Prince Harry has come under fire from a former close friend, who has labeled the royal’s recent actions as “unforgivable.”

Ben Goldsmith, a financier and son of the late billionaire Sir James Goldsmith, has become the first of Harry’s old circle to publicly criticize him following his explosive television interview. His sister, Jemima Goldsmith, shared a close bond with Princess Diana, even hosting her in Pakistan on two separate occasions.

Harry has previously admitted that speaking openly—especially during his interview with Oprah Winfrey—led to him losing friends. Now, Goldsmith has added his own disapproval to the growing chorus of critics. Speaking to Richard Eden of the Daily Mail, he said simply, “Tragic but true – Prince Harry’s behaviour is unforgivable.”

This latest backlash follows Prince Harry’s outspoken 30-minute interview with the BBC, which aired after he lost his legal appeal in a three-year battle over his UK security arrangements.

The 40-year-old Duke lost his automatic police protection after he and Meghan stepped back from royal duties in 2020. His recent defeat marks the second time his challenge has failed, this time with judges Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean, and Lord Justice Edis unanimously ruling against him.

Despite the loss, Harry may still try to bring the matter before the Supreme Court. If he does not succeed, the ruling could effectively end his legal campaign. He now faces a hefty bill, as he’s expected to pay legal fees for both sides, which could total more than £1.5 million.

Sources say King Charles had been considering ways to mend the relationship with his youngest son, but Harry’s public reaction to the court’s decision may complicate those efforts. According to insiders, the King is “upset” and unlikely to be pleased with Harry venting his frustrations on national TV.

In the interview, Harry said he plans to write to the Home Secretary, requesting a review of the decision. He claimed that the Royal Household played a key role in the decisions made by RAVEC (the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures).

“Before the Royal Household’s role on RAVEC was known, this secretive committee concluded that when my wife would join the royal family, she should not receive protection,” he said. “Only when I asked for the name of the person willing to carry that risk did they reverse the decision.”

He also criticized the lack of a formal risk assessment, calling it a “dereliction of duty.”

Harry insisted that being born into the royal family placed him in “lifelong circumstances that create inherent security risks.” He said his “life is at stake,” though critics have suggested that his legal fight is more about avoiding private security costs than genuine safety concerns.

In a remarkable claim during the BBC interview, Harry maintained that he still wants “reconciliation” with his family. He portrayed himself as a victim of institutional bias and said he “can’t see a world” where he would bring Meghan and their children back to the UK.

He insisted he didn’t want King Charles to get involved in the dispute, stating: “I asked him to step out of the way and let the experts do their jobs.”

Harry also alleged there was “interference” by the Royal Household in the original 2020 decision that downgraded his security status. He claims he went from being viewed as one of the most at-risk royals to the least—“overnight.”

Despite these accusations, it is widely believed that the Royal Household’s influence on the RAVEC committee is limited and mostly administrative, helping to coordinate diaries rather than making binding decisions.

Harry explained that his decision to relocate to the United States was out of fear for Meghan’s safety, referencing the tragic death of his mother, Princess Diana.

“I don’t want any battles to continue. There is way too much suffering and way too much conflict in the world. At the heart of it is a family dispute,” he said.

He concluded with another pointed remark: “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, you know?”

Responding to the ongoing legal saga, a spokesperson for Buckingham Palace said: “All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion.”