BBC news
The Duke of Sussex told the BBC that “he would love a reconciliation” with the royal family, in an emotional interview in which he said he was “devastated” by losing a legal challenge about his security in the United Kingdom.
Prince Harry said the king “won to talk to me because security things”, but did not want to fight anymore and that “I didn’t know how much my father has.”
The prince spoke with BBC News in California after losing an appeal on the security levels to which he and his family are entitled while they are in the United Kingdom.
Buckingham Palace said: “All these issues have been repeatedly examined and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion achieved on each occasion.”
After Friday’s court ruling, the prince said: “I can’t see a world in which I would bring my wife and children to the United Kingdom at this time.”
“There is a leg so many disagreements between me and some of my family,” he added, but now he had “forgiven them.”
“I would love reconciliation with my family. It makes no sense to continue fighting more, life is beautiful,” said Prince Harry, who said the dispute over his safety “had always been the point of conflict.”
The prince had wanted to cancel the changes in his safety that were introduced in 2020 while giving up as a real real and moved to the United States.
Saying that he felt “disappointed,” he described his court as a “good establishment to the old sewing” and blamed the Royal House for influencing the decision to reduce his safety.
When the king had been asked to intervene in the security dispute, Prince Harry said: “I never asked him to intervene; I asked him to get out of the way and let the experts do their job.”
The prince said that his duration of treatment the process of deciding his security had “discovered my worst fears.”
He said about the decision: “I am devastated, not as much as devastated with the loss that I am about the people behind the decision, I feel that this is fine. Is it a victory for them?”
He continued: “I am sure there are some people out there, most likely, people who wish to harm me, [who] Consider this a great victory. “
Prince Harry said that the decision to eliminate his automatic security right impacts it “every day”, and has left it in a position in which he can only safely return to the United Kingdom invited by the royal family, as he would do with enough security in them.
Getty imagesThe prince said he changes to his security state in 2020 who had impacted not only him, but his wife and his children too.
He continued to say: “Everyone knew that they were putting us at risk in 2020 and they hoped that he knew the risk would force us to return.
“But then, when you realize that it didn’t work, don’t you want to keep us safe?
“Whether you are the Government, the Royal Home, whether you are my father, my family, despite all our differences, don’t you only want to guarantee our security?”
When asked if the United Kingdom was lost, he added: “I love my country, I have always done it, despite what some people do in that country … and I think it is really sad that my Kinteland has been able to show.”
Prince Harry said he would not seek an additional legal challenge, saying that Friday’s ruling had “demonstrated that there was no way to win this through the courts.”
“I wish some would have told me that in advance,” he said, that the ruling had a “surprise.”
He continued: “This, in the heart, is a family dispute, and it makes me very, very sad that we are sitting here today, five years later, where a decision was made that probably, in fact, I know, to keep roofs.”
Prince Harry spoke with the BBC shortly after losing his lateral challenge against the United Kingdom government about the level of security to which he and his family have the right when they are visited.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the case of the Prince, which depended on how an official committee made the decision to eliminate its eligibility for automatic full -scale protection in line with what other higher real reais receives.
On Friday, the Court ruled that Prince Harry had made “powerful” arguments about the level of threat facing his family, but said that his “sense of complaint” did not translate into a legal argument. ”
His legal complaint focused on a committee called the protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC), which the Senior Royals on behalf of the Ministry of Interior, and were chaired at that time by Sir Richard Mottram.
According to the regulations of the Committee, Prince Harry argued, his case should have been submitted to the RAVEC Risk Management Board (RMB), which would have evaluated the threats for their safety and family, but that did not happen.
On Friday, the superior judges said that the committee had diverted politics by making their decision of 2020 on the security of the prince, but concluded that he had “sensible” bone because his complexity of his circumstances.
Prince Harry said his “jaw hit the floor” when he discovered that a representative of the Royal House sat in the RAVEC committee, and said that Friday’s ruling had shown that his decision -making process was more converges.
He said that the Royal Home had a “interference” of the leg in the 2020 decision, which said it turned out in its condition that the lowest real at risk is reduced to the lowest risk “during the night.”
“Then, one questions how it is possible and also the reason behind that at that time,” he added.
Prince Harry asked the United Kingdom Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and the Secretary of the Interior, Yvette Cooper, who intervene in their case of security and check how the RAVEC committee operates.
In a statement published later on Friday, the prince said he would write to Cooper to “ask him to urgently examine the matter and review the RAVEC process.”
A spokesman from the Ministry of Interior said that the department was “pleased” that the sentence had been in favor of the government.
They added: “The United Kingdom government protection system is rigorous and proportioned.
“It is our long data policy not to provide detailed information about these arrangements, since doing so could compromise their integrity and affect people’s safety.”
ADDITIONAL REPORTS OF SEA SEDDON
