A SENIOR Church of England bishop has called for Prince Harry to be held back from fighting in Iraq to keep the royal family out of the political row over the war.

David Stancliffe, bishop of Salisbury, believes sending Harry with his unit to southern Iraq could jeopardise the constitutional neutrality of the monarchy by appearing to lend support to the war.

“The Iraq war has divided the country in a way no other issue has in modern times,” said Stancliffe. “In these circumstances, can it be right for any member of the royal family, even if they are serving officers in the British Army, to be asked to enter this conflict directly?”

Stancliffe’s comments add to the controversy over Harry’s imminent deployment to Iraq.

Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff, announced at the beginning of May that Harry would to go Iraq with his regiment, the Blues and Royals, in command of a reconnaissance troop of Scimitar armoured vehicles.

The decision was made despite threats against Harry’s life from insurgents and fears that his presence would endanger other British soldiers.

Gerald Ward, Harry’s godfather and a close friend of the Prince of Wales, has rebuked the Ministry of Defence for giving out so much detail about the nature of the prince’s deployment. “I fear for anyone’s life in that situation . . . It is very naive of the Ministry of Defence to spell out the type of work he may do and the type of vehicles he may drive,” he said.

Ward also said he believed that the Prince of Wales’s good relationship with Muslims across the world would stand Harry in good stead. Ward has supported Harry in his schooling and military training and takes a close interest in all he does.

Other friends of Harry said this weekend that, even now, there was a possibility that he would not go to Iraq. It was possible that he could be sent to other Gulf countries where he could support the British effort but not put himself in the line of fire.

Stancliffe, whose diocese includes a number of army training camps, has been one of the Church of England’s most outspoken opponents of the war.

“Asking a member of the royal family to participate directly in this adventure must surely raise constitutional as well as prudential questions,” he said.

Stancliffe, who has spoken on several occasions in the Lords opposing the invasion of Iraq, is widely believed to reflect the views of Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Williams said yesterday that he believed Tony Blair’s foreign policy failings had diminished Britain’s standing in the world.

“It is a mixed picture. In large parts of the developing world and large parts of the Muslim world, Iraq has become a stick to beat us with,” said Williams. He added: “In other respects, some of what Britain has done on issues such as debt relief has gone down well.”

Williams believes Blair was mistaken to have supported the invasion of Iraq and said that this had “weakened Britain’s leverage” dealing with the world.

Williams believes that Gordon Brown would bring a strong sense of moral priorities to government: “I am thinking of all he’s done on debt relief and the international finance facility. He’s got some very concrete achievements doing the rather practical, prosaic spadework that is needed for development.”