Prince Harry chillingly insinuated his downgraded security status could leave him and his family to suffer the same fate as the late Princess Diana, who died in a fatal car crash in Paris in 1997.
In his bombshell interview with the BBC, Harry, 40, also warned that without the same security provisions given to other senior members of the royal family, he has become a greater risk to ‘some people’ who wish him harm.
Speaking about his fears for himself, wife Meghan and their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, he declared: ‘I don’t want history to repeat itself. Through the [court] process, I have discovered that some people want history to repeat itself.’
Harry was aged just 12 when Diana was killed along with her boyfriend Dodi Fayed and her driver and security guard Henri Paul, in the early hours of August 31, 1997.
Diana suffered fatal injuries when the Mercedes-Benz car they were travelling in crashed into the Pont de l’Alma tunnel in the French capital.
A later inquest in 2008 concluded that Diana, 36, had been unlawfully killed by the ‘grossly negligent driving’ of Paul, who was being chased by a swarm of paparazzi vehicles at the point of the crash.
Harry yesterday raged that ‘the other side’ in the court case had ‘won in keeping me unsafe’, as England’s second most senior judge slapped down his Appeal Court bid to reinstate his police bodyguards when in the UK.
He added: ‘I’m sure that some people out there, probably most likely the people that wish me harm, consider this a huge win.’
Prince Harry chillingly insinuated his downgraded security status could leave him and his family to suffer the same fate as the late Princess Diana, who died in a fatal car crash in 1997
Diana, pictured with Harry as a youngster, was killed along with her boyfriend Dodi Fayed and her driver and security guard Henri Paul, in the early hours of August 31, 1997
Harry was aged just 12 when Diana was fatally wounded in the crash. Pictured: The young prince with brother, William and his uncle, Charles Spencer at Diana’s funeral in 1997
The duke, who left Britain in 2020 for a life first in Canada and later in California, also alleged the Royal Household exploited security ‘to imprison’ members of the Royal Family, blocking them ‘from being able to choose a different life’.
He said: ‘It’s really quite sad that I won’t be able to show my children my homeland.’
In the extraordinary interview, Harry said he was ‘devastated’ after losing his battle over taxpayer-funded bodyguards – which additionally puts him on the hook for £1.5million in legal costs.
The Duke of Sussex candidly spoke about his disappointment and launched a blistering attack on King Charles, saying he ‘won’t speak to me’ and that he ‘doesn’t know how much longer he has left’.
He also revealed he has had ‘so many disagreements’ with his family, some of whom ‘may never forgive’ him for writing a book.
Former BBC royal correspondent Jennie Bond wrote in the Daily Express that the only way Harry would feel comfortable enough to return to the UK with his family would be if he is formally invited – as this would guarantee him the security ‘he believes he needs’.
However, his ‘bombshell of an interview’ might only strain relations further.
She wrote: ‘At the root of the rift is the question of trust.
A later inquest in 2008 concluded that Diana, 36, had been unlawfully killed by the ‘grossly negligent driving’ of Paul, who was being chased by paparazzi at the point of the crash. Pictured: A sea of floral tributes were laid outside the gates of Kensington Palace
The Duke of Sussex’s appeal against the dismissal of his legal challenge over the level of protection he and his family is about his family’s right to security and safety, the court heard
The Duke of Sussex at the Royal Courts of Justice on April 8 during his appeal against a High Court ruling preventing him getting automatic taxpayer-funded police protection in the UK
Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, pictured on Friday as he rejected Harry’s appeal
‘Harry’s father and brother do not trust Harry to keep conversations private. And this loudspeaker of a diatribe against them is not going to make them change their minds.’
Bond has previously commented on the situation, telling Sky News that the Duke was ‘bristling with anger, isn’t he, and resentment. And mistrust of the royal household.
‘And despair over his father’s attitude, I suppose. It’s just such a sad and sorry saga.
‘I had hoped eventually there might be some kind of reconciliation, but clearly, although Harry says he wants reconciliation, he doesn’t see he can do that now.’
Reflecting on Harry’s BBC interview, royal expert Professor Kate Williams questioned whether the seemingly ‘angry and resentful’ duke could ever repair his relationship his father.
‘This is a very significant moment in what will be written about by the historians of the future about Harry,’ she told Sky News.
It came after Harry last night launched a blistering attack on the King, who he complained ‘won’t speak to me’, and claimed to be the victim of an ‘Establishment stitch-up’.
The Duke of Sussex also accused the Royal Household of ‘interfering’ in his long-running battle in His Majesty’s courts to reinstate his police bodyguards.
Members of the Royal Family depart Westminster Abbey after attending the annual Commonwealth Service in London on March 9, 2020
The comments were part of a scathing interview he gave to the BBC after judges ruled against him yesterday.
Harry vowed he would never bring his children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, to Britain, adding that family ties are now so strained he does not even know ‘how much longer my father has’ to live.
‘He’s deeply, deeply angered. And I don’t know where he goes from here.’
It comes as a royal insider claimed that while Harry may want to repair the relationship with his family, Charles is still frustrated and upset with his son.
