Prince Harry left the producers of his explosive BBC interview astounded when he extended his discussion by 20 minutes beyond their scheduled timeframe during an intense conversation.

The Duke of Sussex delivered a fierce criticism of his own family and his father, the ailing King Charles, in a remarkable interview on Friday, shortly after encountering a legal setback concerning his taxpayer-funded security in the UK.

As reported by The Times, the BBC crew had initially planned for a maximum 10-minute session with the Duke, but he extended his speaking time to approximately 30 minutes, three times the anticipated duration.

The outlet reported that unlike previous controlled interviews with the Duke, nothing was off-limits in his sit down with journalist Nada Tawfik. She later reported that Harry appeared agitated, tapping his foot during their chat, and that she was caught off guard by how ‘candid and forthcoming’ he was in the circumstances.  

Sources told the outlet that he appeared ‘subdued’ but also ‘very keen to talk’ as he he leveled criticisms at his family and the British government. 

A property near his Montecito home in California that he shares with his wife Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, and their two children was picked as the location. The interview took place in the living room, with the doors remaining closed throughout to keep out screeching peacocks on the porch.

The Duchess was not present at the interview. She also never appeared alongside Harry as he fought in court the last three years. 

The chief of communications for their Archewell Foundation, Meredith Maines, had been the chief architect of the interview, the outlet reported. 

According to her LinkedIn profile, Maines has been working for the couple for three months, having previously held positions at streaming company Hulu, and venture capital firm Lightspeed Venture Partners.

In the sit-down, the duke said he wanted to reconcile with his family, while alleging his father, King Charles III, was not speaking with him. 

‘There have been so many disagreements between myself and some of my family,’ Harry said in the interview.

‘Of course, they will never forgive me for lots of things but… there’s no point in continuing to fight anymore.’

He continued: ‘Life is precious. I don’t know how much longer my father has, he won’t speak to me because of this security stuff. It would be nice to reconcile.’

Harry also said that he was ‘devastated’ after losing his court battle and claimed it was an ‘establishment stitch-up’. 

He also chillingly insinuated his downgraded security status could leave him and his family to suffer the same fate as the late Princess Diana, who died in a fatal car crash in Paris in 1997. 

Harry warned that without the same security provisions given to other senior members of the royal family, he has become a greater risk to ‘some people’ who wish him harm.

Speaking about his fears for himself, wife Meghan and their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, he declared: ‘I don’t want history to repeat itself. 

‘Through the [court] process, I have discovered that some people want history to repeat itself.’

Harry was aged just 12 when Diana was killed along with her boyfriend Dodi Fayed and her driver and security guard Henri Paul, in the early hours of August 31, 1997.

Diana suffered fatal injuries when the Mercedes-Benz car they were travelling in crashed into the Pont de l’Alma tunnel in the French capital.

A later inquest in 2008 concluded that Diana, 36, had been unlawfully killed by the ‘grossly negligent driving’ of Paul, who was being chased by a swarm of paparazzi vehicles at the point of the crash.

Harry raged that ‘the other side’ in the court case had ‘won in keeping me unsafe’.

He added: ‘I’m sure that some people out there, probably most likely the people that wish me harm, consider this a huge win.’

The Duke also alleged the Royal Household exploited security ‘to imprison’ members of the Royal Family, blocking them ‘from being able to choose a different life’.

He said: ‘It’s really quite sad that I won’t be able to show my children my homeland.’

The duke candidly spoke of the ‘many disagreements’ with his family, some of whom ‘may never forgive’ him for writing a book.

After the backlash surrounding the interview, Harry seemingly doubled down on his remarks in a statement he issued.

Calling the court ruling ‘a reckless action’ that ‘knowingly put me and my family in harm’s way,’ Harry went on to claim: ‘This legal action has been a last resort, but one that has uncovered shocking truths, starting with the fact that the Royal Household are key decision-makers on RAVEC and my sole representation for matters regarding my safety.’

Adding that he had been ‘subjected’ to threats made by the likes of neo-Nazis and Al-Qaeda, the duke said he was ‘singled out’ for ‘unjustified, inferior treatment’ since Megxit five years ago.

Writing a piece for the BBC titled ‘what Prince Harry was like during our exclusive interview‘ after it went live, Tawfik described him as being ‘down-to-earth’.

Tawfik noted however that he was his tapping his foot frequently as he spoke to her.

She also hinted that he gave them way more than they had anticipated, writing that ‘he was surprisingly candid and forthcoming’.

His decision to speak to the BBC echoes past royal PR disasters – Diana’s infamous Martin Bashir interview and Prince Andrew’s with Emily Maitlis. 

Harry’s candid interview and statement comes as a royal insider claimed that while Harry may want to repair the relationship with his family, Charles is still frustrated and upset with his son.

A friend of the King said it would have been ‘constitutionally improper’ for him to intervene in the court case.

They added: ‘What has frustrated and upset him on a more personal level is the Duke’s failure to respect this principle.

‘And for his supporters to suggest that somehow his father doesn’t care about his family, or should step in.’

‘I love my country and always have done. Despite what some people in that country have done,’ Harry added.

‘So I miss the UK. I miss parts of the UK. Of course I do. I think it’s really quite sad that I won’t be able to show my children my homeland.’

Buckingham Palace rebuked Harry’s claims of a establishment stitch-up in a blunt statement.

A spokesperson said: ‘These issues have been examined meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion on each occasion.’

A source added: ‘It would have been constitutionally improper for His Majesty to intervene while this matter was being considered by the Government and reviewed by the Courts.’

Harry last saw the King in February last year, shortly after Charles, 76, was diagnosed with cancer.

Sir Geoffrey Vos told the Duke his ‘grievance’ over downgraded security had not ‘translated into a legal argument’.

Vos ruled the original security decision had been a ‘predictable’ and even ‘sensible’ reaction to Megxit, when the couple stepped back from being senior royals and left the UK for Canada then California in 2020.

Harry’s barrister argued that the removal of Met Police armed bodyguards when he is in the UK has left the royal’s life ‘at stake’. 

The Duke could potentially appeal the decision, which would then be put in the hands of the country’s Supreme Court. 

Frustration has grown toward Harry since his interview, as former press secretary to the late Queen, Alisa Anderson branded his comments about the King’s health ‘unhelpful’ amid continued treatment for an unspecified cancer. 

Commenting that the royal family would be ‘raising their eyes heavenwards’ she told Sky News: ‘That’s going to cause real concern and more speculation in the media and the wider public about what his diagnosis is, which is incredibly unhelpful going forward.’

‘What you don’t want to do is have your private life played out in the media. So if you truly want reconciliation, you’ll do it in private, not in a BBC News interview.’ 

Royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams branded the interview as ‘confusing’, as he thinks Prince Harry implied his father could have ‘arranged’ a possible solution in his position as monarch. 

‘He didn’t say that exactly, because he said that his father would step aside and let the experts decide. But then, on the other hand, that implied that his father was part of the process that was against him,’ he said.

‘I think people will find it confusing, because, in my opinion, it was confused’

‘He is hung up [on the legal case] because it links directly back to what happened to his mother and that was referred to in the interview, not Diana by name, but ‘the past repeating itself’,’ he added.

‘He believes that the Royal household is completely poisoned against him,’ he said: ‘This is where you get the conspiracy aspect, you could even argue there is a fantasy aspect of it.

‘He believes that there are very malign forces out to get him or out to get him and his family. He believes there are those who want him to be in a vulnerable state.’