Full interview: Prince Harry tells BBC about King Charles, whether he'd return to U.K. and more

[0:00] Prince Harry, thank you for speaking with the BBC, just as the court decision is out, [0:04] which obviously didn't go in your favour. [0:06] I want to start by asking what this means now for your family. [0:10] Will you no longer take your children back to the UK? [0:15] I think it's probably too soon to tell and too soon to say. [0:19] But obviously pretty gutted about the decision. [0:24] We thought it was going to go our way. [0:25] But it certainly has proven that there was no way to win this through the courts. [0:32] I wish someone had told me that beforehand. [0:36] But yeah, the decision has been a surprise as well as not a surprise. [0:45] So yeah, for the time being, it's impossible for me to take my family back to the UK safely. [0:52] You're obviously very deeply affected by this. [0:55] What memories, experiences, had you hoped your children, Archie and Lilibet, [1:02] would have had that you think they won't be able to now with this decision? [1:07] Well, for a start, the only time that I've come back to the UK is sadly for funerals or court cases [1:14] with the odd charitable function where I can in between that. [1:19] I put myself at risk for that, but I will continue on with a life of public service. [1:26] So I will always support the charities and the people that mean so much to me. [1:29] I can't see a world in which I would be bringing my wife and children back to the UK at this point. [1:41] And the things that they're going to miss is, well, everything. [1:45] You know, I love my country. [1:46] I always have done, despite what some people in that country have done. [1:51] So, you know, I miss the UK. [1:56] I miss parts of the UK. [1:57] Of course I do. [1:58] And I think that it's really quite sad that I won't be able to show, you know, my children my homeland. [2:06] And as you say, you've gone back several times during this years-long battle. [2:11] What about the security arrangements that were in place made you feel it would be unsafe for you and your family? [2:16] There's only so much that I can say because of the redaction process and the national security matters at hand. [2:25] But everything. [2:29] Because in the beginning of 2020, I was scored the highest as far as risk was concerned. [2:37] And then overnight, I was reduced to the lowest without actually going through the risk management board. [2:44] So one does question how that is even possible and also the motive behind that at the time. [2:49] And that was in 2020. [2:52] And as hard as it is to appreciate or understand why the decision was made the way that it was in 2020, [3:01] the hardest thing for me has been the fix of that decision for the last five years. [3:05] The fact that I still haven't had a risk management board assessment done for me over the last five years. [3:15] Everybody else within this group of people get it at the minimum once a year. [3:21] So again, I would not have taken this far if I didn't have compelling evidence of facts that reveal why the decision was made. [3:39] And I'm sitting here today talking to you where, you know, we've lost the appeal, but the other side have won in keeping me unsafe. [3:52] So again, there's a lot of question marks that a lot of people will have. [3:56] I have all of the truth. I have all of the knowledge now throughout the legal process. [4:01] I've uncovered my worst fears. [4:05] And to now know today, based on this judgment, that there was no legal framework that constrains the decisions of this body, Ravec, of which the royal household sit on. [4:17] And I didn't know that until this legal process in 2021. [4:21] One of the first things my lawyer said to me was, as disclosure started, or as this process started, she turned around and said, [4:28] did you know that the royal household sat on Ravec? And my jaw hit the floor. [4:33] Well, I want to ask you about that because the king's private secretary sits on Ravec now. [4:39] Sir Clive Waterton, yep. [4:41] Do you wish your father... [4:42] And another person as well, but yes. [4:44] Do you wish your father had intervened, despite how that may have looked? [4:51] I've never asked him to intervene. I've asked him to step out of the way and let the experts do their job. [5:00] This Ravec committee is an expert committee full of professionals, plus the royal household. [5:07] And the royal household don't have any role in that, on the Ravec committee, [5:11] other than helping influence the decisions based on members of the royal family. [5:17] And five years later, every single visit that I do back to the UK has to go through the royal household. [5:25] My representative on the Ravec committee, still to this day, is the royal household. [5:33] That is not a decision that I choose. [5:36] I am forced to go through the royal household and accept that they are putting my best interests forward [5:44] during these conversations and the deliberations. [5:47] So, no, I haven't asked my father to intervene. [5:54] The whole point of a risk management