The decision not to send Prince Harry to Iraq has to be seen through the prism of the long history of royal service in wars, says military historian Peter Caddick-Adams.
After months of indecision, the British Ministry of Defence has announced that Prince Harry, third in line to the throne, is not to go to Iraq with his regiment.
The moment Officer Cadet Harry Wales began his course at Sandhurst Military Academy in early 2006, it was inevitable that the question of his operational service in either Afghanistan or Iraq would arise.
At the eleventh hour, military - and one suspects, political - chiefs arrived at the curious decision to stop his deployment. In some eyes this will be seen as caving-in to insurgent threats to kidnap or target the prince.
It seems curious, too, that the British military is admitting in effect that it cannot protect one of its own officers. Not that he would be easily recognisable in helmet and body armour, inside an armoured vehicle.
In a wider context this may be seen as a break with a long tradition of British royals serving in the military in war zones. Both Harry's uncle Prince Andrew, who served in the Falklands as a helicopter pilot, and his grandfather, Prince Philip, who was decorated during World War II for his service with the Royal Navy, faced very real danger in different combat zones.
Danger proximity
Prince Harry's great uncle, King George VI's brother, the Duke of Kent, joined the RAF and was killed while flying in 1942. A more distant ancestor, Prince Maurice of Battenberg, a grandson of Queen Victoria, was killed near Mons in 1914 as an officer in the King's Royal Rifle Corps.
Some scholars argue that it is the very proximity of the royal family to danger - sharing the suffering of their subjects and soldiers - that has won great respect for the institution of monarchy.
Kingship hit a low point in December 1936 with the abdication of Edward VIII, but that credibility was restored during World War II, when King George VI and his family stayed in London and their residence of Buckingham Palace was bombed. Even the Queen donned uniform as Second Lieutenant Princess Elizabeth, in the ATS (Auxiliary Territorial Service, the women's branch of the Army during the war).
By decreeing that Prince Harry should stay behind whilst the rest of his regiment departs on hazardous operations also creates a dangerous precedent. It creates a two-tier army, where the celebrities and famous avoid conflict, whilst the rest have to brave the bullets, something that the prince would not wish.
In the US during the Vietnam war, there was evidence that exactly this happened - you could negotiate your way out of the draft, or to a less dangerous posting, if your family were well-connected, rich or famous, and this generated massive resentment.
Commentators have suggested Harry's regiment, the Blues and Royals, will be breathing a collective sigh of relief that Harry is not joining them, supposedly because his presence would have made them more of a target.
But I am reliably informed that they are all in fact most disappointed that this promising young commander will have to break the bonds he has forged with his men over the last few months. Surely this is the most valuable training a royal prince can receive.
Operational service is a great social leveller and unlikely bonds are forged as service personnel face very real and constant danger. Royals have always appreciated the relative anonymity and freedom of the military.
One might ask where the prince can serve. Afghanistan? The Balkans? They all have their own dangers, and once this decision is ratified, it may have to be repeated again and again for as long as the prince remains in the Army.
It is indeed a shame that politics has got in the way of this young man's aspirations to serve his country and follow the tradition of military service that almost every generation of British royals has followed.
"
The history of the concept of monarchy is inextricably linked with martial prowess. In the UK, these ties between the royal and military spheres have remained strong.
This was all entirely predictable. The Army has been allowed by the MoD to make itself ridiculous by succumbing to the temptation to gain a VIP recruit (thereby helping it out with wider recruiting difficulties) without being able to use him for what he was trained for. The one who suffers is the young officer who cannot then pursue a full career because he cannot lead his men on operations. Kitchener would not let the future King Edward VIII closer to the front line than a Divisional Headquarters some miles back for fear of his being captured; the Queen could have told the government that as he was her uncle and she probably did. But then Des Browne is no Kitchener.
Peter Haldane, London
I was in a TA regiment and joined the army to serve wherever I was sent, I left on medical grounds and the sheer disappointment haunts me still three years on. As an officer who has trained in the regular army this feeling of disappointment will stay with Harry for years to come, let him do his duty let him serve.
Ex - soldier, merseyside
I think it's quite simple - he joined the wrong service, there would be precious little individual threat in the Navy or the Air Force. For insurgents to target a regiment on the ground is not beyond the realms of possibility but it would be nigh on impossible to work out which plane he was in or indeed have the capacity to attack his warship. I am not saying that the other 2 are less dangerous but I think most would admit in a ground war there combatants are more identifiable.
Graeme Ling, St Albans
My son is serving in Iraq. Is his life any less precious than Harry's? I think not. Harry wants to do the right thing, so everyone should shut up about it and let him go. The media is responsible for this mess. If the media hadn't screamed that he is being deployed, this wouldn't be an issue. In essence, Harry has been emasculated.
Nuala Kurokawa, Deerfield, Illinois, USA
It is just such posturing by the media, commentators and experts that has lead to the current situation. As the chief of the general staff implied if not stated - the media made an issue about Prince Harry going to Iraq and has raised the profile to international awareness of his going.
The media has created this dangerous situation by reporting on his going and are now positioning themselves to avoid the fallout by sitting on the fence. Here they can argue that he must go due to historical precedent.
I believe that the media should stop the discussion now, stop reporting on his whereabouts and let the military deploy him as they see fit. Slap a D notice on the media and let the military do what is required to do.
P C O'Connor, UK
It's very interesting that the examples of Royals previous involvement in wars; Prince Andrew in the Falklands, Prince Philip and the Duke of Kent in WWII - were all essentially wars fought to defend British soil however shaky ground this might be in the case of the Falklands conflict). The 'war' in Iraq is essentially the result of an act of aggression, and is now an engagement with an indeterminate terrorist force. Is there any history of royals being involved in similar conflicts; Northern Ireland etc? I doubt it, and I think that is where one of the fundamental differences lies.
John Harrison, Eastbourne, UK
^ Back to top | BBC Sport Home | BBC Homepage | Contact us | Help | ©
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~31~RS~)