Harry, King Charles' younger son, brought the action at London's High Court after the Home Office - the ministry responsible for policing - decided in February 2020 he would not automatically receive personal police security while in the UK.
Harry, along with other senior royals, had received full publicly-funded security protection provided by the state before he stepped back from his royal duties and moved to California with his US wife Meghan in March 2020.
The Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as RAVEC, had decided Harry would not receive the same level of protection.Â
In February, the High Court ruled the decision was lawful and dismissed Harry's case.
The court refused to give Harry permission to appeal on April 8, a court spokesperson said on Monday, adding that the prince can apply directly to the Court of Appeal.
"The reality of the matter is that the claimant considers he should receive a different approach to his protection whilst in the UK than RAVEC decided he should, based in part on his comparison of his own position with that of others," Judge Peter Lane said.
"RAVEC, as an expert body, concluded otherwise. It was entitled to do so."
Harry was also ordered to pay 90 per cent of the Home Office's "reasonable costs" in defending the case although the amount of the government's costs were not stated.
The case against the government was one of several high-profile legal battles Harry has waged in recent years, with his others involving lawsuits against the UK media.
