Prince Harry lost his appeal challenging the UK government’s decision to strip him of his publicly funded security after he stepped back as a senior royal.
On Friday, the Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that a committee had not treated the Duke of Sussex unfairly when it decided to review his protection on a case-by-case basis each time he visits his home country.
The ruling is likely to leave the 40-year-old with a large bill to pay the UK government’s legal fees, in addition to his own lawyers’ costs. It was not immediately clear if the father of two would try to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.
PRINCE WILLIAM CAN’T STRIP MEGHAN MARKLE’S ROYAL TITLE, BUT USING IT MAY COME AT A PRICE: EXPERTS
Fox News Digital reached out to Archewell, which handles the Duke of Sussex’s office, for comment.
The ruling upheld a High Court judge’s decision last year that found that a “bespoke” plan for Harry’s security was not unlawful, irrational or unjustified.
Last month, the British prince made a rare appearance for a two-day hearing. At the time, his lawyer argued that his life was in danger and the Royal and VIP Executive Committee had singled him out for inferior treatment.
In 2020, Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, made their royal exit, citing the unbearable intrusions of the British press and lack of support from the palace. They moved to California.
“There is a person sitting behind me who is being told he is getting a special bespoke process when he knows and has experienced a process that is manifestly inferior in every respect,” said attorney Shaheed Fatima. “His presence here and throughout this appeal is a potent illustration… of how much this appeal means to him and his family.”
Harry’s lawyer also noted that he felt his family was not “being protected by the institution.”
A lawyer for the government said that Harry’s argument repeated his misconceived approach that failed in the lower court.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER
“It involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees, advancing propositions available only by reading small parts of the evidence, and now the judgment, out of context and ignoring the totality of the picture,” said attorney James Eadie.
WATCH: KING CHARLES CAN’T GET INVOLVED IN PRINCE HARRY’S SECURITY WOES: AUTHOR
In court, Harry’s lawyers said that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex “felt forced to step back from the role of full-time official working members of the royal family as they were considered they were not being protected by the institution.” Harry had “wished to continue their duties in support of the late queen as privately funded members of the royal family.”
When the hearing came to a close, Harry made a vulnerable admission that he was “exhausted and overwhelmed” by the case that had loomed over him for years.
Insiders previously told People magazine that Harry wanted to reinstate his security to allow more flexible visits to the UK for himself, his wife and their two children. One source said that the prince wants to “ensure the safety of himself and his family while in the UK, so his children can know his home country” and work with his charities.
The Telegraph previously reported that the legal case has impacted Harry’s relationship with his father. In February 2024, Buckingham Palace announced that the 76-year-old king had been diagnosed with an undisclosed form of cancer.
According to the outlet, Harry said his “worst fears have been confirmed by the whole legal disclosure in this case — and that’s really sad.”
Harry’s legal team maintains that the government’s Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC) failed to properly assess the risks specifically posed to Harry and his family. His team described this legal battle as a fight for his life, People magazine reported.
As Harry and Markle raise their children, Prince Archie, 5, and Princess Lilibet, 3, in California, his lawyers have stressed that he “does not feel safe” bringing his family to his home country without official police protection.
People magazine reported that Harry has long maintained that his father, King Charles III, as ceremonial head of state, could help restore the security he is fighting for. Under the legal doctrine of “sovereign immunity,” Charles is exempt from criminal and civil proceedings as the head of state, Time magazine reported.
LIKE WHAT YOU’RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS
Charles ascended to the throne in 2022.
A source told People magazine that there is distance between father and son.
“I don’t think there is any rapprochement,” said the insider. “Nothing has changed.”
