Duke of Sussex accuses establishment of trying to control royals, reveals emotional estrangement from King Charles

Prince Harry has made an emotional appeal for Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to step into a deepening row over his UK security arrangements, after losing a high-profile legal battle against the Home Office. In a raw BBC interview following the ruling, the Duke of Sussex said he felt “devastated” and claimed the court decision was a “good old-fashioned establishment stitch-up”.

The interview also revealed painful family tensions, with Harry disclosing that King Charles “no longer speaks” to him—an estrangement Harry blames on his ongoing legal efforts to regain police protection while visiting Britain. “Life is precious,” he said, referencing the King’s ongoing cancer treatment. “I don’t know how much longer my father has… it would be nice to reconcile.”

Friday’s Court of Appeal ruling dismissed Harry’s challenge to a Home Office decision that downgraded his taxpayer-funded protection. The court found the approach by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) to be “sensible” and “understandable”. The judgment confirmed that Harry’s security would be assessed on a case-by-case basis when he visits the UK, rather than guaranteed at the same level as working royals.

Harry, who had not attended the hearing, said he could only come to Britain “if invited”, expressing fears for his safety amid ongoing threats, including past calls from al-Qaeda for him to be “murdered”. He argued that stripping his security amounted to using protection as “control”—a tactic he believes keeps other royals “imprisoned” in their roles.

“The system’s being used to coerce,” he said, his voice shaking. “This sets a dangerous precedent. It’s about controlling family members through fear, not protecting them.”

Harry’s legal team had insisted that Ravec’s decision ignored the personal risks he faces and that the downgrade was unfair and unlawful. Shaheed Fatima KC, representing the Duke, claimed Harry was “singled out for inferior treatment” following his 2020 departure from royal duties and move to California.

The Home Office, however, welcomed the judgment, insisting it followed a thorough and fair process. Buckingham Palace echoed this stance, issuing a rare statement that “all of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached each time.”

The loss is the latest in a string of legal setbacks for Harry, who has long argued that his and Meghan Markle’s exit from royal life was in part driven by inadequate security and personal hostility from the institution. He previously claimed the withdrawal of protection was a deliberate attempt to stop them from seeking freedom outside the monarchy.

In the BBC interview, Harry appeared close to tears while discussing his family. He said he was willing to forgive those involved—including King Charles, Queen Camilla, and Prince William—but insisted he would not stop fighting to ensure safety for himself and his family. “I forgive them,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean I will accept this.”

He called on Starmer to “show leadership” and examine how the system could allow what he sees as institutional retaliation. “This isn’t just about me. It’s about fairness. We’re talking about the right to safety, regardless of title.”

With King Charles undergoing cancer treatment and reportedly unwilling to speak to his youngest son, the rift between Harry and the rest of the Royal Family appears deeper than ever. “My father won’t speak to me because of this security stuff,” Harry said. “But the door remains open.”

Whether Starmer will act remains uncertain. Downing Street has so far declined to comment on ongoing legal matters, though senior aides say the Prime Minister has followed the case closely.

As the Sussexes remain largely based in California, it’s unclear how frequently Harry will return to the UK in the future—especially if he continues to lack what he believes is the necessary level of protection. He concluded: “I want to come home. But only if it’s safe