In the arguments made to the court, Prince Harry’s barrister has claimed the Duke’s “life is at stake” due to the removal of his full taxpayer-funded security protection.

Speaking to GB News, commentator Adam Brooks argued that the Sussexes “do not deserve security” in the UK after their fallout with the Royal Family.

Littlewood explained: “He should not be getting it. He has made his decision to absent himself from royal duties. The security, at least around the clock, should be attached to doing those duties on a case by case basis.

“We could provide him with security, just as we do with any other person on a case by case basis, but not round the clock, not on the basis of his royal status.”

Offering a defence for Prince Harry, Commentator Nina Myskow admitted it “really pains her” to see the “waste of a great royal”.

She told GB News: “Britain has bought the stories pushed by the palace and perpetrated by the media, and it really pains me to see just what a waste of a great royal Harry was.

“He’s not asking for round the clock, what he actually was originally asking for was when he wasn’t getting his own security was if he could bring his own armed security, and pay for it himself.

“He didn’t want the taxpayers to pay for it, so he said he’d pay for it himself, but he’s not allowed to do that.”

At the conclusion of the hearing, Sir Geoffrey Vos said the Court of Appeal’s decision would be given in writing at a later date, which was “most unlikely” to be before Easter.

“Plainly we will take our time to consider our judgments,” he added.