What now for Prince Harry?

May 17, 2007

| Submit Comments | Comments (25) | Previous | Next

Prince Harry

PRINCE Harry's military career is in turmoil today after the dramatic decision not to send him to Iraq.

Some experts say he will amost certainly resign.

The decision was taken by the head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, who said he acted after a number of `specific threats' to the prince.

Sir Richard said the threats would expose Harry and the troops with him to `a degree of risk I now deem unacceptable'.

He acknowledged Harry would be `extremely disappointed', having shown `undoubted talent' in command of his squadron with the Household Cavalry.

It is a U-turn by defence chiefs, who said last month that the third-in-line to the throne would be joining troops in the Gulf.

Harry was expected to be deployed with his Blues and Royals regiment in the coming weeks.

Despite Clarence House, saying the Prince had no intention of resigning, Major Charles Heyman, editor of Armed Forces UK, said Harry would almost certainly quit and said: "He can resign his commission at any time. You give notice."

He said there was no role for him and he would have no credibility, being just about the only person who had not served in Iraq or Afghanistan.

He would always be looked at as the prince who did not go to Iraq because it was too dangerous.

Major Heyman said condemning a young man, a `fighting soldier,' to a desk job was almost akin to a punishment.

Reg Keys, whose son Thomas was killed on active service in Basra in 2003, said he found the decision distasteful: "It would appear that Harry's life is more valuable than my son or nearly 150 service personnel who've given their lives."

The prince had always maintained he aimed to see action and Clarence House said he was `very disappointed', but `fully understands and accepts' the situation.

A statement said: "Prince Harry is very disappointed that he will not be able to go to Iraq with his troop on this deployment as he had hoped. He fully understands and accepts General Dannatt's difficult decision and remains committed to his Army career. Prince Harry's thoughts are with his troop and the rest of the battle group in Iraq."

Former British commander Col Bob Stewart, said the decision not to send Harry was the right one.

He said: "If Prince Harry was deployed and he or those around him were hurt or killed, the Army would be blamed, and quite rightly.

"Quite frankly, the decision is the right one. Sometimes being a royal prince is a disadvantage."

What do you think of the decision? Have your say.

| Submit Comments | Comments (25) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All

Bill, Kiriat Motzkin (17/05/2007 at 10:05)

Could the Prince afford to resign and buy out his contract?

Sam Anderson (17/05/2007 at 10:27)

If it ain't good enough for Harry, it ain't good enough for our boys - bring them back from Iraq before more lives are meaninglessly lost.

Joey, Ashton under Lyne, (17/05/2007 at 10:54)

I believe he is just waiting for the outcome of the Lady Breastfeading Mayor case to se whether he has a case for sexual discrimination

mudderspain (17/05/2007 at 11:05)

He just likes playing toy soldiers not real ones!!!!

So what's the point of him carrying on in the army when he's never going to be sent anywhere where bullets are being fired.

SHAME ON HIM!!

slinger, Manchester (17/05/2007 at 11:09)

I agree with Harry being pulled out as he will be putting the life of his troop at risk as well as his own. BUT, maybe in future, sending a royal out to a war zone should be kept in house and then maybe "the other side" wouldn't know he was going out and he would be just like anybody else. All terrorists will go for a high profile person if they know they are out there. It was publicised enough by all media platforms for them to plan something. Worth thinking about for the future.

ace, manchester (17/05/2007 at 11:35)

White feather?
If this war isnt fit for a "Blue bloodied royal" then its not fit for our kids to die for.Im sorry for harry,but i feel more compassion for all those soldiers who have given their lives for this war. If these people want "Our form of democracy" let their children and adults die for the right ..Dont expect us to loose yet even more of our very brave soldiers..

redarmy, rochdale (17/05/2007 at 12:14)

Look he was never going any way and i think its the royals and harry him self who have said no thank's,yet still we send "normal non royals to get killed".
Bring our men and women home.NOW

ian, Oldham (17/05/2007 at 12:14)

what a joke, i doubt the iraqis would even identify him!!!

