Prince Harry was not to blame for his return to the UK clashing with King Charles and Queen Camilla's tour of Italy.
The Duke of Sussex flew 5,000 miles from California to attend the two-day appeal hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice.
His case challenges a ruling regarding the right he, Meghan, Archie and Lilibet have to taxpayer-funded bodyguards while visiting Britain.
The hearing took place across Tuesday and Wednesday last week and clashed with several engagements undertaken by King Charles and Queen Camilla in Italy,
Prince Harry was not to blame for his return to the UK clashing with King Charles and Queen Camilla's tour of Italy.
Getty
However, royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams said that the date of the hearing at the Court of Appeal was not something the Duke of Sussex could influence.
Richard Fitzwilliams told GB News: "You can't blame Harry for the timing of the court case.
"That was not something that he personally was able to control.
"That appears to be accidental, but it may have stolen the Royal Family's thunder."
The Duke of Sussex flew 5,000 miles from California to attend the two-day appeal hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Getty
On Tuesday, during the first day of the appeal hearing, Shaheed Fatima KC, representing Prince Harry, argued that the Duke has been "singled out" for "inferior treatment" when his high level of protection from the Metropolitan Police was removed.
She told the court that when the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) made its February 2020 decision, it failed to apply "its own terms of reference".
Instead, Ravec created a "different and so-called 'bespoke process'", she said.
"The appellant does not accept that 'bespoke' means 'better'. In fact, in his submission, it means that he has been singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment," Ms Fatima told the court.
LATEST ROYAL NEWS:
The Duke was challenging the dismissal of his High Court legal action against the Home Office over Ravec's decision.
Getty
Prince Harry sat behind his counsel on Tuesday and Wednesday, occasionally sipping from a bottle of water.
In written submissions to the court, Ms Fatima emphasised that "this appeal concerns the most fundamental right: to safety and security of person".
The Duke was challenging the dismissal of his High Court legal action against the Home Office over Ravec's decision.
The case centres on whether the security arrangements for the California-based royal are appropriate.
The Home Office strongly contested Prince Harry's appeal, with their barrister stating that it "involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees".
