We are reading too many senseless discussions about the decision of not sending Prince Harry to the treacherous civil war in Iraq, and many more pointless comparison with other royals in war times, like his uncle Prince Andrew who was sent to the South Atlantic in 1982, but he never saw action and was another kind of war, facing a regular army, not a guerrilla warfare, which is the case of Iraq, quite more dangerous, you don’t know who is the enemy and where he is. What would happened if Prince Harry would be kidnapped by Shiies militia or Al Qaeda terrorist, like it is happening over and over with American soldiers and European or American civilians, if not being murdered by possible captors? How would react the British public? It is true that many royals in the past, most of them related to the British Royal Family gave their lives for their countries during both World Wars. Six in in WW1 and two grand sons of the Kaiser in WW2 and the Duke of Kent in an accident. No way to compare.

wetzvonken, Buenos Aires, Argentina

I keep reading that "Harry's" presence would endanger his fellow soldiers. Well then, post him by himself.

He would not be the first military man to find himself alone in a hostile environment. There have been plenty of men who had only themselves to talk to in the confines of an airplane cockpit or a lonely listening post i n the middle of the night. Scarry? Yes, but essential never the less.

I know I will hear a bunch of reasons why it can't be done.

Here in the US of A, Clinton and George W didn't serve. They are good people, but still there is that question....

Joe , Phoenix, Arizona

The whole thing smells of new labour. Once again General Dannat has proved how frail our top officers are when it comes to political pressure. We have guys with no bodyarmour, no helicopters, the wrong ammunition, not enough ammunition, poor logistics, lack of financial backing, etc...The lad wanted to serve in the armed forces and was refused because new labour would look bad for starting this war if the boy died. Although its ok for the rest of our lads to die under new labour's outstanding leadership. The lad should have been able to go. Dannat has gifted the anti royal brigade with a trump card, at the very least Harry could have highlighted the realities of serving in a military under new labour administration. God bless every soldier serving, royal or otherwise. The boy is no coward just another victim of the UK voting labour. And yes i'm a black working class former soldier! And proud of it, some of us have not been entirely brainwashed by Tony's bonkers PC britain.

ben, London, UK

For the love of God and common sense people, think before you type.

Let's imagine that Harry was sent to Iraq. Regardless of the current disproportionate media coverage, his presence would put himself and his men in extraordinary danger in an already highly dangerous situation. As a Royal he already 'needs' at least one bodyguard with him at all times. He also has 'Wales' written all over his kit, so isn't exactly hard to find. By going to Iraq, Harry would have put the men in his platoon in more danger, as well as incurring further costs in an already expensive war. It's an entirely pragmatic matter, and has absolutely nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq or the existence of the Royal Family (both of which I severely object to).

If Harry honestly wants to serve in the Army as an ordinarty British citizen, there is only one way he could do this - by abdicating from his status as a prince. Otherwise, he has to put up and shut up.

Helen, Dublin, Ireland

Wise decision or not I cannot say as I have not had access to the information that the General has..but I will say that my heart breaks for Harry. To grow up wanting to be a soldier, to train as a soldier, and then to be prevented from fighting for what he believes in...is so saddening. And anyone who chooses to spew bile in his direction purely becuase he was born into royalty should consider for just one moment how they would feel in his situation. No matter his personal life (and really, how many people in their twenties have never gone to a club? be reasonable) he must be distraught at having this dream die, and my heart goes out to him.

Marianne, London, London

so its all right for everyone elses son or daughter to go but not harry ,what if every parent did the same and would not allow ther child to go there would be no war great,this has all been planed from the start ,the kings in the past and princes all went to war dont say charles and the queen had nothing to do with this or you live in a differant world to the rest of us ther has and always been two laws one for them and one for the rest of the uk,

Brian, kilmarnock, hellofa

The royal family need to stop sending their sons to preen and prance and pretend they are "doing their bit". They should stay home and do what is expected of them - dressing up as Nazis, whinging endlessly to the government and selling excremental gossip magazines. The one useful function that they serve is as a tourist attraction and that's about it.