Mike S, Manchester (17/05/2007 at 12:25)

I think that it's a sensible decision not to send him. Whilst I empathise with the comments from the "down with the blue-bloods" brigade, the fact that Al-Quaeda have already said that they will target him means that everyone he serves with will be put in greater and specific danger to their lives, never mind his. Therefore, are they not decreasing this risk by not sending him (and by the way I totally disagree with the war in the first place).

mshilot (17/05/2007 at 12:53)

I am American who was opposed to this war from its onset. Thousands of lives have been lost for a cause that was not just. That said, I do however respect prince Harry for volunteering to join the army in the first place. I can honestly say that I would not want to be in the same fighting unit as prince Harry, not for his lack of skill, but rather the target that would be placed on us. Radical islamists further there agenda by making headlines. What would be more news worthy than the slaying of a royal prince in the name of Allah.

ace, manchester (17/05/2007 at 13:00)

Mike S, Manchester
People who like you whinge about the royals being a target .Open your ears and eyes the terrorists have said in the past that they will target certain people in our forces in the past .send all the royals of servicable age,Then maybe people will get some respect back for the so called "Blue Bloods" all these royals are good for now is clubbing and boozing and posing in the press.... BRING OUR BOYS AND GIRLS BACK NOW.

Sheila (17/05/2007 at 13:21)

Fortunately what the military is really saying is that British sons and daughters lives are worth more than just being glorified body guards to someone (no matter how talented or competent that person might be) whose very presence can only increase the level of tension and danger to everyone involved.

marc (17/05/2007 at 14:19)

ace, i think mike s was actually expressing concern at the increased danger harry would create for the soldiers around him, not concern for harry himself.

mancunian, australia (17/05/2007 at 14:53)

It is not his fault but he should resign his commission.
What now is the point of him being in the army?

Mike S, Manchester (17/05/2007 at 15:13)

Marc - bullseye.

Ace - missed the target.

LeythBlue, Leigh (17/05/2007 at 15:56)

Why not stay at home and spend more time in Chelsea....

Snare Drum, Ashton-under-Lyne (17/05/2007 at 16:39)

What kind of vote is that? Should Harry go to Iraq? Our soldiers should'nt even be there FULL STOP.

Colin W, Stockholm (17/05/2007 at 16:47)

she pay back all the taxes used to train this white elephant

Saint, Middleton (17/05/2007 at 17:05)

Unfortunatly in the real world the army's not there to play Tig and hide and seek, they are there to fight, its unfortunate that Harry joined the Army and maybe they should have stopped him, but he has and now he must go and be targeted by the enemy just like the rest of them ALREADY ARE.

BlueGorilla, ex of Stockport (18/05/2007 at 01:24)

Isn't it just time that we consigned the archaic institution of the royal family to the rubbish bin of history.They belong in a feudal age,not a grown up democratic society.I am a citizen,not a subject,and will judge people on their worth,not their inheritance.At least lets vote on it.As for Harry's career,I think he was gung-ho and reckless to want to serve on the front line.His presence creates a greater risk for our soldiers,and he must have realised that.Anyway he isn't going to starve without a career,nor have to attend a restart interview.

Chris, Sharston (18/05/2007 at 10:04)

Forget Harry, bring them all back

Jo (18/05/2007 at 11:13)

This story just serves to demonstrate how utterly pointless the royal family are. The princes had to join the armed forces because that is pretty much the only viable career option for them. Yet once they are in the army, they can't actually do their job properly because their presence would be a danger to those around them. This just goes to prove that the monarchy is an expensive anachronism that should be abolished.

ace, manchester (18/05/2007 at 17:28)

marc
All our soldiers are targets .So dont flatter a royal to make them think hes any different....

walker, Germany (18/05/2007 at 19:35)

That's are what we surfs are here for.To Breed Soldiers.
For Queen and Country!Harry will get a medal at the end of it.After all where did the Greek get all his medals?
It was through Marrying Liz!

LookingForLogic, Stockport (21/05/2007 at 01:27)

People who join the armed services should only do so completely of their own free will.

Everybody, from heir to the throne, to pauper on the street, should be offered the opportunity to join & made fully aware of the positives/negatives of doing so.

I do not believe that the royal family, as it stands today, should feel obliged to send their sons into battle.

Lets hope he follows his heart, somebody still needs to take over his mothers roles.

I would rather see anybody who has the power making peace with it instead of war.

()

Report

News