board, which, as I said, everybody else gets, [5:58] but I haven't never been given since back end of 2019 was the last one that I was given. [6:04] The whole point of that is to have a board and a risk assessment, a separate board from Ravec, [6:11] that considers all of the facts and all the circumstances. [6:15] It is a system and an assessment that is designed to be non-biased and to avoid interference. [6:25] What I know throughout this legal process is the interference that was created came from the royal household. [6:34] And the Ravec chair at the time, who I believe I can talk about because he's no longer there, [6:40] Sir Richard Mottram, the first thing he did, well, the first people that he went to go and see, [6:46] was the royal household at the palace. [6:51] So whether it's the media or whether it's anybody else that claims that the royal household [6:55] and my father and my family don't have any decision-making capabilities on Ravec, [7:00] well, then what's their role? [7:02] They're not experts. [7:03] What's their role on that? [7:04] And Sir Richard Mottram emailed back in January of 2020 [7:10] that an RMB would be necessary before taking my security away. [7:15] After his visit to the palace, that RMB that was planned was abandoned [7:20] in favour of alternative governance measures. [7:25] What the court decided today was that they were justified for four reasons [7:31] to not have that review. [7:34] And a major part of that is because you're no longer a working royal, [7:38] a change in your status. [7:39] Do you not accept that from the court? [7:43] Well, my status status hasn't changed. [7:48] It can't change. [7:50] I am who I am. [7:51] I am part of what I'm part of, and I can never escape that. [7:55] My circumstances will always be the same. [7:59] But with a specific answer to the question, there are comparisons that exist. [8:05] And again, I have to be careful what I say, [8:09] but I think it would be quite shocking for the British public and the public at large [8:12] to understand or know that, in fact, many people do know this, [8:18] that people who leave public office receive lifetime protection, [8:23] regardless of whether there are threats or risks to them. [8:26] So for me, with a whole list of risks and threats that were known about in 2020 [8:32] and that have only increased over time, [8:34] including the al-Qaeda threat that was published and talked about recently, [8:38] completely disregarded, thrown away, ignored, [8:44] because for me, security was made conditional on having that official role, [8:49] that role that everybody knows, that myself and my wife wish to carry on, [8:54] but was stopped from being able to do that back in 2020. [8:58] What do you say to those who ask, [9:02] why should the taxpayer pay for your police security [9:06] if you have your own private security? [9:09] Where are the gaps there? [9:11] What's your response to those who say, [9:13] you're getting police protection on a case-by-case basis? [9:17] I tell you, why don't you ask that question again, [9:20] but in three parts, if you could, [9:22] because you've just put three very, very important questions together, [9:25] and I cannot possibly answer all three at the same time. [9:28] Sure. [9:29] What do you say to those who ask why the UK taxpayer should pay for police security? [9:37] You have your own private security. [9:39] Well, first off, private security can only do so much. [9:44] Again, I can't go into the details of that, [9:46] but I think most people will be able to work that out. [9:48] One of the major things is they don't have jurisdiction in a foreign country, [9:52] or in any country, they don't have any jurisdiction. [9:54] Police protection is effective protection, [9:57] which is what my grandmother made very clear that we needed. [10:02] With regard to the taxpayer part of it, [10:07] I don't need to go into detail of how much the royal family costs [10:12] or how much protection costs. [10:14] What I will say is that some of the British press, [10:17] British tabloid press, did a very good job in campaigning [10:19] to have our security removed by quoting figures such as £20 million. [10:23] And through this disclosure process, [10:26] I've seen constituents in the UK write to their MP saying, [10:30] as a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for Meghan and Harry's security at this cost. [10:35] They're literally quoting headlines from British newspapers. [10:40] Those figures are obviously grossly exaggerated by about 18, 19 times. [10:46] And further to that, if you know that other people are being protected, [10:55] people that have made a choice for public office, [10:59] then why wouldn't you be comfortable, happy with someone in my position [11:03] who's given 35 years of service to his country, [11:07] two tours of Afghanistan, [11:09] and the threats and risks to my life? [11:13] I was born into this position. [11:14] I was born into those risks. [11:16] And they've only increased over time, [11:18] along with my marriage to Meghan [11:21] and the frenzy across media, [11:24] mainstream