Earlier this month, Harry returned to London for a two-day Court of Appeal hearing. But the court ruled against him, marking his second failed attempt to challenge the Home Office and RAVEC, the body responsible for royal security. The prince may now face legal costs exceeding £1.5 million.

“I thought it was going to go our way,” Harry admitted. “I’ve uncovered my worst fears… that there was no legal framework that constrains the decisions of RAVEC, of which the Royal Household sit on. I didn’t know that until this process.”

He recalled his shock upon learning the Royal Household had a seat on RAVEC: “One of the first things my lawyer said to me… was: ‘Did you know the royal household sat on RAVEC?’ And my jaw hit the floor.”

When asked why police security should be publicly funded, Harry replied that private security lacks jurisdiction in foreign countries. “Police protection is effective protection… If people who’ve chosen public office get protection, why not someone born into this role who’s served his country, completed two tours of Afghanistan, and lives under increasing threats?”

Pressed on whether security was used to punish him for stepping back, Harry said, “I don’t think that anymore. Now I know security was used as leverage.” He warned the ruling might set a precedent “that security can be used to control members of the family… effectively imprisoning them.”

Although he hasn’t ruled out appealing to the Supreme Court, Harry indicated he’s not eager to keep fighting. “There is way too much suffering and conflict in the world… At the heart of this is a family dispute… It makes me really, really sad that we’re here five years later.”

He added: “Please just look at the facts, look at the risks, look at the threat. If anything were to happen to me, my wife, or my father’s grandchildren… look where the responsibility lies. There is a duty of care that has been completely thrown out the window, and that doesn’t feel great.”

In response to Harry’s remarks, Buckingham Palace issued a brief statement: “All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion.”