LONDON – Prince Harry on Friday said he was "devastated" to lose his appeal over his security in Britain after stepping down from royal duties, telling the BBC he would "struggle to forgive" the decision and could not safely bring his family to Britain.

Harry, King Charles' younger son who has moved to the United States with his wife Meghan, had sought to overturn a decision by the Home Office, the ministry responsible for policing.

A specialist body decided in February 2020 that Harry would not automatically receive personal police protection while in Britain, which London's High Court last year ruled was lawful.

READ MORE: Prince Harry allowed to sue UK government over security denial

On Friday, that decision was upheld by three Court of Appeal judges who said that, while Harry understandably felt aggrieved, that did not amount to an error of law.

"Obviously, pretty gutted about the decision," Harry, who now lives in California with Meghan and their two children, told the BBC.

He added: "My status hasn't changed – it can't change. I am who I am, I am part of what I am part of, I can't escape that."

Harry claimed that "security was used as leverage" to try and keep him and Meghan within the royal fold, but said he wanted to be reconciled with his family.

"What I'm struggling to forgive, and what I will probably always struggle to forgive, is that a decision that was made in 2020 that affects my every single day and that is knowingly putting me and my family in harm's way," he said in the interview from California.

Buckingham Palace said in relation to Harry's legal case: "All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion."

Judge Geoffrey Vos said that Harry's lawyer had made "powerful and moving arguments" about the impact of the security change, but that did not make the change unlawful.

The Home Office welcomed the decision. "The UK government's protective security system is rigorous and proportionate", it said.

ALSO READ: Prince Harry challenges 'unfair treatment' over UK security

Harry, 40, attended two days of hearings in April, when his lawyer told the court that he had been singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment.

Asked if he intended to appeal Friday's ruling to the UK's Supreme Court, Harry said: "I don't want any battles to continue ... this, at the heart of it, is a family dispute."

'Life at stake'

His lawyer Shaheed Fatima had said Harry's "life was at stake", citing that al Qaeda had recently called for him to be murdered, and he and Meghan had been involved in "a dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi in New York City" in 2023.

However, the government's legal team said the bespoke arrangement for the prince had positive advantages from a security assessment point of view.

Harry, along with other senior royals, had received full publicly-funded security protection provided by the state before his high-profile exit from official royal life in March 2020.

The Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as RAVEC, then decided Harry would no longer receive the same level of protection, a decision Vos said was "an understandable and perhaps predictable reaction".

Harry has often spoken out about his concerns, referring back to the death of his mother, Princess Diana, who was killed when her chauffeur-driven car crashed as it sped away from chasing paparazzi in Paris in 1997.

In an apparent reference to his mother's death, Harry told the BBC: "I don't want history to repeat itself."

READ MORE: UK's queen agrees Harry, wife Meghan can exit senior royal role

He added: "Through the disclosure process I've discovered that some people want history to repeat itself, which is pretty dark."

Next week, Harry's lawsuit – which he has brought with singer Elton John and others – against Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Daily Mail and MailOnline, over alleged widespread unlawful activities will return to the High Court.

In January, he was paid substantial damages by Rupert Murdoch's British newspaper group after it settled a claim he had brought against its titles and admitted it had intruded into his private life.