Anger grows at Prince Harry for saying ‘I don’t know how much longer’ cancer-battling King Charles, 76, has left to live as royal ‘blows his chance of reconciliation with his father’

Prince Harry faces criticism for sparking speculation surrounding His Majesty’s health after saying he didn’t ‘know how much longer’ his 76-year-old father, King Charles, has left to live. 

In a bombshell interview with the BBC, the Duke of Sussex, 40, revealed he wanted to reconcile with the royals, while alleging his father, the monarch, was not currently speaking to him.

It comes after Prince Harry lost his legal challenge over his UK security arrangements at the Court of Appeal. The Duke could potentially appeal the decision, which would then put it in the hands of the Supreme Court. 

‘There have been so many disagreements between myself and some of my family,’ he said: ‘Of course, they will never forgive me for lots of things but… there’s no point in continuing to fight anymore.’ 

He continued: ‘Life is precious. I don’t know how much longer my father has, he won’t speak to me because of this security stuff. It would be nice to reconcile.’

It comes after the King recently opened up in a message to fellow cancer sufferers as he invited them to Buckingham Palace to recognise the incredible work of community-based cancer organisations. 

His Majesty, who is still undergoing regular treatments as someone ‘living with cancer’, previously described the moment of being informed of having the disease as ‘daunting and ‘frightening’.

Frustration has grown towards Harry since his shock interview, as former press secretary to the late Queen, Alisa Anderson branded his comments about the King’s health ‘unhelpful’ amid continued treatment for an unspecified cancer. 

Criticism of Harry’s interview comes as:  

 

Commenting that the royal family would be ‘raising their eyes heavenwards’ she told Sky News: ‘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.’

‘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.’ 

Royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams branded the interview as ‘confusing’, as he thinks Prince Harry implied his father could have ‘arrange[d]’ a possible solution in his position as monarch. 

‘He didn’t say that exactly, because he said that his father would step aside and let the experts decide. But then, on the other hand, that implied that his father was part of the process that was against him,’ he said.

‘I think people will find it confusing, because, in my opinion, it was confused’

‘He is hung up [on the legal case] because it links directly back to what happened to his mother and that was referred to in the interview, not Diana by name, but ‘the past repeating itself’,’ he added.

‘He believes that the Royal household is completely poisoned against him,’ he said: ‘This is where you get the conspiracy aspect, you could even argue there is a fantasy aspect of it.

‘He believes that there are very malign forces out to get him or out to get him and his family. He believes there are those who want him to be in a vulnerable state.’

Majesty Magazine’s managing editor Joe Little said: ‘From what Harry is saying, despite admitting that he has not spoken to his father for some time, I thought it sent out a bit of a mixed message, really.

‘Is Harry suggesting that the King isn’t as well as we are led to believe?’

Mr Little described the overall situation as ‘a very unfortunate state of affairs’ and is uncertain if it helps repair tensions since Harry and Meghan stepped away from being working members of the royal family as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in 2020.

He added: ‘I think for somebody who is seeking reconciliation with his father, his brother and his family, his royal family as a whole, I think the very last thing that he should have been doing was talking publicly.

‘He clearly feels aggrieved at the outcome of this legal action but there is a great deal to be gained by maintaining a dignified silence – sadly, as we know from from past events, this isn’t Harry’s way of doing things.

‘Maybe lessons just haven’t been learned from previous occasions where also silence would have been the very best thing to maintain.’

It also comes amid claims from an insider that King Charles III hoped to reconcile with his estranged son before the interview aired, but their reunion would be dependent on Harry’s reaction to his legal loss. 

An insider told The Sun before the interview was broadcast: ‘But there is now a chance for his son to move forwards rather than dwell on past grievances. 

‘From his father’s perspective, the door has been shut by necessity while this painful issue played out through the proper judicial channels — but it has not been locked forever, nor the key thrown away.’ 

However the monarch was said to be upset and frustrated with his son, due to the pressure he had put on taxpayers, the insider claimed, whilst he was also annoyed by suggestions from Harry’s supporters that ‘he doesn’t care about [The Duke’s] family’.

They also alleged to the publication that controversy surrounding the security legal case as well as Harry’s decisions in recent years had only worsened the family situation. 

They added: ‘The King has always considered this was an issue for His Government and courts to resolve and that for him to intervene in any way would be constitutionally improper.

‘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, click his fingers, and demand a form of protection that the leading national experts on protection may or may not consider necessary on any given visit.’

During the shocking interview, Prince Harry also 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. 

Harry 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.’

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 of the ‘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. 

‘At the root of the rift is the question of trust,’ she wrote: ‘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 also commented on the situation on Sky News, saying 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.

‘He’s deeply, deeply angered. And I don’t know where he goes from here.’

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, as he 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.

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.’

During the extraordinary interview, the Duke of Sussex also 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.’

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’.

‘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.

Harry’s 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 yesterday 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. 

And it raises more questions over whether the Sussexes will visit Britain again.