LONDON — Prince Harry expressed a desire to mend relations with his family following a legal setback on Friday in his case about the loss of his state-provided security. Harry alleged that this issue was a factor in the communication breakdown with his father, King Charles III.
“I am keen on reconciling with my family as there is little merit in persisting with fights,” Harry shared with the BBC. “Especially not knowing how much longer my father has.”
However, Harry criticized Buckingham Palace’s role after his appeal was denied to reinstate his police protection, which was removed when he stepped down from his public duties and relocated to the United States.
The Duke of Sussex highlighted his devastation at the court’s decision, noting it exacerbated tensions with his 76-year-old father, currently undergoing treatment for an undisclosed cancer. The two have had only one short meeting since the diagnosis last year.
“It is this security issue why he isn’t speaking to me,” Harry revealed during an interview aired three hours post the verdict.
Having distanced himself from the royal family after relocating and unveiling a memoir detailing sensitive matters about the royal household, Harry admitted Friday’s ruling complicates any plans to safely bring his family back to visit the UK.
Harry’s criticisms were also directed towards Buckingham Palace officials, who he repeatedly accused of making the decision to retract his security details as an attempt to exert control over him and his wife, jeopardizing their safety in the process.
“The decision made in 2020 is something I find hard to forgive as it impacts me daily and places my family in potential danger knowingly,” Harry commented.
A government panel had determined in 2020 that Harry’s security would be assessed case-by-case for visits to the UK. Harry noted this panel includes two Buckingham Palace representatives who have consistently blocked his protection.
Harry urged UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to conduct a review of these processes. He questioned, “Regardless of government, royal status, my dad, or family differences, shouldn’t our main priority be safety?”
Following the ruling, Buckingham Palace issued a statement indicating the matter had been scrutinized thoroughly by the courts with consistent conclusions.
Harry, who expressed his fondness for his homeland and a desire for his children to know it, now primarily visits for funerals and legal matters.
During last month’s two-day Court of Appeal challenge, his lawyer argued that Harry’s life was in danger due to a subpar treatment by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee.
The appeal’s three-judge panel ruled unanimously, concluding that removing his publicly funded security was not unreasonable.
Justice Geoffrey Vos acknowledged Harry’s feelings of unfair treatment and his lawyer’s compelling arguments. Nonetheless, he stated that such grievances lacked legal grounds for contesting the decision to deny regular security.
“While from Harry’s perspective something unfortunate might have occurred, where stepping back from royal roles and mostly residing abroad led to more tailored but reduced protection in the UK, this doesn’t equate to valid legal grounds,” Justice Vos remarked.
The judgment leaves Prince Harry likely facing substantial legal expenses for the government’s fees, aside from his personal legal costs.
The ruling upheld a previous High Court decision deeming Harry’s “bespoke” security plan neither unlawful nor irrational.
Government representatives argued that Harry’s approach was fundamentally flawed, offering selective readings of the evidence which ignored broader contexts.
Harry emphasized that stepping back from his official roles was due to a lack of protection by the institution, according to his legal advocate.
Post his and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex’s withdrawal from royal roles, a Home Office committee decided against publicly funded security within Britain for them.
Harry contended that their visits back to Britain now pose safety risks given the hostile environment created by social media and persistent media pursuit.
Following the revocation of government-sponsored protection, Harry faced at least two significant security threats, including an Al-Qaida wishlist involving his assassination to please Muslims, and a perilous incident with paparazzi in New York nearly two years ago.
Prince Harry, 40, who has often challenged family and media conventions by taking legal actions against both the government and tabloids, has experienced a mixed track record in court.
After losing an attempt to pay for police protection himself in the UK, citing inappropriate use of officers as “private bodyguards”, he secured a major victory in 2023 against the publisher of the Daily Mirror for phone hacking and received a public apology along with a settlement from Rupert Murdoch’s tabloids for privacy breaches.
An additional lawsuit remains pending against the publisher of the Daily Mail.