The real reason Charles will not speak to Harry is revealed after outcast royal said ‘it would be nice to reconcile’ with his father

Prince Harry’s allegation that his father ‘doesn’t speak to him’ amid a long-running row over the loss of his taxpayer-funded security is complicated by legal considerations unique to the reigning monarch, the King’s biographer has revealed.

Robert Hardman, Daily Mail journalist and author of Charles III: The Inside Story, said that Harry’s perception that his father doesn’t care about him is far from the truth – and his claim that Charles could step in to end the legal dispute over his security is false.

According to Hardman, the King is unable to speak to his son about the legal dispute because Charles is the ‘fountain of justice’ in the UK – all legal authority and power ultimately stems from the monarch’s courts.

With King Charles III as the cerom figurehead of the legal system – and the row over Harry’s security effectively taking place in his courts – any intervention from the monarch may have been deemed as improper.

According to Hardman, there can be no reconciliation between Charles and Harry until the Duke of Sussex drops his litigation and stops speaking publicly about his feud with his family.

Harry gave the BBC a scathing interview about his family last night, in which he also claimed that he ‘doesn’t know how long his father has left to live’ and that members of his family will ‘never forgive him’ or writing a book.

Hardman, author of the recently-published official biography, told MailOnline that had the monarch stepped into the row it could have led to a ‘serious constitutional issue’.

As such, the monarch has to ‘take a step backward’.

He said: ‘Under our legal system the monarch is the source of justice. It’s why when you go into the courts there’s the King’s coat of arms above the judge.

‘The monarch is the basis of justice in our system. You can’t have the head of the judiciary getting involved in a court case. It’s as simple as that.

‘As one expert is quoted in my biography, you have the unhappy position of the king’s son suing the king’s ministers in the king’s court.

‘Had the King spoken to Harry, it could have meant the whole case would have collapsed. 

‘It would have raised the prospect of a serious conflict of interest and that could have led to a constitutional problem.’

Hardman added that reconciliation between the pair could still occur, but would be ‘still pretty far off’ unless certain factors change.

He said: ”It’s very clear that Harry loves his father and his family – and his family loves him.

But for the pair to reconcile, two things need to happen – first Harry needs to finish all his litigation and secondly, he needs to stop discussing it in public.

‘Everyone would love to see them reconcile, but it’s not going to happen – not at least at the moment.’

Royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams branded the Duke’s interview as ‘confusing’, as he thinks Prince Harry implied his father could ‘arrange this’ 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 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.’

Even without the legal restrictions on Charles becoming involved, insiders claim that the King had wanted to improve relations with Harry – but he has become increasingly ‘frustrated’ by the Duke’s outspoken revelations about the royal family and the way he has handled his security row.

One insider told The Sun: ‘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.’

Meanwhile a source close to the King told The Times: ‘His son suing the King’s government in the King’s court over a decision taken by a committee that decides on the King’s security makes it incredibly tricky for Charles.’ 

Revelations around why the King has not intervened in the security row come as:

In a blistering interview with the BBC, the Duke, who left Britain in 2020 for a life first in Canada and later in California, 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 about his disappointment and sparked speculation about his father’s health after saying that he ‘doesn’t know how much longer [the King] has left’.

He also revealed he has had ‘so 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, who he complained ‘won’t speak to me’, and 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.

The comments were part of a scathing interview he gave to the BBC after judges ruled against him yesterday.

Harry vowed he would never bring his children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, to Britain, adding that family ties are now so strained he does not even know ‘how much longer my father has’ to live.

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.’

In the extraordinary interview, Harry added that he was ‘devastated’ after losing his battle over taxpayer-funded bodyguards – which puts him on the hook for £1.5million in legal costs. 

He 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 believes he has been ‘singled out’ and ‘badly treated’ for ‘unjustified, inferior treatment’ since Megxit five years ago.

His 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. 

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