Prince Harry Finds King Charles' Failure to Grant Him Security Privileges an 'Unbelievable Situation'

Prince Harry's demand for personnel is driving a wedge between the Duke of Sussex and his father, King Charles.

Harry lost his lawsuit to use police protection in his native nation, but Charles could influence the country's decision.

“The threat is very real. He needs protection. The idea that the security forces wouldn’t allow anything to happen is a very glib dismissal of the reality of the threat the family faces," a source told an outlet.

According to a separate insider, Harry used Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet to “emotionally blackmail” Charles.

However, official sources at Buckingham Palace said it would be “wholly inappropriate” for His Majesty to influence government committees — including the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC).

In the U.K. there are strict laws about firearms, and Harry would need police protection because a private security team wouldn't have access to the same resources.

Currently, Harry would have to give 28 days notice to the British Security Forces to access safeguarding — similar to when high-profile citizens visit the region. The duke offered to pay for police escorts, but the government made it clear that they're not available for hire.

“Why would he bring his wife and children back to the U.K. if they are not going to be protected? The duke needs protection, they need protection," a source said. "The threat level hasn’t changed since he stepped back from the royal family, if anything it has got worse because of the tabloid campaign against him and his wife.”

During Meghan Markle's time in the U.K., the Duchess of Sussex dealt with internet trolls and the couple had concerns about the rise of extremist groups.

“The fact that there is even any debate around (Harry’s) security is unbelievable when you look at the situation. The late queen made it really clear [at the Sandringham Summit] that she wanted him and his family protected," a source noted. "She intervened to allow Andrew to keep his protection. Why is it impossible for his dad not to do the same for Harry? If the king wanted, he could do this for his son.”

Royal biographer Garreth Russell gave insight into the government's stance.

"Recently the decision in the court here that said the rescinding of security from Prince Harry because he was no longer a working royal was unjustified or was a mistake," Russell exclusively told OK! shortly after the court made its decision.

"If you are the grandson of a reigning British monarch, out of that, you're going to be the son of a reigning British monarch," The Palace author noted. "We have to be realistic about the threat he will always be facing. We cannot hold our royal family at ransom and say 'You must continue to do this job exactly as prescribed,' and if you don't, 'we will take away your security in Britain for you and your children.'"

Never miss a story — sign up for the OK! newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what OK! has to offer. It’s gossip too good to wait for!

Insiders spoke to The Daily Beast.