Prince Harry dashed any hope for a return to the UK with his wife, Meghan Markle, and children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, after he . Speaking to from California, he said: "I can't see a world in which I would bring my wife and children back to the UK at this point."

me more than anything else about today's decision, depending on what happens next, it set a new precedent that security can be used to control members of the family, and effectively, what it does is imprison other members of the family from being able to choose a different life."

Prince Harry and his wife Meghan stopped being working royals in 2020, they also agreed to drop the use of their HRH titles. But the Duke of Sussex said despite the decision five years ago, he and his wife wished to "carry on" with an "official role" even though the pair do not live in the UK.

He continued: "If, for me, security is conditional on having an official role, one that both myself and my wife wish to carry on, but then was rejected, not by Ravec, was rejected by the Royal Household, and the result to that is you lose your security.

"That basically says you can't live outside of, outside of their control if you want to be safe."

The Duke of Sussex's "grievance" with the level of security he is provided when in the UK does not translate into a "legally sustainable" challenge, a Court of Appeal judge said today (Friday).

Prince Harry had brought legal action against the Home Office over the decision to provide him and the Duchess of Sussex with a "lesser level" of security than when they lived in the UK. But Sir Geoffrey Vos said Harry's disagreement with the arrangements did not support a "legally sustainable public law claim" after dismissing the duke's appeal following his unsuccessful High Court bid.

Reading a summary of the Court of Appeal's ruling on Friday, he said that although it was plain Harry felt "badly treated by the system", he could not say his "sense of grievance translated into a legal argument for the challenge".

Reading a summary of the Court of Appeal's ruling on Friday, he said that although it was plain Harry felt "badly treated by the system", he could not say his "sense of grievance translated into a legal argument for the challenge".

The Duke of Sussex had challenged the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), which has delegated responsibility from the Home Office over the provision of protective security arrangements for members of the royal family and others, with involvement from the Metropolitan Police, the Cabinet Office and the royal household.

The challenge came after Harry and Meghan left the UK and first moved to Canada, and then California, after announcing they wanted to take a step back from royal duties in 2020.

In the written judgment on Friday, Sir Geoffrey said: "From the Duke of Sussex's point of view, something may indeed have gone wrong, in that an unintended consequence of his decision to step back from royal duties and spend the majority of his time abroad has been that he has been provided with a more bespoke, and generally lesser, level of protection than when he was in the UK. But that does not, of itself, give rise to a legal complaint."

He added: "The claimant disagrees with Sir Richard, Ravec and the current chair on these matters.

"But none of that disagreement supports a legally sustainable public law claim to vitiate the decisions taken in the decision letter or subsequently."

In the summary, he continued: "Even if there had been a risk analysis from the risk management board, it would very likely have only confirmed the threat, vulnerability and impact levels which the Duke of Sussex had faced when earlier risk analyses were undertaken.

"But it would have had nothing to say on the critical features of the changed situation, namely the need for protective security on future uncertain visits and the Government's appetite for risk."

Sir Geoffrey also said retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane was "right to hold that it was open to Ravec, in the very unusual circumstances of this case, to depart from its usual policy of obtaining a risk analysis from the risk management board".

In the judgment, he said: "Accordingly, neither Ravec's decision letter, nor the protective security arrangements made for the claimant on his visits to the UK from June 2021 onwards, were unlawful."