The Duke of Sussex lost legal challenges in the level of security funded by taxpayer-funded security he was entitled to during his time in the UK, allowing the government to make “customized” and cheaper levels of protection for family members.

Three senior judges of the Court of Appeal rejected Prince Harry’s claim that he was “picked out” for “inferior treatment” and that his safety and life were “at stake” after his safety arrangements changed when he quit his royal job and moved abroad.

He challenged the rejection of the High Court’s claim against the Ministry of the Interior, which was decided by the Executive Committee’s decision to protect the royal family and public figures (called the RAVEC) that he should receive varying degrees of protection when in the country.

Sir Jeffrey Voss, the master of Rolls-Royce, said: "I came to the conclusion that I studied the detailed documents and I cannot say that the Duke's sense of appeal translated into legal arguments to challenge Ravec's decision."

The ruling will carry out a personal blow to Harry. Outside the hearing, he spoke to reporters reported by Daily Telegraph, who suggested he thinks appeals are more important than his other legal battles against the tabloids, saying "this is always the most important."

Lawyer Harry, 40, told the Court of Appeal that RAVEC did not follow its own "reference clause" when deciding on its safety.

Shaheed Fatima KC said his safety, security and life were "threatening" and the "human dimension" of the case should not be forgotten.

"We do say that his presence here is a powerful example throughout the appeal, which is how much that attraction means to him and his family," Fatima said.

The Ministry of the Interior’s decision to RAVEC is legally liable to object to appeal. Sir James Eadie KC in the Interior Department said Ravec was facing a "unique situation".

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: "All of these issues have been repeatedly and carefully examined by the court, and each time the same conclusion has been drawn."

In a Friday ruling, Justice Bean and Lord Edith dismissed Harry's appeal.

VOS read the summary of the decision and said: "The Duke is actually stepping in and out of a series of protection teams provided by Ravec.

“Outside the UK, he is out of the queue, but when in the UK, his safety will be considered appropriate.”

He continued: "It is impossible to say that such reasoning is illogical or inappropriate, it is indeed wise."

A High Court judge ruled last year that Ravec's decision was made in early 2020 as Duchess of Sussex and Meghan resigned from senior working royals. Harry's legal team argued that the judge made a mistake in the judgment.

The final decision shared by Ravec on February 28, 2020 said that the protection of the Metropolitan Police will no longer be suitable for Sussexes to leave and that when they are in the UK, they should receive varying degrees of protection.

Instead, Sussex people will get a "customized" security service that requires them to send 30 days notice to any plan for traveling to the UK, each visit that assesses the level of threat and whether protection is required.

Harry's critics say he raised his profile in 2023 as a possible terror target in 2023 after revealing in the standby of his memoirs that he killed 25 Taliban fighters.

Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said Harry could appeal but required permission.

Rosenberg told Sky News: “There is no permission from the Court of Appeal.

"But what the Supreme Court will consider is whether this is a common case for the public, it is a general importance of the public. In my opinion, this is one of the very, very specific importance for Prince Harry."

A spokesman for the Home Ministry said: "The British government's protection security system is strict and proportionate."