His legal team pointed to specific threats, including a call by Al-Qaeda for his assassination following Ravec’s decision, and a 2023 incident in which Harry and Meghan were involved in a high-speed paparazzi chase in New York.

Government Defends Its Stance

The Home Office, however, argued Harry’s disagreement did not amount to a legal basis for appeal. Barrister Sir James Eadie KC dismissed Harry’s position as a “continued failure to see the wood for the trees,” stating that the duke’s views on his security were “largely irrelevant.”

Officials emphasized that Harry was still granted protection under certain conditions—such as during royal events or while staying in royal residences—but not during private visits or social outings. His proposal to personally fund armed Met Police guards was also rejected, with sources reiterating that police are not “guns for hire.”

Previous High Court Ruling Upheld

Today’s judgment follows an earlier High Court decision by Sir Peter Lane, who ruled in February that the decision to remove Harry’s security was legally justified. He found no procedural unfairness or irrationality in Ravec’s actions and described Harry’s legal approach as relying on “an inappropriate, formalist interpretation” of the process.

Lane concluded that the tailored security arrangement created for Harry was “legally sound.”

This ruling marks a major setback for Prince Harry and may close the door on his hopes of reinstating full-time, taxpayer-funded security while in the UK. Whether he chooses to escalate the case to the Supreme Court remains to be seen.