The Duke of Sussex has lost a legal challenge over the level of taxpayer-funded security he is entitled to while in the UK, allowing the government to proceed with a “bespoke”, and cheaper, level of protection for his family.

Three senior judges at the court of appeal rejected Prince Harry’s claim that he had been “singled out” for “inferior treatment” and that his safety and life were “at stake” after a change in security arrangements that occurred when he stepped down as a working royal and moved abroad.

He had challenged the dismissal of his high court claim against the Home Office over the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as Ravec, that he should receive a different degree of protection when in the country.

Sir Geoffrey Vos, the master of the rolls, said: “I concluded, having studied the detailed documents, I could not say the duke’s sense of grievance translated into a legal argument for a challenge to Ravec’s decision.”

The ruling will be a personal blow to Harry who said he was “overwhelmed” by the case when he flew back for the two-day hearing last month. Speaking to a Daily Telegraph reporter outside the hearing, he suggested he considered the appeal more important than his other legal battle against tabloids, saying “this one always mattered the most”.

Barristers for Harry, 40, told the appeal court that Ravec did not follow its own “terms of reference” when deciding his security.

Shaheed Fatima KC said his safety, security and life were “at stake”, and that the “human dimension” of the case should not be forgotten.

“We do say that his presence here, and throughout this appeal, is a potent illustration, were one needed, of how much this appeal means to him and his family,” said Fatima.

The Home Office, which is legally responsible for Ravec’s decisions, opposed the appeal. Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said Ravec was faced with a “unique set of circumstances”.

A Buckingham Palace spokesperson said: “All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion.”

In a ruling on Friday, Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis dismissed Harry’s appeal.

Reading a summary of the decision, Vos said:”The Duke was in effect stepping in and out of the cohort of protection provided by Ravec.

“Outside the UK, he was outside the cohort, but when in the UK, his security would be considered as appropriate.”

He continued: “It was impossible to say that this reasoning was illogical or inappropriate, indeed it seemed sensible.”

A high court judge ruled last year that Ravec’s decision, taken in early 2020 after Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, stepped down as senior working royals, was lawful. Harry’s legal team argued the judge had erred in his judgment.

Ravec’s final decision, shared on 28 February 2020, stated that Metropolitan police protection would no longer be appropriate after the Sussexes’ departure, and that they should receive a different degree of protection when in the UK.

The Sussexes would instead receive a “bespoke” security service, whereby they would be required to give 30 days’ notice of any plans to travel to the UK, with each visit being assessed for threat levels and whether protection is needed.

Critics of Harry have said he raised his own profile as a possible terrorist target in 2023 after disclosing in his memoir Spare that he had killed 25 Taliban fighters.

Harry could appeal, but would need permission to do so, according to the legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg.

“There wasn’t an application for permission just now from the court of appeal. There might be one in writing. If permission is refused, then Prince Harry’s lawyers could go and ask the supreme court for permission,” Rozenberg told Sky News.

“But what the supreme court will look at is whether this is a case of general public interest, general public importance. It seems to me it’s one of very, very specific importance to Prince Harry.”

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The UK government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate.”