Prince Harry said he would like to reconcile his family in Great Britain during an emotional interview with the BBC in which he admitted that he had no idea of his father's prognosis, King Charles III, who has cancer, and expressed his desire to put an end to their painful fracture.
The interview was released hours after Harry lost the last round of his legal battle for his security financed with public funds in the country.
Speaking in California, where he lives with his wife Meghan and their two children, Harry said: “I would like to reconcile with my family”. He added: “It no longer makes sense to continue fighting. Life is precious. I don't know how long it has my father. It won't talk to me because of this safety stuff. But it would be nice to reconcile.”
The king announced that he had been diagnosed with an unscrewed form of cancer at the beginning of 2024 and has since received weekly treatments.
Harry, Charles's younger son, wrote in detail on the break between him and the other members of the royal family in his 2023 memories book, “RESTE”. He recognized in the interview on Friday that the book had proved to be divisive.
“Of course, some members of my family will never forgive me for writing a book,” he said. “Of course they will never forgive me for many things.” But he said he believed that the dispute that he should have received automatic police protection in Great Britain was the last “attack point” remained in the conflict, and expressed the hope that Charles could help resolve him.
Harry fought the decision to remove automatic police protection given to the members of the royal family. That move was made after he resigned from his official role and left the country in 2020.
Harry lost the previous phase of the case in February 2024, but appealed. That sentence arrived on Friday.
Geoffrey Vos, one of the three judges who rejected Harry's case, told the hearing on Friday that a “tailor -made” trial adopted by a government committee after moving to California, allowing British officials to make decisions during his visits to Great Britain, on a case -by -case basis, was legitimate.
He said that the decision to perform the downgrading of Harry's automatic protection was “an understandable and perhaps predictable reaction to the Duke of the Sussex who took a step back from real duties and left the United Kingdom”
The sentence is a setback for Harry, who spent more than three years to fight the deeply personal case. In evidence presented to the Court, Harry's legal team told threats to his security and described “further layers of racism and extremism” who said they were guiding abuses towards his family. After participating in the hours of auditions at the Court of Appeal last month, Harry told the Daily Telegraph that he was “exhausted” and “overwhelmed” by the legal trial.
In court, his lawyers said they had been left with a “lower treatment” that he put at risk his security and that of his wife Meghan and their two children. And they claimed that the decision to withdraw the normal level of protection for the real had violated official policy.
The 2020 decision was made by an organ called the Executive Committee for the protection of Royalty and public characters, known as Ravec, which brings together government officials, police and members of the royal family.
Harry began his legal challenge in September 2021. At the beginning of the case, he offered to repay or pay the cost of the security measures alone, but Ravec decided that the move would be wrong “in principle”.
It was said that the committee was concerned that allowing private payment would “reduce the availability” of a limited pool of narrow protection agents in Great Britain, where the police do not habitually transport pistols and submit to an intensive specialist training for the role.
Harry lost a legal challenge for the financing decision in 2023 and a judge of the High Court rejected his case for wider reasons in February 2024.
He was granted permission to appeal three months later, but only on legal points concerning if the committee had violated his policy on how to decide which individuals should receive protection.
As he gave the sentence of the Court of Appeal on Friday, the judge Vos agreed that his policy was not followed, but he said that it was for “good reasons” and in accordance with the risk assessments and real protection skills.
Judge Vos recognized that Harry feared for the security of his family and “he felt seriously cared for by the system”, but said that this did not make the committee's decisions illegal.
While the case was underway, Harry visited Great Britain on several occasions, also for his grandmother's funeral, Queen Elizabeth II, and for the coronation of his father, King Charles III.
The high court felt that each visit had triggered the questions to the public protection committee, which are now considered for Harry on a case -by -case basis and has led to the use of private security.