I watched the interview in full and think its probably the best one he's given and comes across more likeable and reasonable than others.
For info - I'm an anti-monarchist, think they're all as bad as each other and don't believe we should be paying for his security.
Various statements I didn't agree with, thinking they come from a place of aristocratic entitlement but what was interesting is that RAVEC consulted with the Royal Household on Harry's security arrangements before making its decision - and before they consulted with them the RH his security was to be maintained, which implies the RH influenced the decision.
From what Harry said the members of the RH sit on RAVEC and these appear to be courtiers, not family members.
He said he'd not had a risk management assessment since the first decision in 2020 when standard practice is that they happen yearly.
So, although the Royal family are not directly involved in the decision process (rightly) the Royal Household is (courtiers).
Harry also claimed that the bespoke security arrangements were actually this: if he's invited by the Royal family to the UK, he gets full security, without an invite he doesn't. This would appear to be the determining factor in the case-by-case assessments.
This fits with full security being provided for Royal duties only, which I think most would agree with but I also suspect its the only way the Royal family have of controlling meghan and Harry's activities. No doubt there'd be far more stepping on Royal toes if they felt able to come over as freely as they wish.
I also think he has a point that the rule seems nonsensical if the security risk remains the same - and high - regardless of his reason for being in the UK. How this fits with the fact that RAVEC will give higher security to vips on an as needed basis, I'm not entirely sure. Harry seems to be implying that it won't actually happen for him (as a result of the influence of the Royal Household).
Certainly think there'd be uproar if we were paying for Harry & Meghan to have full security for the commercial interests and personal projects, which wouldn't be misplaced (I'd definitely be pissed off with this).
I accept there's a level of unfairness for him personally, given he was born a prince, but I think of all the millions of people who can't return to their homelands to visit family because of personal danger and he remains immensely privileged, can travel the world, and so my sympathy stops there. He needs to suck it up.
That said, it's wrong he hasn't had hasn't a risk management assessment in 5 years and that should be independent of the Royal Household.
The rift with his family is objectively very sad, as all estrangements (or their causes) are and I feel for him that he doesn't know the details of his father's prognosis. But, that's also a personal matter and not any of our business.
Like a pp I noticed the hypocrisy in saying this to the press when Thomas markle did the same!
Far from being a man of the people, I felt Harry oozed aristocratic-ness in this interview, he seems to do so more & more, and he seems to have a blindspot about the level of his privilege.
Perhaps as a republican, I also baulked at his talking about his continued public service as I really don't see much of this and certainly no more than many of us who volunteer regularly. I also disagreed with him saying that although he is has been made a private citizen, he will in fact never be one - the press and public won't let him be.
Charitable work and his birth doesn't entitle him to anymore privilege than the rest of us. Same goes for the rest of the Royal family, we only tolerate it because of the monarchs role as Head of state and their public duties. While he has a point with the unfairness of certain things, they all seem to depend on an acceptance that the Royal family is entitled to great privilege virtue of their birth.
The aristocratic entitlement I see with him in interviews makes me convinced we should abolish the aristocracy as whole, tbh, and redistribute its collective wealth.