Prince Harry's BBC interview shows 'ongoing struggles' with Royal Family and 'memories of Diana'
Prince Harry's recent interview with the BBC, following his latest legal defeat, was a deliberate attempt to send a strong message to the Royal family, says a consultant psychiatrist. The Duke of Sussex has been criticised for his comments made to the BBC regarding his loss of security while in the UK, where he targeted his father, the King, and even accused the Court of Appeal and the Government of a 'stitch-up'.
Harley Street doctor, Dr Raj Persaud, has weighed in on Harry's decision to go public, suggesting that the duke's emotional outburst was a strategy to communicate with Charles and other members of his estranged family. Dr Persaud said: "With other avenues of communication apparently cut off – he claimed the King will not take his calls – this was quite possibly a bid to garner attention on the public stage in a manner they simply cannot ignore, quite possibly a form of emotional blackmail."
Dr Persaud further suggested that the underlying message is that Harry will continue to speak out and share his grievances until he is taken seriously by his family. Dr Persaud also noted that the Duke seems unable to move past the issue, despite previously losing similar legal battles.
As Harry reiterated his stance repeatedly, Dr Persaud observed that he "appeared psychologically stuck, so convinced of the logic and morality of his position that he couldn't seem to grasp that, even if he is right, he is still not getting what he wants", reports the Mirror.
The psychiatrist concluded that Harry is likely still haunted by the tragic death of his mother, which is influencing his quest for security and affecting his decision-making process.
"Yet reacting to this latest legal disappointment by throwing fresh grenades seems like a hasty, ill-though-out tactic, and one which will certainly not serve to soften differences between the Duke and Palace," he said.
"He appears to be in difficulty and, I would suggest respectfully, needs help to move on and really start a process of rapprochement with his family. Sadly this is unlikely to happen though the prism of another angry media interview showing his apparently trapped mindset."
This sentiment is shared by Palace insiders, who believe that Harry's outburst will only further deepen any rift with his family. His remark about the King's cancer, where he stated that he "doesn't know how much longer he has left", was deemed to be in particularly "poor taste".
Harry, 40, spoke with BBC News on Friday, May 2, just a short time after a judge dismissed his legal challenge regarding his reduced security following his step back as a working member of the Royal family back in 2020.
In the recent interview, Prince Harry said: "I would love reconciliation with my family. There's no point in continuing to fight anymore.
"Life is precious. I don't know how much longer my father has," he continued, referencing King Charles. "He won't speak to me because of this security stuff, but it would be nice to reconcile."
Harry then stated that the problem with his security "could be resolved" through King Charles. "There is a lot of control and ability in my father's hands," he said.
"Ultimately, this whole thing could be resolved through him. Not necessarily by intervening, but by stepping aside, allowing the experts to do what is necessary."
The palace has repeatedly rejected the notion that the King can reinstate Harry's security detail. In reaction, a source disclosed to the Sunday Telegraph that this shows there is "nothing that can be trusted to remain private" and "as for their being no contact, well, he has just proven why, yet again".
And another insider told ITV News: "For a son who claims to want a family reconciliation, it's certainly a very curious way to build bridges or offer olive branches. His beloved grandmother would have been truly horrified. The King is a kind man with a warm heart and quite enough on his plate to deal with, without all this from his son."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Palestine Action co-founder set to challenge terror ban in High Court
Huda Ammori is seeking to challenge Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe Palestine Action under anti-terror laws, after the group claimed an action which saw two Voyager planes damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20. On July 4, Ammori failed in a High Court bid to temporarily block the ban coming into effect, with the Court of Appeal dismissing a challenge to that decision less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5. READ MORE: 'Beyond shameful': Harvie urges SNP to explain secret talks with Israeli diplomat The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, under the Terrorism Act 2000. The Labour Government is opposing the bid for the legal challenge to be allowed to proceed, with the hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain due to begin at 10.30am on Monday at the Royal Courts of Justice. Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident, and are due to face trial in early 2027. At the hearing earlier this month, Raza Husain KC, for Ammori, said the proscription was an 'ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power'. He also said that the Home Office 'has still not sufficiently articulated or evidenced a national security reason that proscription should be brought into effect now'. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that the harm caused by the ban would be 'far-reaching' and could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Mr Justice Chamberlain said that an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and 'preceded' the incident at RAF Brize Norton. READ MORE: 3 women charged under Terrorism Act after breaching Edinburgh arms factory Dismissing the bid for a temporary block, the judge said that the 'harm which would ensue' if a block was not ordered was 'insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force'. He added that some of the 'consequences feared by the claimant' were 'overstated'. At a late-night Court of Appeal hearing, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis threw out a bid to challenge the High Court's decision, finding that there was 'no real prospect of a successful appeal'. Since the ban came into force, dozens of people have been arrested at protests in cities including London, Manchester and Cardiff, including an 83-year-old reverend. Over the weekend, more than 100 people were arrested across the UK under suspicion of terror offences at protests against the Palestine Action ban. There have also been several people charged in Scotland under suspicion of terror offences. Most recently, an activist was arrested on Friday at a protest in support of Palestine Action in Glasgow for holding a sign which read, "Genocide in Palestine, time to take action". And on Thursday, The National told how a man was charged under terror law for displaying a poster in the window of his property which read "Support Palestine Action! Free Palestine". There were two pro-Palestine protests which took place in Edinburgh on Saturday, although no arrests have taken place at the time of writing. Separately, three women are due to appear in Edinburgh Sheriff Court on Monday morning under the Terrorism Act after a van was driven into the fence of the Leonardo factory in Edinburgh.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Palestine Action founder to challenge proscription at High Court
