From the moment Prince Harry enrolled for officer training at Sandhurst, he and his family knew that serving in Iraq was a real possibility. That is what officers do.

He would not have wanted it otherwise. Being left behind because of his status as a Prince would leave him feeling that he held his manhood cheap while others spoke of how they fought upon St Crispin’s Day.

As it emerged yesterday that the Prince’s deployment is under review after one of the bloodiest months for British troops in the country, his friends knew instantly the emotion it would provoke.

Household Cavalry sources claimed in the morning that the Prince would quit the army if he was prevented from carrying out the role for which he has been trained.

One said: “This is what he signed up for and if he doesn’t go he will sign off and leave. He joined the Army for a bit of excitement and for him to be told he’s not going would be awful.”

As the day progressed other voices joined the fray. Sir John Nott, the Defence Secretary during the Falklands conflict, said the Prince’s presence could jeopardise the safety of his colleagues. He said: “The danger is that Harry will be hazarding the lives of other soldiers and young officers and I think that’s not right.”

Another former Defence Secretary, Michael Portillo, also warned against his deployment and urged the Prince to respect the army’s orders. He said: “It would be, I’m afraid, an absolute disaster for us to allow the third in line to the throne either to be killed or to be kidnapped.”

By the end of the day other, more measured, voices close to the Prince were uttering emollient words.

Royal aides stressed that the Prince would respect the military chain of command and said it was highly unlikely that he would resign his commission so soon after receiving it.

One said: “Harry’s a grown-up and he’ll take whatever the decision is, but he wants to go. He would be extremely disappointed but to say he would quit is way too strong.”

Tony Blair refused to be drawn on the issue except to tell listeners to BBC Radio Lancashire that he would be delighted if one of his children chose to join the Armed Forces.

After saying the Prince’s deployment was a matter for the Army the Prime Minister said: “It’s a choice for any young person as to whether they want to join the Army or not. I’d be absolutely delighted if one of my children wanted to do that.”

Clarence House, which had done its best not to become embroiled in the row insisting it is a decision for the Army, is clearly displeased at the fuss believing that raising the will-he-won’t-he profile merely draws attention to his impending presence there and puts him in even greater potential danger.

Royal officials maintained their stance that the Prince was a trained officer, that he clearly would be disappointed if not allowed to serve with his unit in Iraq, but that no decision had so far been taken not to send him.

British intelligence is analysiing whether there are specific targeted threats to Harry and those serving immediately alongside him after a one of the bloodiest months for British service personnel in the region. 11 British servicemen have been killed in the region this month alone, including two who were on exactly the same kind of patrol that the Prince would be leading.

No member of the Royal Family has served in a combat zone since the Prince’s uncle, the Duke of York, served as a decoy helicopter pilot in the Falklands conflict causing Argentine pilots to take bets on who would be the first to shoot down “the little Prince”.

His deployment, at the same age as the Prince is now, caused flutterings at the highest level.

Margaret Thatcher, as Prime Minister, had grave misgivings about letting him go, but she had to give way to his insistence. Sir John Nott said yesterday the decision was not difficult, as the Falklands was a simple and clear-cut mission; Iraq was a much more fraught.

In an interview ten years after the conflict the Duke of York said: “Had I not gone to the Falklands, my position within the Navy would have been untenable.”

In an interview on his 21st birthday last year, the Prince made his feelings clear. “There’s no way I’m going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit on my a*** back home while my boys are out fighting for their country,” he said.

The Queen, as the Prince’s grandmother, head of State and titular commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, was consulted. She is understood to have expressed concern for his welfare, but raised no objection.

Then, in February, senior Army and Ministry of Defence officials travelled to Highgrove to discuss the situation with the Prince and his father, the Prince of Wales, and to lay on the line the potential dangers involved, not least the increased danger to the men serving under a high-profile potential target.

It was agreed that he should go with his unit on a six-month tour of duty in southern Iraq.

Prince Harry began to take part in preparation exercises for commanding his Scimitar armoured vehicle unit of 11 men. But then the situation changed. Southern Iraq has become an exceedingly dangerous place, with Clarence House has frequently had its work cut out explaining the Prince’s sometimes riotous behaviour, but yesterday officials were on his side, indicating that it was the Prince’s ambition to be long-term career soldier.

Although they will not say it outright, the Prince’s senior aides, and his immediate family, are hoping that a spell of real action will be a major step on his road to maturity.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Times Christmas appeal: Letter from the Editor
• Conferences — what a waste of money
• Schools supremo learns a painful lesson