Send Harry to Iraq, or send the monarchy packing

Tristram Hunt of The Observer couldn't be more spot on:

These must be nervous days for the Queen but if Britain's monarchy still has any serious meaning left in it at all then Prince Harry should be despatched to Iraq. If he is barred from serving with his Blues and Royals regiment then there remains little point in holding on to the Royal Family...

Cornet Windsor is in the army, in a combat unit, and that's what people in the army do. Any plans to rescind his six-month tour will undermine both Harry's own sense of self-worth and the vital connection - of loyalty, service and sense of nationhood - which still exists between royalty and the army.

Militarism and monarchy have a long history. For a prince, war provides a moment of rare power and equality. One needs only think of that other Harry on the fields of Agincourt on 25 October 1415, displaying an unrivalled example of regal machismo - artfully garnered into national myth by Shakespeare:

'We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he today that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition:

And gentlemen in England now abed

Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.'

This celebrated, eve of battle speech has more than a casual relevance to today's Harry: the allure of war; the brotherhood of combat; and the self-loathing of those spared the fight. Modern soldiers trained for, then withdrawn from, combat find it equally hard to continue their careers within the army. Like Shakespeare's English gentlemen, they too often think themselves accursed. Or as Harry less felicitously put it: 'There is no way I'm going to ... sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country.'

It is has been a long time since a king led his troops into battle - George II at the battle of Dettingen in 1743, during the war of the Austrian Succession. Yet heirs, and most especially the spares, continued to serve. From the Duke of Clarence (the future King William IV) in the late 18th century to Prince Andrew, Duke of York, in the Falkland Islands war, the armed services have proved efficacious careers for otherwise aimless princes. Moreover, royal involvement remains important to regimental ethos. Hence the extraordinary military ardour for the late Queen Mother. And it works both ways.

Even in today's 'value-added monarchy' (as the Prince of Wales's private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, prefers to call it) the military is more than just outdoor relief for the third in line. The armed forces constitute one of the cultural props of the royal family. Not only do members of the armed forces swear allegiance to Her Majesty, but their very meaning is bound up with the monarchical ideal.

The armed services are above and beyond politics: their calling is to country not party. Their ethos is one of duty and public service. Officially an organ of the state, the military is part of civil society with its Royal British Legion clubs, county museums, historic regiments and regional affiliations. The patriotism, implicit Protestantism and ethic of obedience the military embodies is regarded as a bulwark against the kind of self-gratifying, materialist spirit of the times.