‘Trust has been blown out the window’: Harry's bombshell claims 'deeply hurtful' to family, expert warns
3 May 2025, 16:49 | Updated: 3 May 2025, 16:53
Prince Harry's interview after losing his security case is likely to have damaged the trust between him and the rest of his family, a royal commentator has told LBC.
Listen to this article
Loading audio...
Jennie Bond told LBC's Ali Miraj that the Duke's public claims about royal household interference in his battle to get taxpayer-funded security would have been "deeply hurtful" to his father, King Charles.
The Duke of Sussex spoke about his strained relationship with his family in an interview after he lost a legal battle over taxpayer-funded security while in the UK.
In the interview, Harry made reference to his father King Charles's cancer battle and claimed he “doesn’t know how long” his father has left.
Ms Bond said: "Trust has been completely blown out of the window.
Read more: Another trustee at charity founded by Prince Harry resigns
"And if they can't trust that Harry will conduct things in private, I don't think that they will want to talk to him."
Earlier, the late Queen’s former press secretary hit out at Harry, accusing him of adding to speculation about the King’s health.
Harry ‘singled out’ for ‘inferior’ treatment appeal over UK security told
Ailsa Anderson told Sky News: "Prince Harry is saying 'I don't know how long my father has' - that's going to cause real concern and more speculation in the media and the wider public about what his diagnosis is, which is incredibly unhelpful going forward.
She added: "What you don't want to do is have your private life played out in the media. So if you truly want reconciliation, you'll do it in private, not in a BBC News interview."
In the bombshell interview, Harry said: "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."
In reference to his father’s cancer battle, Harry said: "There's no point in continuing to fight anymore.
“Life is precious. I don't know how much longer my father has. He won't speak to me because of this security stuff."
The Duke of Sussex said it's “impossible” to take his family back to the UK safely after losing the challenge.
Speaking to BBC News after the decision he said: “For the time being, it’s impossible for me to take my family back to the UK safely.”
He added: “I can’t see a world in which I would be bringing my wife and children back to the UK at this point, and the things that they’re going to miss is, well, everything you know.
“I love my country I always have done, despite what some people in that country have done.
“So you know? I miss the UK, I miss parts of the UK. Of course I do. And I think that’s it’s really quite sad that I won’t be able to show my children my homeland.”
Harry had appealed against 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 UK.
His barristers told a two-day hearing in April that he was “singled out” for “inferior treatment” and that Ravec did not follow its own “terms of reference” when deciding his security.
The Home Office, which is legally responsible for Ravec’s decisions, opposed the appeal, with its lawyers telling the court that a “bespoke” process was used for Harry and that the duke had “no proper basis” for challenging Ravec’s decision.
In a ruling on Friday, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis dismissed Harry’s appeal.
Reading a summary of the decision, Sir Geoffrey said:”The duke was in effect stepping in and out of the cohort of protection provided by Ravec.
“Outside the UK, he was outside the cohort, but when in the UK, his security would be considered as appropriate.”
He continued: “It was impossible to say that this reasoning was illogical or inappropriate, indeed it seemed sensible.”
Sir Geoffrey also said Ravec’s decision was “understandable and perhaps predictable”.