A friend of the King said it would have been ‘constitutionally improper’ for him to intervene in the court case.
They added: ‘What has frustrated and upset him on a more personal level is the Duke’s failure to respect this principle.
‘And for his supporters to suggest that somehow his father doesn’t care about his family, or should step in.’
In the extraordinary interview, Harry added that he was ‘devastated’ after losing his battle over taxpayer-funded bodyguards – which puts him on the hook for £1.5million in legal costs.
Harry’s statement in full that he issued last night following the loss of his court appeal
He laughed as he revealed ‘someone had told me beforehand’ there was ‘no way to win’.
Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Master of the Rolls, told the duke his ‘grievance’ over downgraded security had not ‘translated into a legal argument’.
And he ruled the original security decision had been a ‘predictable’ and even ‘sensible’ reaction to Megxit – when Harry and Meghan stepped back from being senior royals and left Britain.
Within hours of yesterday’s ruling at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, the duke launched a salvo of jaw-dropping barbs at the Royal Family, including saying: ‘It’s impossible to bring my family back to the UK’.
‘I love my country and always have done. Despite what some people in that country have done,’ Harry added.
‘So I miss the UK. I miss parts of the UK. Of course I do. I think it’s really quite sad that I won’t be able to show my children my homeland.’
Last night Buckingham Palace rebuked Harry’s claims of a establishment stitch-up in a blunt statement.
A spokesperson said: ‘These issues have been examined meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion on each occasion.’
Harry has said he fears for the security of his family. Pictured: Meghan and Harry in New York last month
In the astonishing interview, Prince Harry revealed he did not know how long his father Charles had left (pictured together in 2022)
A source added: ‘It would have been constitutionally improper for His Majesty to intervene while this matter was being considered by the Government and reviewed by the Courts.’
Laying bare his rift with the King and Prince William, following his interview with Oprah Winfrey which alleged racism and then the explosive publication of his stinging memoir, Spare, Harry said he had ‘forgiven them’.
‘There have been so many disagreements, differences between me and some of my family,’ he said.
”Some will never forgive me for writing a book. But I would love reconciliation with my family.
‘I don’t know how much longer my father has. He won’t speak to me because of this security stuff. But it would be nice to reconcile.’
But Harry paired his plea with an accusation that risks a constitutional debate: ‘What I know is interference came from the royal household.’
During the interview in California with the BBC’s Nada Tawfik, Harry claimed only he and the late Queen were on a par in terms of their security risk ‘scores’, as assessed by a Home Office quango.
He added: ‘I’ve been treated differently to everybody else that exists, I have been singled out.’
Yesterday’s ruling is a bitter blow to the duke, who said that, of all his court battles, this one ‘mattered the most’.
He will now be expected to foot the legal bill for taxpayers and his lawyers. The decision to downgrade the security was made by the Home Office’s Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec).
Harry said his ‘jaw dropped’ when he discovered the Royal Household – he named the King’s private secretary Sir Clive Alderton – sat on the Ravec committee. He said: ‘There is a lot of control and ability in my father’s hands.
‘Ultimately this whole thing could be resolved through him.’
Harry last saw the King in February last year, shortly after Charles, 76, was diagnosed with cancer.
In a statement last night, Harry said he would be writing to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper asking her to ‘urgently examine the matter and review the Ravec process’.
Harry believes he has been ‘singled out’ and ‘badly treated’ for ‘unjustified, inferior treatment’ since Megxit five years ago.
His barrister argued that the removal of Met Police armed bodyguards when he is in the UK has left the royal’s life ‘at stake’.
The California-based royal had fought 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 country.
But Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls said in his ruling this afternoon in London that Ravec’s decision ‘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’.
‘These were powerful and moving arguments and that it was plain the Duke of Sussex felt badly treated by the system’, he said.
‘But I concluded, having studied the detail, I could not say that the Duke’s sense of grievance translated into a legal argument to challenge RAVEC’s decision’.
Sir Geoffrey said Harry ‘makes the mistake of confusing superficial analogies’ when comparing himself with other VIPs which had ‘added nothing’ to the legal question.
He added: ‘My conclusion was that the Duke of Sussex’s appeal would be dismissed’.
It means that for now, armed police bodyguards, paid for by the British taxpayer, will not be automatically reinstated for him, Meghan, Archie and Lilibet when they are in the UK.
It raises more questions over whether the Sussexes will visit Britain again.
In a statement last night, Harry said he would be writing to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper asking her to ‘urgently examine the matter and review the Ravec process’.
‘The conditions of my security were not based on threat, risk and impact, they were made based on my role – one that my wife and I wanted to maintain but was ultimately refused,’ he said.
He added: ‘This all comes from the same institutions that preyed upon my mother, that openly campaigned for the removal of our security, and continue to incite hatred towards me, my wife and even our children.’
When asked whether Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer should ‘step in’, Harry told the BBC: ‘I think that based on the judgment that the court has put out today, it clearly states that Ravec are not constrained by law.
‘Again, I wish somebody had said that from the beginning.’
He continued: ‘Yes, I would ask the Prime Minister to step in.