media and social media that I created. [11:26] So, you know, I guess on top of that as well, [11:31] probably what people don't know, [11:33] but that is mentioned in the judgment today, [11:37] Ravek protect private citizens. [11:39] You know, I was made a private citizen by the Royal Household, [11:41] not by Ravek, by the Royal Household. [11:43] I can't be a private citizen. [11:46] I will never be seen as a private citizen. [11:47] I will never be treated as a private citizen, [11:50] not by the media, not by most people, [11:53] and certainly not by anybody that wants to harm me [11:55] or my wife or our kids. [11:59] So, you know, I think once people realize or understand [12:03] that there are private citizens [12:04] who have never played any role in public office [12:07] and never will play any public role, [12:11] that because they are high risk, [12:14] they are protected at taxpayer's expense [12:16] and rightly so, [12:18] because it will affect not only with that person, [12:23] could they end up in hospital or worse on UK soil, [12:26] but it comes down to impact [12:28] and it comes down to the reputational impact of the UK [12:31] if that person or those people are injured on UK soil. [12:35] But apparently for me, that doesn't matter. [12:38] And just to be absolutely clear, [12:40] what is the difference between the top level security [12:43] you say you should have [12:45] and the security you are given on this case-by-case basis [12:49] when you go to the UK? [12:50] So the details of the security I can't talk about. [12:52] All I will say is that the last RMB assessment I was given, [12:56] I scored the highest. [12:58] The only person within the family [13:00] that scored anywhere near that was my grandmother. [13:03] Overnight, I was reduced to the lowest. [13:04] This case-by-case basis has been used by Ravec [13:12] and also by large sections of the British press [13:16] to say, well, what's the big problem? [13:19] You're given something on a case-by-case basis. [13:23] Unfortunately, that case-by-case basis [13:26] is separated by the reason for my visit. [13:30] Yes! [13:31] Yeah, sorry, just to give you more context on that, [13:34] it's not really a case-by-case basis. [13:38] It's an either-or. [13:40] If you're invited to the UK by your family, [13:43] then we will give you security. [13:45] If you come for any other reason, [13:48] then you will get a very low amount of security. [13:54] I'm not going to confirm what that is, [13:56] but it is completely insufficient. [13:58] And somewhere along the line, [14:01] people have talked about the fact [14:02] that really all it is is someone on the end of a phone. [14:06] So, you know, no matter how much private security [14:08] I have around me, [14:10] there's only so much that I can do [14:12] and operate and function within the UK [14:14] when it comes to supporting my charities, [14:17] visiting my friends, all of these things. [14:19] So, you know, it is... [14:21] I've been treated very, very, very differently [14:24] to everybody else that exists. [14:26] All examples that exist, past, present, [14:30] I have been singled out. [14:32] You've spoken very openly about the fact [14:36] that you think you've been punished for leaving the monarchy. [14:40] Who specifically do you think is trying to punish you? [14:44] I don't think that anymore. [14:47] Now I know that it was, you know, [14:49] security was used as leverage. [14:52] And I think what really worries me more than anything else [14:55] about today's decision, [14:57] depending on, you know, what happens next, [15:00] is that it's set a new precedent [15:01] that security can be used to control members of the family. [15:06] And effectively what it does is imprison other members of the family [15:09] from being able to, you know, choose a different life. [15:14] You know, if, for me, [15:17] security is conditional on having an official role, [15:20] one that both myself and my wife wish to carry on, [15:23] but then was rejected, not by Ravek, [15:25] was rejected by the royal household, [15:27] and the result to that is you lose your security, [15:30] that basically says that you can't live outside of their control [15:34] if you want to be safe. [15:36] But it was a pretty hard decision there. [15:42] And I think if you strip away all the noise [15:44] of everything that's been said by other people [15:48] and all the noise that's been created around this, [15:50] if you strip that all away, [15:51] I think what people will hear [15:52] is that the only thing that I've been asking for [15:54] throughout this whole process is safety, [15:56] both when I was part of the institution [15:59] and when we left. [16:02] And the important piece here, [16:04] Neda, is, you know, [16:06] for me and my wife, [16:12] well, I mean, [16:13] again, I'm not sure how much I can say it, [16:16] but, well, [16:17] I can never leave the royal family. [16:20] That is my family. [16:22] That is my larger family. [16:24] I left the institution [16:25] because at the end of the day I had to. [16:27] I didn't leave it in 2020. [16:29] I