Prince Harry admits dad Charles 'won't speak to me' but hopes for reconciliation

Prince Harry says he wants "reconciliation" with the rest of the after losing a Court of Appeal challenge over his security arrangements while in the UK.

The has said no longer talks to him, telling the : “He won’t speak to me because of this security stuff.” Harry added: "For the time being it is impossible for me to bring my family back to the UK safely." The had appealed against the dismissal of his High Court claim against the Home Office over the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) that he should receive a different degree of protection when in the UK.

READ MORE:

He previously argued he wanted his children, , five, and , three, to know their UK heritage, but cannot bring them or, , to his home country as he does not feel it is safe for them without taxpayer-funded police protection. However, in a ruling handed down this afternoon, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis dismissed Harry’s appeal.

Speaking to BBC News after the decision, he said: “For the time being, it’s impossible for me to take my family back to the UK safely. I will continue on with a life of public service. So I will always support the charities and the people that mean so much to me.

"I can’t see a in which I would be bringing my wife and children back to the UK at this point, and the things that they’re going to miss is, well, everything you know. I love my country I always have done, despite what some people in that country have done. So you know? I miss the UK, I miss parts of the UK.

"Of course I do. And I think that’s it’s really quite sad that I won’t be able to show my children my homeland.” The Duke of Sussex said he did not ask his father to intervene in his battle over his security arrangements in the UK. He continued: “I’ve never asked him to intervene.

"I’ve asked him to step out. I step out of the way and let the experts do their job. The Ravec committee is an expert committee full of professionals plus the royals.” He added: “Five years later, every single visit that I do back to the UK has to go through the royal household.

"My representative on the Ravec committee still to this day is the royal household. That’s not a decision that I choose. I am forced to go through the royal household and accept that they are putting my best interests forward during these conversations and deliberations.

“So no, I haven’t asked my father to intervene.” At a two-day hearing in April, barristers for the duke told the Court of Appeal that he was "singled out" for "inferior treatment" and that his safety, security and life are "at stake".

Sir Geoffrey Vos told the Court of Appeal that arguments put forward by Harry's barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC, were "powerful and moving" and that it was "plain that the Duke of Sussex felt badly treated by the system".

But he said: "I concluded, having studied the detail of the extensive documentation, I could not say that the duke’s sense of grievance translated into a legal argument for the challenge to Ravec’s decision." He continued: "The duke was in effect stepping in and out of the cohort of protection provided by Ravec. Outside the UK, he was outside the cohort, but when in the UK, his security would be considered as appropriate."

He added: "It was impossible to say that this reasoning was illogical or inappropriate, indeed it seemed sensible." Sir Geoffrey also said Ravec’s decision was “understandable and perhaps predictable”. Harry was not present at Friday’s short hearing.

The Home Office, which is legally responsible for Ravec's decisions, opposed the appeal, with its lawyers previously 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.

A Home Office spokesperson said: "We are pleased that the court has found in favour of the Government’s position in this case. The UK Government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate. It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security."

When asked by the BBC what about his current security arrangements made him feel unsafe, the Duke of Sussex replied: “Everything.”

He continued: “I would not have taken this this far if I did not have compelling evidence of facts that reveal why the decision was made and I am sitting here today talking to you, where we have lost the appeal, but the other side have won in keeping me unsafe, so again there is a lot of question marks that a lot of people will have.

“I have all of the truth, I have all of the knowledge now, throughout the legal process. I have uncovered my worst fears, and to now know today based on this judgment that there was no legal framework that constrains the decisions of this body Ravec, on which the royal household sit on, and I didn’t know that until this legal process in 2021.

"One of the first things my lawyer said to me as disclosure started, as this process started, was ‘did you know that the royal household sat on Ravec?’, and my jaw hit the floor.”

Ravec has delegated responsibility from the Home Office over the provision of protective security arrangements for members of the 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 the decision, taken in early 2020 after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex quit as senior working royals, was lawful.

During the appeal hearing last month, Shaheed Fatima KC, for the duke, 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."

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 hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice last month, and could be seen taking notes and talking with part of his legal team during the appeal. Parts of the hearing were held in private, meaning the press and public could not be in court, to discuss confidential matters.

Harry was allowed to stay in court when the confidential matters were discussed. Speaking to after leaving the Royal Courts of Justice, he claimed "people would be shocked by what’s being held back" adding that his "worst fears have been confirmed by the whole legal disclosure in this case and that’s really sad".

He also suggested the decision regarding the change in his security was an attempt to prevent him and wife Meghan from quitting as working royals and moving abroad – which sources have strongly denied. It is said Harry believes his dad could help to have this reinstated, although this has been dismissed as "wholly inaccurate" by a palace source.