After he and his wife Meghan stepped down from their official royal roles in 2020 to move to the United States, King Charles' younger son was stripped of the police security usually provided to members of the royal family in the UK.
The High Court in London had previously agreed he should be allowed to challenge the original decision to end his protection. However, on Tuesday, the court rejected his bid for a second review over the rejection of his offer to privately pay for the highly-trained officers.
The verdict has sparked debate over the royal title and the name Harry used for himself in his legal battle. Some have called him fake for identifying himself as "H.R.H The Prince Henry Charles Albert David" instead of using his nickname Harry. However, using full names in court documents is not unusual.
Others have claimed that Harry used his HRH title after the late Queen banned him and his wife from using it. However, the Queen's decision was related to using the title for profit, not in court documents.
In fact, in the judgment issued last year, when the Queen was still alive, Harry was identified as the Duke of Sussex rather than HRH. The decision to remove publicly-funded security was made by theExecutive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC), which approves security for the royals and VIPs, such as the prime minister.
Recently, Harry's lawyers argued that RAVEC did not have the authority to reject his funding offer, and even if it did, it should have considered an exception or heard representations on his behalf.
The use of HRH titles and full legal names in court documents is a common practice, and it is not unusual for individuals to use their official titles and full names to establish their legal identity. While some have criticized Prince Harry for his choice of name, it is important to understand the context of his legal battle and the legal norms that govern court proceedings.