left it in 2021. [16:31] But security was moved in 2020, [16:32] removed in 2020. [16:34] Speaking of your family, [16:36] your father is ill with cancer. [16:39] Will you continue to visit him alone without the family? [16:43] Where does this leave things moving forward, [16:46] the ability of your children to see their grandfather? [16:49] You know, [16:51] life is a precious thing [16:52] and I'm acutely aware of the fragility of that. [16:59] I can only come to the UK safely if I'm invited. [17:06] And, you know, [17:07] there is a lot of control and ability in my father's hands. [17:15] Ultimately, this whole thing could be resolved through him, [17:19] not necessarily by intervening, [17:21] but by stepping aside, [17:22] allowing the experts to do what is necessary [17:25] and to carry out an RMB. [17:27] That said, [17:29] there is, [17:31] this all was initiated under a previous government. [17:36] There is now a new government. [17:40] I have had it described to me, [17:42] once people knew about the facts, [17:44] that this is a good old-fashioned establishment stitch-up [17:49] and that's what it feels like. [17:51] So should Keir Stalmer step in? [17:53] I think that, you know, [17:55] based on the judgment that the court has put out today, [17:57] it clearly states that Ravec aren't constrained by law. [18:02] Again, I wish somebody had said that from the beginning. [18:04] If they're not constrained by law, [18:06] then this decision was made by the royal prerogative, [18:09] which means that on national security matters, [18:11] my case, [18:13] which the other side have used national security exclusions [18:18] and excuses to withhold certain information for me, [18:22] restrict me from being able to speak about certain things to the public, [18:26] that this national security matter is not bound by any law [18:31] and that Ravec can abandon the very processes, [18:34] the very expert processes that exist to protect individuals [18:37] and the people around them, [18:40] as well as the decision-makers themselves, [18:43] from liability, if anything should happen. [18:47] So, you know, I would ask, yes, [18:50] I would ask the Prime Minister to step in. [18:52] I would ask Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, [18:55] to look at this very, very carefully, [18:57] and I would ask her to review Ravec and its members, [19:02] because if it is an expert body, [19:04] then what is the royal household's role there [19:07] if it isn't to influence and decide [19:11] what they want for the members of their household? [19:19] Do you want the court battle to continue? [19:21] Do you want to try to see this get to the Supreme Court? [19:24] I don't want any battles to continue. [19:27] There is way too much suffering [19:29] and way too much conflict in the world. [19:31] At the heart of it is a family dispute, [19:34] and it makes me really, really sad [19:35] that we're sitting here today, five years later, [19:39] where a decision that was made most likely, [19:43] in fact, I know, to keep us under the roof, [19:47] but then once they realise that that wasn't going to work, [19:50] once they realise that, you know, [19:53] myself, my wife and our kids are happier [19:55] outside of the institution, [19:57] then please just look at the facts, [20:00] look at the risks, look at the threat, [20:02] look at the impact [20:03] that if anything was to happen to me, [20:05] my wife or my father's grandchildren, [20:08] if anything was to happen to them, [20:10] look where the responsibility lies, you know? [20:13] So, you know, there's a duty of care [20:17] that has been completely thrown out the window, [20:20] and that doesn't feel great. [20:24] You know, whether we agree or disagree, [20:26] and there's a lot that we agree on, [20:28] there's a lot that we disagree on, [20:30] but that aside, [20:33] where is the duty of care? [20:35] Because, as I said, life is precious, [20:37] and it is very clear that from 2020, [20:41] because I was no longer allowed an official role, [20:45] and because I decided to remove myself eventually [20:47] from the institution, [20:50] that my life got devalued from the highest score [20:52] to the lowest score overnight. [20:55] And how does that make you feel, [20:58] given you have expressed numerous times [21:01] that you do not want history to repeat itself? [21:05] Yeah, I don't want history to repeat itself. [21:09] I think there's a lot of other people out there, [21:10] the majority, [21:11] they also don't want history to repeat itself. [21:14] Through the disclosure process, [21:16] I've discovered that some people [21:18] want history to repeat itself, [21:19] which is pretty dark. [21:22] That's quite a statement. [21:23] Who do you think that is? [21:24] I'm not going to share at this point, you know? [21:27] I know all the names of the people [21:29] that were involved in this process, [21:31] and again, you know, [21:32] you have to question, [21:33] why wasn't I put through [21:34] the same risk management board [21:36] that everybody else would put through, [21:39] including members