Last year, the High Court ruled that the decision was lawful.

But Harry’s lawyers argued during a two-day hearing in April that he was treated unfairly and that Ravec didn’t follow its own guidelines when making the decision about his security.

Now, three judges from the Court of Appeal have upheld the decision, saying that while the prince understandably felt wronged, it didn’t amount to a legal mistake.

The duke expressed disappointment, saying he was “pretty gutted” about the ruling and added, “We thought it was going to go our way.”

His lawyer, Shaheed Fatima, pointed out that Harry’s safety was in jeopardy, mentioning that al-Qaeda had recently called for his death, and that both he and his wife, Meghan Markle, were involved in a dangerous car chase with paparazzi in New York City in 2023.

However, the government’s legal team argued that the special security arrangement for Harry had its benefits from a safety perspective.

Before stepping back from his royal duties in March 2020, Harry, like other senior royals, had received full security protection funded by the state.

He criticized the appeal court’s decision, saying it meant that royals couldn’t live without the control of the royal family.

He also mentioned that he loved his country and would like to show his children his homeland, but now he only comes back for funerals and court cases.

Next week, Harry’s legal team will be back in the High Court as part of a lawsuit he filed alongside singer Elton John and others against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail Online, over alleged illegal activities.

A spokesperson from the Home Office commented: “We are pleased that the court has found in favour of the government’s position in this case.

“The UK government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate. It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements.”

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