Prince Harry’s security appeal ruling was released around 2 pm in London, 9am on the East Coast and 6 am on the West Coast on Friday. Within about three hours, Prince Harry had issued a barn-burner of a statement and sat down for an exclusive on-camera interview with the BBC. Apparently, the BBC’s American correspondent believed that she was getting Harry for ten minutes tops, but he wanted to get a lot off of his chest. The interview is very raw, and you can feel that he’s close to crying at one point. Harry describes in detail what his security case was about, how Ravec operates, how Ravec deviated from their SOP when it came to Harry and Meghan, and how the purpose of his “bespoke” security arrangement is about controlling him and Meghan.

I agree with many that the larger point of this interview was “he doesn’t have anything to lose, so he’s going public with some of what’s happened and what he’s learned.” There was another point: to once again tell the Windsors that they don’t get to control the narrative, that what’s done in darkness will eventually see the light, and they don’t get to put him in this dangerous situation and expect him to stay silent.

All that being said, there’s been a cognitive dissonance within Harry which has been apparent for years – he says in this interview that the Windsors won’t communicate with him: “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 won’t speak to me because of this security stuff, but it would be nice to reconcile.” Okay, but he also pretty much acknowledges that Charles has made it clear that he doesn’t want to see Harry, Meghan or their children. Not only that, Charles doesn’t care how much mortal danger the Sussexes are in. This has been the consistent thread – it’s not that Harry is grey-rocking the Windsors or trying to move as incognito as possible. He’s been actively seeking reconciliation this whole time and Charles has cut him off.

I found the “duty of care” comments incredibly interesting, as well as all of the points made about something we’ve discussed for years. Which is: for Harry’s security, Ravec and the Windsors believe that security follows rank and not threat. As in, Harry doesn’t “need” to be protected because of where he “ranks” as a non-working royal. Which has nothing to do with the real terrorist threats against him. Harry also said: “At the heart of it, this is a family dispute, and it makes me really, really sad that we are sitting here today, five years later, where a decision that was made — most likely, in fact, I know — to keep us under the roof. But then once they realized that wasn’t going to work, once they realized that myself, my wife, my kids are happier outside of the institution, then please just look at the facts. Look at the risk, look at the threat, look at the impact that if anything was to happen to me, my wife, or my father’s grandchildren. If anything was to happen to them, look where the responsibility lies.” Yeah, the responsibility lies with the same garbage people you’re trying to reconcile with.

You can also read Harry’s statement on Sussex.com here. He wrote the real history of this seven-plus years security debacle, including the part where the Windsors originally wanted Meghan to have zero security when Harry and Meghan first became engaged. Harry wrote about that in Spare, and he’s spoken about and around it in interviews too.

One more thing: Harry suggests something I believe entirely, which is that Buckingham Palace signaled to other governments that they should leave the Sussexes without security. We’ve seen that play out when Harry and Meghan visited Nigeria, Germany, Colombia, and when Harry visited Ukraine last month – the palace was beyond freaked out that other governments went above and beyond to ensure the Sussexes safety.

Photos/screengrabs courtesy of BBC News.