of my family? [21:41] And you reject it, [21:42] not because you're no longer a working royal. [21:45] Sorry? [21:45] And you reject that it has nothing to do [21:47] with the fact that you're no longer a working royal. [21:50] Whether I have an official role or not [21:52] is irrelevant to the security that, [21:55] the security needs that I would need. [21:59] Let me, let me, let me rephrase that. [22:03] Whether I have an official role or not [22:04] is irrelevant to the threats, risks, [22:07] and impact on the reputation of the UK [22:11] if something was to happen. [22:12] And again, that is proven [22:13] by all of the examples that exist out there. [22:17] So for me, having an official role [22:20] was conditional on keeping security. [22:23] But for everybody else, [22:25] people who have chosen this life [22:26] to enter into public office [22:28] and then leave, [22:30] get it for life, [22:31] regardless of whether they have risk [22:33] or threat to their name. [22:34] And by the way, I agree with that. [22:35] I think that is absolutely the right thing to do. [22:37] That if you come in [22:38] and you serve your country, [22:40] even if it's a minimum of four years, [22:42] that you get the protection that you require [22:45] because of your public service. [22:48] I was born into this position. [22:50] It wasn't a choice. [22:51] I've served my country for 35 years. [22:53] I believe that I am still continuing [22:54] to serve my country. [22:57] Public service is my life. [23:00] That is the dedication that will never change. [23:02] And then all the other bits and pieces [23:06] that are added to that. [23:08] You know, there are very, very real threats [23:10] that exist out there. [23:12] Some that are known about, [23:13] some that have been withheld. [23:15] And for people in power [23:18] and responsibility of decisions [23:20] to know that those threats and risks exist, [23:24] but to turn around and say, [23:25] well, because you don't have an official role, [23:27] your life doesn't actually matter anymore. [23:30] Well, you can imagine how I feel about that, [23:31] but you can also imagine, not even imagine, [23:34] that is the most illogical argument [23:36] in the history of arguments. [23:40] And finally, just because you mentioned, [23:43] you know, your connection to your country, [23:45] your public service, [23:46] after this years-long battle, [23:48] do you think your relationship [23:49] has changed with the UK? [23:51] Do you feel let down by your country? [23:55] That's a big question. [24:00] At this point, I'm feeling very let down. [24:01] You know, it's the minority of people, [24:08] especially those that read the tabloids [24:10] and the press themselves. [24:12] The press themselves have incited so much hatred [24:14] towards myself, my wife, [24:16] and even our children, [24:19] that that's hard to forgive. [24:25] You know, there are decisions that have been made. [24:27] There are things that have happened [24:28] since 2016 especially, [24:31] throughout my whole life, [24:32] but let's just stick since 2016. [24:33] There are things that have happened [24:34] that I can now forgive. [24:35] I have moved past that. [24:37] I can forgive my family's involvement, [24:39] my father's, my brother, [24:41] and my stepmother. [24:43] I can forgive the press, [24:46] to a large extent as well, [24:47] for so many things that have happened. [24:49] What I'm struggling to forgive, [24:51] and what I will probably always struggle to forgive, [24:54] is that a decision that was made in 2020 [24:58] that affects my every single day, [25:03] and that is knowingly putting me [25:05] and my family in harm's way. [25:06] Everybody knew that they were putting us at risk in 2020, [25:12] and they hoped that me knowing that risk [25:14] would force us to come back. [25:17] But then when you realise that that didn't work, [25:19] do you not want to just keep us safe, [25:23] whether you're the government, [25:24] whether you're the royal household, [25:26] whether you're my dad, [25:27] my family, [25:28] despite all of our differences, [25:29] do you not want to just ensure our safety? [25:31] And I, you know, again, [25:34] I am calling for, you know, [25:37] the Home Secretary and the government [25:39] to do a review of Ravec. [25:41] And I'm also asking for an RMB assessment [25:43] that I haven't received since 2019. [25:46] Just because you spoke there about forgiveness, [25:49] it sounds like the last step [25:53] to repairing relations with your family [25:55] is the security issue, [25:57] by what you said there. [25:57] 100%. [25:58] I, you know, [26:00] whatever noise has been created, [26:05] whatever stories have been written, [26:07] this has always been the sticking point. [26:10] And, you know, [26:12] put yourself in my shoes. [26:14] If you step back [26:17] to create, [26:19] try to create a different role, [26:21] the same official role, [26:23] but a different working relationship [26:25] with the institution that you were born into [26:26] for the sake of your wife [26:28] and your own mental health [26:29] and your child, [26:30] which now, of course, [26:32] a lot more has come out [26:33] because I felt as though [26:35] it needed to come out. [26:36] The other side of the story [26:37] needed to be told. [26:39] God forbid anything should happen. [26:41] And I don't regret that at all. [26:45] But 2020, [26:46] when that decision happened, [26:47] I couldn't believe it. [26:49] I actually couldn't believe it. [26:51] I thought with all the disagreements [26:52] and all of the chaos that's happening, [26:55] the one thing that I could rely on [26:57] is my family keeping me safe. [26:59] And not only did they decide [27:01] to remove my security in the UK, [27:03] but they also signaled [27:04] to every single government [27:05] around the world [27:06] not to protect us. [27:10] How are you feeling about this decision? [27:12] Because clearly you have two children, [27:17] Archie, Lilibet. [27:19] They're not able to see their grandfather, [27:21] their uncle, their cousins, [27:23] in a way that you feel is safe for them. [27:26] So what's your feelings [27:28] kind of moving forward? [27:30] Is there any way [27:31] that this could be resolved? [27:35] The only... [27:37] I mean, firstly, [27:39] I'm devastated. [27:42] Not so much as devastated [27:45] with the loss [27:47] that I am [27:47] about the people [27:49] behind the decision [27:50] feeling as though this is okay. [27:53] Is it a win for them? [27:57] Is it a win [27:58] that I don't get the protection [28:00] that the threats and risks [28:02] and impact [28:03] say that I should? [28:04] I would hope they wouldn't [28:07] consider it a win. [28:08] I'm sure there's some people out there, [28:10] probably most likely [28:11] the people that wish me harm, [28:12] consider this a huge win. [28:15] But, you know, [28:16] I've... [28:18] This is... [28:24] There are... [28:25] There have been [28:26] so many disagreements, [28:29] differences between me [28:30] and some of my family. [28:34] This current situation [28:36] that has been on now [28:36] ongoing for five years [28:38] with regard to [28:39] human life [28:40] and safety [28:41] is the sticking point. [28:43] It is [28:44] the only thing [28:45] that's left. [28:47] Of course, [28:49] some members of my family [28:49] will never forgive me [28:50] for writing a book. [28:52] Of course, [28:52] they will never forgive me [28:53] for lots of things. [28:55] But, you know, [29:00] there is... [29:03] I would love [29:04] reconciliation [29:05] with my family. [29:07] I've always... [29:07] There's no point [29:09] in continuing [29:10] to fight anymore. [29:11] As I said, [29:11] life is precious. [29:13] I don't know [29:14] how much longer [29:15] my father has. [29:17] You know, [29:18] he won't speak to me [29:20] because of this [29:21] security stuff. [29:23] But it would be nice [29:25] to reconcile. [29:27] As I learned [29:28] through the First Nations [29:29] throughout Canada, [29:31] because of the [29:32] Invictus Games, [29:33] their goal in life [29:34] was always [29:34] truth and reconciliation. [29:36] And I turned around [29:37] to them [29:37] in many conversations [29:38] and they said, [29:39] right, [29:39] but reconciliation [29:41] can't come without truth. [29:43] Well, I've now [29:43] found out the truth. [29:46] I've shared some of it [29:47] with you today. [29:48] A lot of it [29:49] exists out there, [29:50] whether people [29:50] choose to ignore it [29:51] or not. [29:53] You know, [29:55] so it would be nice [29:56] to have that [29:57] reconciliation part now. [29:59] If they don't want that, [30:02] that's entirely up to them. [30:03] And now that [30:04] this court battle [30:06] is over, [30:08] do you feel you will [30:09] be able to approach [30:10] your father [30:10] and speak about [30:11] some of those issues? [30:14] I mean, [30:14] if, [30:14] no, [30:16] I don't think [30:17] you would ever [30:17] want to talk about it. [30:18] I think you would [30:19] just push it aside [30:19] and the argument [30:21] will continue to be [30:22] this is a government [30:22] decision. [30:23] It may well be [30:24] a government decision, [30:25] but how did they [30:26] reach that decision? [30:27] You know, [30:28] when the rabbit chair, [30:29] the first place [30:29] that they went to [30:30] was the palace [30:31] to understand [30:32] what it is [30:32] that the royal household [30:33] or what the royal family [30:34] want for me. [30:35] I've never, [30:37] ever been allowed [30:37] or offered [30:40] to make my own [30:41] representations. [30:43] Not in 2020 [30:43] and not for the last [30:45] five years. [30:46] And the new rabbit chair [30:47] continues to avoid [30:49] answering some very [30:50] specific questions [30:51] that I have. [30:53] And one of your [30:53] previous questions [30:54] that I think is really [30:55] important is this [30:56] case-by-case basis. [30:59] For me, [31:00] and only me, [31:01] there has to be [31:02] a royal obligation [31:03] in order to receive [31:04] protection on UK soil. [31:07] And I think that [31:08] speaks volumes. [31:08] And I think that