Topics: Royal Family, UK News, Prince Harry, King Charles III
Prince Harry has just made a major claim about his father, King Charles III, after he lost a Court of Appeal challenge over his security arrangements in the UK.
The Duke of Sussex has said his father, the King, no longer talks to him, telling the BBC in an interview broadcast this afternoon (2 May). This comes after he lost a legal challenge over his protection when in the UK: "He won’t speak to me because of this security stuff."
Elsewhere in the interview, Harry claimed 'for the time being it is impossible for me to bring my family back to the UK safely.'
"There have been so many disagreements between myself and some of my family," he added.
Advert
Harry said that he felt 'let down' and described his court defeat as a 'good old fashioned establishment stitch up', while blaming the Royal Household for influencing the decision to reduce his security.
And, when asked whether he had asked his father the King to intervene in the dispute over security, Harry responded: "I never asked him to intervene - I asked him to step out of the way and let the experts do their jobs."
He added that his treatment during the process of deciding his security had 'uncovered my worst fears'.
When Harry and his wife Meghan Markle decided to step down as working royals back in 2020, they saw their taxpayer-funded protection downgraded.
However, he later appealed against the decision, attending court last month to argue his case.
Harry's barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC, claimed that Harry's safety, security and life are 'at stake', and that the 'human dimension' of the case should not be forgotten.
But, in the ruling today, the appeal was dismissed by Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis.
Vos admitted that Harry's 'powerful' arguments showed it was clear he had been treated badly by the system, but ultimately found no legal basis to challenge the decision to downgrade his protection.
"The duke was in effect stepping in and out of the cohort of protection provided by Ravec [Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures]," Vos said.
“Outside the UK, he was outside the cohort, but when in the UK, his security would be considered as appropriate."
He continued: "It was impossible to say that this reasoning was illogical or inappropriate, indeed it seemed sensible."
Vos said Ravec’s decision was 'understandable and perhaps predictable', adding: "From the Duke of Sussex’s point of view, I said that something may indeed have gone wrong, in that an unintended consequence of his decision to step back from royal duties and spend the majority of his time abroad has been that he has been provided with a more bespoke, and generally lesser, level of protection than when he was in the UK.
"That did not in itself give rise to a legal complaint."
