Prince Harry Says UK Return "Impossible" Without Security, Calls for Reconciliation with Royal Family

 California – Prince Harry has said it is “impossible” for him to return to the United Kingdom with his wife and children following the High Court’s ruling against his legal challenge over security arrangements. Speaking candidly in an interview with the BBC, the Duke of Sussex expressed his desire for reconciliation with his family, while voicing deep frustration over what he described as institutional resistance and political entanglement surrounding his case.

“For the time being, it’s impossible for me to take my family back to the UK safely,” said Prince Harry. “I can’t see a world in which I would be bringing my wife and children back to the UK at this point… I love my country. I always have done, despite what some people in that country have done. I miss the UK. And it’s really quite sad I won’t be able to show my children my homeland.”

The remarks come in the wake of his unsuccessful attempt to overturn a decision by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), which downgraded his security status after he and Meghan Markle stepped back from royal duties in 2020. Though offered a "bespoke" security arrangement, Harry contended that it was inadequate and argued Ravec had failed to follow its own protocols, including convening a risk management board (RMB).

The Duke said that while he had not asked King Charles to intervene directly, he believed the monarch could play a constructive role. “I can only come to the UK safely if I am invited, and there is a lot of control and ability in my father’s hands. Ultimately, this whole thing could be resolved through him, not by intervening, but by stepping aside and allowing the experts to do what is necessary and to carry out an RMB,” he said.

However, constitutional conventions prevent the monarch from interfering in matters under active government and judicial review. While the royal household may be consulted on protection arrangements, the court confirmed that final decisions lie with the chair of Ravec.

Appealing to the new Labour government, Harry urged Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to review the committee’s conduct. “This all was initiated under a previous government. There is now a new government. I have had it described to me by people who know about the facts that this is a good old-fashioned establishment stitch-up. And that’s what it feels like,” he said.

Asked directly if the Prime Minister should intervene, Harry responded, “Yes, I would ask the prime minister to step in. I would ask Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, to look at this very, very carefully and I would ask her to review Ravec and its members, because if it is an expert body, then what is the royal household’s role there if it is not to influence and decide what they want for the members of their household?”

Senior cabinet member Pat McFadden, however, suggested such intervention would be unlikely. “We have experts who do that for a reason,” he told Sky News. “I’m not sure it’s a good idea for any politician to be saying that that person requires this level or that level of security.”

Addressing his strained relationship with his family, the Duke acknowledged long-standing rifts. “There have been so many disagreements, differences between me and some of my family. This current situation, that has been ongoing now for five years with regard to human life and safety as the sticking point. It is the only thing that’s left.”

He added: “Of course some members of my family will never forgive me for writing a book, of course they will never forgive me for lots of things, but … I would love reconciliation with my family. There’s no point in continuing to fight any more. Life is precious. 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.”

“If they want that, it’s entirely up to them,” he said.

Although he has formally stepped away from the institution, Harry emphasized that he remains tied to the royal family in principle. “Whether I have an official role or not is irrelevant to the threats, risk and impact on the reputation of the UK if something was to happen,” he said. “What really worries me more than anything else about today’s decision [is that] it set a new precedent that security can be used to control members of the family, and effectively, what it does is imprison other members of the family from being able to choose a different life.”

He also alluded to troubling revelations from court disclosures, claiming: “I discovered that some people want history to repeat itself, which is pretty dark.” When asked to elaborate, he declined.

In a statement published on the Sussexes' official website, the Duke criticised what he characterised as politically motivated decision-making. “Ravec’s ability to make decisions outside of its own policies and the so-called political sensitivities of my case have prevailed over the need for fair and consistent decision-making. The court has decided to defer to this, revealing a sad truth: my hands are tied in seeking legal recourse against the establishment.”

He continued: “This all comes from the same institutions that preyed upon my mother, that openly campaigned for the removal of our security, and that continue to incite hatred towards me, my wife and even our children, while at the same time protecting the very power that they should be holding accountable.”

Reflecting on the court's decision, he said: “Not so much devastated with the loss [as] about the people behind the decision feeling as though this is OK. Is it a win for them? I’m sure there are some people out there, probably most likely the people that wish me harm, [who] consider this a huge win.”

He confirmed that he does not intend to pursue further legal action, saying the ruling had “proven that there was no way to win this through the courts.”

A spokesperson for Buckingham Palace said: “All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion.”