Prince Harry’s legal team told the court that he and Meghan Markle “felt forced to step back” from their senior royal roles in 2020, believing the royal institution was not offering them adequate protection.

Today, Harry appeared at the Court of Appeal in London to support his ongoing legal fight over the security arrangements provided to him in the UK.

The Duke of Sussex traveled over 5,000 miles from California to attend the two-day appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice.

He is contesting a previous decision about whether he, Meghan, and their children, Archie and Lilibet, are entitled to publicly funded security when they are in Britain.

Shaheed Fatima KC, speaking on behalf of Prince Harry, argued in court that the Duke was unfairly treated when his top-tier police protection from the Metropolitan Police was taken away.

She stated that the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) didn’t follow its own guidelines when it made the decision in February 2020.

Instead, according to her, Ravec came up with a separate and so-called “bespoke process.”

“The appellant does not accept that ‘bespoke’ means ‘better’,” Ms Fatima told the court. “In his view, it means he was treated differently — in a way that was unjustified and inferior.”

Prince Harry sat behind his legal team, occasionally taking a sip from a water bottle.

In her written arguments to the court, Ms. Fatima stressed that “this appeal is about the most basic right — the right to personal safety and security.”

The Duke is appealing a ruling that dismissed his legal challenge against the Home Office regarding a decision made by Ravec.

The central issue is whether his level of protection in the UK should be reduced due to his decision to step down as a working royal.

According to his lawyers, after stepping back in January 2020, Harry and Meghan had hoped to continue supporting the late Queen in a private capacity, while funding their own royal duties.

The case revolves around whether the security measures in place for the California-based royal are adequate.

The Home Office has firmly opposed Prince Harry’s appeal, with its lawyer arguing that the Duke’s position “involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees.”

According to court records, the legal battle has already cost UK taxpayers £500,000.

Prince Harry has been present in court for the duration of the hearings, listening as arguments were laid out by both parties.

At the heart of the case is the question of what level of security is suitable for the Duke during his visits to the UK, following his decision to step back from royal duties.