As clock ticks down on Harry's security court appeal, why did his pleas fail?

Three weeks after Prince Harry's dramatic court loss, any likelihood of him reviving the legal battle over his personal security arrangements is narrowing by the day.

His anger and hurt at how he feels his family's security was seemingly lessened, after he stepped back from working royal duties, has played out publicly - and earlier this month he lost his challenge at the Court of Appeal in London.

In a week's time, the deadline es for Prince Harry - the Duke of Sussex - to try one last go, at the Supreme Court. But that seems unlikely after he told the BBC, in his exclusive interview after losing, he had no legal options left.

And even if he were to ask for a hearing, the chances of him getting one appear slim because of what the courts have said so far.

While the prince's complaint was about his treatment, ultimately the courts took no view on that. Instead, they ruled he had not understood how the body organising Royal Family protection worked - and how his decision to quit the UK, yet still have an "in-and-out" role in public life, was exceptional.

One former senior judge, who was not involved and spoke on background, felt the prince's case had been "preposterous" and "hopeless" from the start and anyone else bringing such a flawed claim would have been on the receiving end of more critical language from the courts.

However, Prince Harry's argument was always wider - saying the state had to take into the accident of his birth which made him a target.

"I was born into this position. I was born into those risks. And they've only increased over time," he said in the BBC interview.

At his first court hearing, in 2023, the prince said the UK was a place where he wanted his children "to feel at home" - but argued that can't happen "if it's not possible to keep them safe".

After losing his appeal, he said he "[couldn't] see a world in which I would be bringing my wife and children back to the UK".

Harry's entire legal case centred on Ravec - which authorises security for senior royals on behalf of the Home Office, and which Harry believes unfairly treated him.

So, to understand why he lost and seemingly has nowhere else to go, we first have to understand three key issues:

- Why was Ravec created, and what is its specific role?

- How did Ravec and the Home Office respond when Prince Harry quit as a front line royal?

- Why did he think this was something the courts should solve?

Ravec evolved out of a 2003 Daily Mirror stunt when one of its reporters blagged his way into a job as a Buckingham Palace footman.

It led to panic in government - and a major review concluded royal security needed a jolt.

So Ravec was born - the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (its exact name has changed down the years).

Ravec oversees security for key public figures by assessing risks from terrorism, extremism, stalkers and any other foreseeable threat such as a "fixated individual". Unsurprisingly, there is no public list of who gets protected.

It is responsible for VIP security within England, Wales and Scotland.

The committee is funded and overseen by the Home Office because its work is on behalf of the home secretary of the day.

The Royal Household has two on the committee, including the monarch's private secretary. They contribute what they think is needed to protect people and key locations, such as Buckingham Palace.

The Metropolitan Police feeds information into the intelligence assessment and, ultimately provides the officers and kit to protect each "principal" - protected person.

But crucially, it's the Home Office-appointed chair who must decide how to spend the money and justify it to government.

Part of Prince Harry's case was heard in private, behind closed court doors, to ensure Ravec's precise workings and its security plans remain confidential.

We learned Ravec's decisions typically draw on a report from the Risk Management Board (RMB), a Home Office pulling together all the facts about risks and actual threats.

So, in the example of the prince, it is well-known that al-Qaeda ers and racist extremists are a concern for his family. We can therefore infer that the RMB has probably tried to work out what those threats really amount to.

That's the background. Let's turn to how it all became such a public row, leading from the High Court to the Court of Appeal.

The critical decisions were in spring 2020 when Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, "stepped back" from being working royals.

Their choice to move first to Canada, with their baby son, raised a question for Ravec: what kind of security should the prince's family now have, if they were no longer working royals and no longer living in the UK? What role should Ravec play in providing security, given its GB-only remit?

Court documents, while heavily redacted in places, show emails and letters were flying backwards and forwards between the Home Office, the Palace, Scotland Yard - and ultimately Prince Harry's team.

Ravec ruled out very early on allowing the Sussexes to pay the Met to deliver their security abroad. That, it said, was not what Ravec was for. Its task was to protect working royals in GB.

The government quickly formed the view that the couple would "essentially become private citizens" living abroad - and relations began to break down on 28 February 2020.

Ravec's then-chair, Sir Richard Mottram, told the late Queen's private secretary Sir Edward Young that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex would lose their existing Met protection.

Sir Richard wrote: "The future arrangements for [the duke and duchess] do not fit readily within this framework."

It was that simple: the Sussexes were moving overseas, outside of Ravec's duties.

The consequence was Prince Harry felt he was also being stripped of security when returning home - and there had been no formal Ravec meeting to decide his future protection.

In essence, he seemed to be arguing that the Royal Household's two of the committee - which at the time included Sir Edward - may have influenced the Home Office's decision to reduce his security.

In his BBC interview, Harry asked "What is the Royal Household's role [on Ravec]… if it isn't to influence and decide what they want for the of their household":[]}