King Charles doesn’t want to get involved with Prince Harry’s latest woes – and one author believes there’s a good reason why.
The Duke of Sussex has been in an ongoing court battle over his right to security for himself and his family in the U.K. The couple lost their right to security in 2020 when they stepped off as senior royals. That year, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex moved to California.
"The king is in a position where the security and who gets the security is decided by the government, and the government is not the monarch," Ingrid Seward, editor-in-chief of Majesty magazine and author of "My Mother and I," explained to Fox News Digital.
PRINCE HARRY SHUTS DOWN MEGHAN MARKLE SPLIT RUMORS AMID DIVORCE SPECULATION
"When Charles was Prince Charles, he could do more, but as monarch, he has to be very careful," said Seward. "He cannot get involved with government policy. Therefore, probably the easiest way out is to let somebody else deal with Harry."
"I am sure that somebody talks to Harry, it just may not be his father," Seward shared. "And in a way, that’s probably because his father just doesn’t want to get involved. He hasn’t got time; he hasn’t got the inclination, and he probably hasn’t got the energy for what would be a potentially difficult conversation."
Buckingham Palace previously told Fox News Digital it wouldn’t comment on security matters.
Harry has taken the issue to the courts for more than four years. He lost an initial decision in April, but he is appealing it, People magazine reported. According to the outlet, the case is scheduled to be heard in the spring of 2025.
Insiders previously told the outlet that Harry wants to reinstate his security to allow more flexible visits to the U.K. for himself, his wife and their two children. One source said that the prince wants to "ensure the safety of himself and his family while in the U.K., so his children can know his home country" and work with his charities.
The Telegraph previously reported that the legal case has impacted Harry’s relationship with his father. In February, Buckingham Palace announced that the 76-year-old king had been diagnosed with an undisclosed form of cancer.
WATCH: KING CHARLES CAN'T GET INVOLVED IN PRINCE HARRY'S SECURITY WOES: AUTHOR
"I think that 2024 has been an incredibly difficult year . . . for the monarchy," said Seward. ". . . We’ve got [Princess] Catherine announcing that she’s going to have an abdominal operation. . . . Then you’ve got the king saying he’s having a prostate operation. . . . Then you’ve got the king saying he [has] cancer. Then you’ve got Catherine saying she [has] cancer. And then you’ve got all the other problems coming just from life itself."
"I think it’s been very hard, because there [hasn’t] been that many people as backup," Seward continued. "You’ve got the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, and you’ve got Princess Anne and her husband, Timothy Laurence. You’ve got [Queen] Camilla working really hard, but . . . you are missing everybody else, because [Prince] William was looking after his wife and his children."
"Charles’ slimmed-down monarchy has been a little bit too slimmed down," Seward added.
Sources told People magazine that the issue over security plays "a crucial role" in Harry’s ongoing estrangement from his father. Insiders claimed that the monarch has stopped taking his son’s phone calls and has not responded to his letters.
"It’s been especially tough now for the king," said Seward. "You’re limited [in] what you can do as monarch."
Under the legal doctrine of "sovereign immunity," Charles is exempt from criminal and civil proceedings as the head of state, Time magazine reported.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER
The outlet pointed out that the royal family’s official website previously stated that "although civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under U.K. law, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law."
Charles ascended to the throne in 2022 upon the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II.
Harry has had a strained relationship with his family since he and his wife, 43, quit royal duties. At the time, the couple said the unbearable intrusions and racist attitudes of the British press were what prompted them to make their exit.
The father of two has since detailed his rocky relationship with his family in TV interviews, a documentary and his memoir, "Spare."
A source told People magazine that Harry may use a Taylor Swift case to support his argument. The outlet noted that when the singer, 34, was performing her record-breaking sell-out shows at Wembley Stadium in August, she was given a police escort. This came in the wake of a terror plot that led to the cancelation of three of her tour dates in Austria.
"The government’s decision to provide Taylor Swift with armed police escorts during her August 2024 Wembley Stadium performances highlight significant inconsistencies in how protection decisions are made by U.K. authorities, raising questions about the transparency and consistency of the process," the source said.
LIKE WHAT YOU’RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS
"Clearly, Prince Harry is being treated completely differently to everyone else," the source continued to the outlet, adding that the case "demonstrates the need for a more systematic and transparent approach to protection decisions, ensuring both public safety and equitable application of security resources."
Doug Eldridge, an agent, celebrity branding and marketing expert and the founder of Achilles PR, calls it an "apples-and-oranges comparison."
"The fact that Harry and Meghan made such an unceremonious exit from their official royal duties — not to mention the tell-all books, podcasts and an Oprah sit-down — certainly contributed to the UK-based vitriol and likely the security threats that followed," Eldridge told Fox News Digital.
"On one hand, they bear some level of responsibility for the self-inflicted, negative attention and tension they created," he shared.
"On the other hand, public acrimony is not a plausible defense for a violent felony, so every threat should be treated as credible, irrespective of the root cause. Regardless, . . . every threat should be treated as credible, and there should be some level of transparency in the security designation process. Without this, the problem seems vindictive on one hand and victim-seeking on the other."
"To the casual observer, it's easy to infer that the royal family did this in response to Harry and Meghan's vitriolic exit," Eldridge continued. "At the same time, detractors will claim that this is yet another example of the . . . couple's attention-seeking, victim-centric behavior. Some level of objective transparency would put both claims to rest."
The Telegraph reported that when Harry was visiting the U.K. in May for the 10th anniversary of the Invictus Games, he turned down an invitation from the king to stay at a royal residence.
The Duke of Sussex reportedly declined the offer, because it did not come with any security arrangements, which, according to the outlet, would have meant staying in a location with public entrance and exit points and no police protection.
Instead, Harry stayed at a hotel, as he had during previous visits.
A palace source told People magazine that the idea that Harry’s security is in his father’s hands is "wholly incorrect."
The outlet noted that during his visit, Harry wanted to discuss the issue with Charles. He believes that as king, Charles has the power to reinstate security to its former high levels.
Those close to Harry noted to the outlet that Harry served two tours of duty in Afghanistan, becoming a target of terrorist threats as a result. His family, they argued, had also been subjected to domestic threats despite being non-working royals.
MEGHAN MARKLE ATTENDS EVENT WITHOUT PRINCE HARRY AFTER HE ADDRESSES DIVORCE RUMORS
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex reside in the wealthy coastal city of Montecito with their two young children.
