would be nice to reconcile.”
The interview was broadcast shortly after Harry lost his appeal in the Court of Appeal over changes to his security arrangements. The legal battle centred on decisions made by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) following his 2020 departure from royal duties and his move abroad.
Harry argued he had been “singled out” and given “inferior” treatment in the way the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) decided he should receive a different degree of protection when in the country.
The move came in 2020 after the Duke stepped back with wife Meghan from their roles as working Royals and moved first to Canada, then to the US.
Harry brought a legal claim against the Home Office, arguing that Ravec had acted unlawfully when taking its decision.
Shaheed Fatima KC, for the Duke, argued that his safety, security and life are “at stake”, and pointed judges towards threats made against the Royal.
However Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Master of the Rolls, ruled on Friday that while Harry had a strong grievance at the way he had been treated, the High Court’s decision to dismiss his case should not be overturned.
“These were powerful and moving arguments, and it was plain that the Duke of Sussex felt badly treated by the system”, said the judge.
“But having studied the detail of extensive documentation, I couldn’t say the duke’s sense of grievance translated into a legal argument for the challenge to Ravec’s decision.”
The judge concluded Ravec’s approach to Harry’s case - as he comes in and out of the UK and the consequent security arrangements - was “sensible”.
He noted that Harry disagrees with the committee’s position, but concluded it was a “predictable” stance when Harry and Meghan chose to leave the UK.
“None of that disagreement supports a legally sustainable public law claim to vitiate the decisions taken”, he said.
“Those decisions were taken as an understandable, and perhaps predictable, reaction to the Claimant having stepped back from Royal duties and having left the UK to live principally overseas.”
Sir Geoffrey’s judgment was interrupted by the sound of a howling animal outside the window in the Royal Courts of Justice.
The ruling is a big blow to Harry, who fought his way through the legal process for four years and personally attended the Court of Appeal hearings.
It is believed he faces a £1.5 million costs bill from the failed legal battle.
The Home Office, which is legally responsible for Ravec’s decisions, opposed the appeal, with its lawyers telling the court that Ravec’s decision was taken in a “unique set of circumstances” and that there was “no proper basis” for challenging it.
Sir Geoffrey made the decision with Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis after two days of legal argument.
He said that Harry case, and treatment, was properly considered as unique as “there was no other senior Royal who had stepped back from Royal duties and gone to live abroad in recent times”.
Ravec has delegated responsibility from the Home Office over the provision of protective security arrangements for members of the royal family and others, with involvement from the Metropolitan Police, the Cabinet Office and the royal household.
Last year, retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled that its decision, taken in early 2020 after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex quit as senior working royals, was lawful.
Ms Fatima told the court that he and the Duchess of Sussex “felt forced to step back” from their roles as senior working royals as they felt they “were not being protected by the institution”.
After Ravec’s decision, al Qaida called for Harry “to be murdered”, and his security team was informed that the terrorist group had published a document which said his “assassination would please the Muslim community”, Ms Fatima added.
She continued that Ravec did not get an assessment from an “expert specialist body called the risk management board, or the RMB” and came up with a “different and so-called ‘bespoke process’”.
She said: “The appellant does not accept that ‘bespoke’ means ‘better’. In fact, in his submission, it means that he has been singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment.”
Ms Fatima added: “The appellant’s case is not that he should automatically be entitled to the same protection as he was previously given when he was a working member of the royal family.
“The appellant’s case is that he should be considered under the terms of reference and subject to the same process as any other individual being considered for protective security by Ravec, unless there is a cogent reason to the contrary.”
Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said in written submissions that the duke’s appeal “involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees, advancing propositions available only by reading small parts of the evidence, and now the judgment, out of context and ignoring the totality of the picture”.
He continued that Ravec treats the duke in a “bespoke manner”, which was “better suited” to his circumstances.
Sir James said: “He is no longer a member of the cohort of individuals whose security position remains under regular review by Ravec.
“Rather, he is brought back into the cohort in appropriate circumstances, and in light of consideration of any given context.”
Harry attended both days of the earlier hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, and could be seen taking notes and talking with part of his legal team during the appeal.
He was not in court for the judges’ ruling, having been told in advance of the decision they would be handing down.
Parts of the legal argument were held in private, meaning the press and public could not be in court, to discuss confidential matters.