On July 4, Ms Ammori failed in a High Court bid to temporarily block the ban coming into effect, with the Court of Appeal dismissing a challenge to that decision less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, under the Terrorism Act 2000. Read More: The Government is opposing the bid for the legal challenge to be allowed to proceed, with the hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain due to begin at 10.30am on Monday at the Royal Courts of Justice. Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident, and are due to face trial in early 2027. Since the ban came into force, dozens of people have been arrested at protests in cities including London, Manchester and Cardiff, including an 83-year-old reverend. On Friday a man was arrested and charged under the Terrorism Act in Glasgow for holding a sign reading 'Genocide in Palestine, time to take action'. At the hearing earlier this month, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, said the proscription was an 'ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power'. He also said that the Home Office 'has still not sufficiently articulated or evidenced a national security reason that proscription should be brought into effect now'. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that the harm caused by the ban would be 'far-reaching' and could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Mr Justice Chamberlain said that an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and 'preceded' the incident at RAF Brize Norton. Dismissing the bid for a temporary block, the judge said that the 'harm which would ensue' if a block was not ordered was 'insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force'. He added that some of the 'consequences feared by the claimant' were 'overstated'. At a late-night Court of Appeal hearing, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis threw out a bid to challenge the High Court's decision, finding that there was 'no real prospect of a successful appeal'.
Scotsman
3 hours ago
- Scotsman
Who's the Vylan of the piece?
In the wake of the Bob Vylan controversy, Douglas McConnell takes a look at Glastonbury, free speech and Scots law Sign up to our Scotsman Money newsletter, covering all you need to know to help manage your money. Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The 2025 Glastonbury Festival made headlines far beyond the music world when punk-rap duo Bob Vylan led the crowd in chants of 'Death to the IDF'. Broadcast live before being removed by the BBC, the incident prompted condemnation from political leaders and ignited a criminal investigation in England. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The controversy reopened complex questions about hate speech, protest and legal thresholds, especially in light of Scotland's newly enforced hate crime legislation. My colleague, David Duncan, wrote earlier this year about how Scotland's new hate crime laws apply to individuals. But this is something different – a public performance, broadcast to thousands, where the audience isn't just incidental, it's central. Bobby Vylan of the Bob Vylan duo at this year's Glastonbury festival (Picture:) Although the chant occurred in England, it provides a useful lens through which to examine how Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, in force since April 2024, might address such speech. The Scottish legislation consolidates and updates previous hate crime statutes. It criminalises conduct that is: Threatening or abusive; and Intended to stir up hatred against groups defined by protected characteristics, including race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, transgender identity, age, and variations in sex characteristics. It also introduces specific 'stirring up hatred' offences, which require not only abusive or threatening language but clear intent to incite hatred. Notably, the Act includes built-in protections for freedom of expression, aiming to safeguard genuine political discourse and critical commentary that doesn't cross into incitement. Bob Vylan's chant against the IDF (Israel Defence Forces) presents a legal grey area. The IDF is a state military body, not itself a protected group. But if a court interpreted the chant as a stand-in for hostility toward Jewish people, it could potentially fall within the law's scope under religious or racial hatred provisions. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In Scotland, the key prosecutorial questions would be: Did the performer intend to stir up hatred, not just express opposition to Israeli military policy? Was the chant directed at a protected group, or clearly framed as political dissent? How would a reasonable observer interpret its tone, content and impact? The Bob Vylan controversy reopened complex questions about hate speech, says Douglas McConnell The performers could argue the chant was rooted in protest against state violence, not hostility toward any religion or ethnicity. This would engage the Act's freedom of expression defence, which allows controversial views so long as they don't provoke hatred. While English law criminalises stirring up racial or religious hatred under the Public Order Act 1986, its focus is whether the speech is likely to stir up hatred, not whether it was intended. Scotland's Act, though broader in scope, has a higher evidentiary threshold – proof of intent. Nonetheless, the Scottish law's clarity and breadth could arguably make prosecution more viable, depending how courts interpret the chant's intent and implied meaning. Scotland's newer framework was designed to tackle modern hate expressions, including online speech and performance. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This controversy also taps into Scotland's wider cultural debates, and boundaries between 'cancel culture,' accountability, and censorship. Some view legal mechanisms as protections for vulnerable groups, while others fear the potential chilling effects on protest and dissent. Had the Glastonbury performance taken place in Scotland, prosecution under the 2021 Hate Crime Act would be possible, but far from guaranteed. Intent, interpretation and context would all be crucial. The law is designed to protect against dangerous hate speech while safeguarding freedom of expression, but navigating that line requires careful legal and cultural judgment. In the court of public opinion, the chant has already been met with disapproval. In a Scottish court, the outcome would be far more nuanced.
