For his sake, Harry must go to Iraq

Tristram Hunt

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.

Certainly, reports of special units within the Mahdi army militia dedicated to Harry's capture makes the decision all the more fraught. Talk of insurgent spies in the British camp at Basra is disturbing. Nonetheless, senior commanders in Iraq and the MoD are unanimous in their view that he should go. According to informed sources, the view of the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, is clear: 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 Modern soldiers trained for, then withdrawn from, combat find it equally hard to continue their careers within the army.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 the Prince of Wales so often decries.

But is this all rather out of date? In addition to preparing for his Iraq posting, this summer Harry is also involved with organising a pop concert to commemorate his mother's death. Her idea of monarchy - of human empathy rather than isolation; of metropolitan London as opposed to Balmoral stalking - was very different from such gung-ho militarism. But after the humiliation of the Royal Navy personnel in Iran a touch of Old Britain might not come amiss.

There is no denying the Iraq war is a very different conflict from the kind of popularly endorsed world wars of the last century. George VI at Jutland this is not. It is a divisive conflict and Harry is either contributing to a widely condoned act of colonial aggression or a high-minded moment of liberal interventionism. Some Iraqis on the ground certainly see Harry's arrival within a more imperial time frame.

Abu Ahmed, a commander in the Mahdi army, was adamant: 'His grandmother is the Queen of Britain and his father is the Queen's heir. What's he coming to do here? I'm afraid he wants to be king over us.' Indeed, Harry's service could come to be seen in the same light as the Prince of Wales's position as Colonel-in-Chief of the Parachute Regiment - a connection for which he has never been forgiven by the Irish nationalist community.

While some worried army families have decried Harry's departure for the Gulf, others hope it could help to restore some lost mettle. It needs to be handled carefully. The 'war on terror' is as much a media war as military campaign and an attack on Harry would represent a propaganda disaster. Yet it is not beyond the wit of officers to ensure Harry's posting is managed to avoid extra danger to himself, his troops and, not to be forgotten in this, the Iraqis we are meant to be assisting.

Beyond the mechanics, his service will show not only that there remains a continuing connection between monarchy and militarism but that the wider royal family still has a purpose. For if he can't join his fellow Sandhurst cadets in the back of a Scimitar, what can he do?