Dan, Hampton, UK

I completely agree with the General's decision. The state of affairs in Iraq has deteriorated exponentially in the last year, with the total number of British soldiers killed in April alone matching that of the whole of OpTelic 7. The insurgents now have Warrior (British APC) penetrating IED's, and have increased the scale and frequency of attacks on British troops. The security threat to the Prince is unacceptable - can you imagine the furore if he were killed?.

Whilst understanding that he wishes to do his job, he has to accept the mortal danger he would put his men in (or anyone within 400m of a Scimitar) every time he went out on the ground. Having been out there myself, I can honestly say i would not want to go out on patrol with that man.

Dan, Stroud, Gloucestershire

So Precious didn't get to go after all - no surprises there then. He can now spend his "war" falling out of nightclubs whilst the real soldiers get shot at. There was no point in him being in the army because he was never going to be allowed into any combat zone. The quicker the Windsors are banned from this charade, the better.

Margaret Blackwood, Alva, Scotland

If Harry wishes to fulfill his operational role, good on him and he ought be allowed. If not; others might say..."Hey Johnny shouldn't fight either, as his mum thinks he might get hurt or cause others to get hurt".
.........Where the heck would that leave the army? If he's in, he's in!

Fred Proud, Christchurch, NZ

it would seem that te readers of this article are allmost to a man or woman muppets. Yes we should NOT send Harry to iraq. Yes the Army should have known better than to let the news of his deployment out in the first place but now it is its too dangerous for him to go. He is not the only young man in the army to be barred from serving in the conflict. Where a family has lost one member the rules do not allow another to serve in the same conflict zone.

Have the sense you are born with and realise that putting such a high profile person in that danger only puts his troup at more risk than they already are. The main reason that you are all moaning about this is you are closet republicans and do not wnat a Monarchy in the UK. Grow up and ralise that they cost us little and do a hell of a lot more for us than most. In this era of celebrity it would be better if we remembered that.
God save the Queen and protect our boys overseas and bring them home safe and well job done.

simon Mackie, newcastle, UK

Publishing which squadron / company / battery one serves will surely heighten the risk for them and their soldiers. Responsible media, and only necessary interest / coverage, would no doubt help ease the hostile climate overseas as public frenzy is half the terrorists mission achieved.

Jennifer Henry, Yorkshire,

loose life in soldiers exitence is unfortunately one of the pilars of the army, as in the ancient rome , robespierre french revolucionary said "to serve in the army is the maximal political contributions to the political life of a citizen".
my support for of the british army men and women who are serving in high risk conflict areas.

cipriano lamas meilan, corunna, spain

Harry must be gutted.

I imagine this incident will be a constant embarrasment for him whenever he tries to gain respect among his peers, he will never be able to prove himself in his chosen profession.

All of you who are laughing as if he was a coward are shameful - [i'm talking to David Pandit, Viola and others]
How would you feel in his shoes?
...And would you call him a coward to his face? I imagine not.

Jennifer, Glasgow,

Not sure why Gil in Tel Aviv should think that the British Army is being laughed at. Perhaps you have seen the IDF in action too long !!!....It's the most professional in the world as well as not being a conscript army. This decision won't have been taken lightly, Harry will have hated to be left behind but if it prevents the soldiers around him from being targetted as well, then it's a good decision. Gil, it's no skin off our nose .!!

kirk, Rotherham, UK

I don't see anything wrong with this decision. It's perfectly acceptable to re-assess Harry's deployment on an ongoing basis, even though I'm sure it will be a blow to him.

The media focus around this has been a big cause of the problem - how would the rest of the Blues & Royals feel when the media keep advertising where they are, and what they are about to do to the public? It puts many more men than just Harry at an increased risk.

It's silly to suggest this is all because Harry doesn't have to take the same risks as everyone else, and I think most servicemen and women would agree.

It does now beg the question of what Harry can do in his career now? Kidnapping, torture and propoganda are threats in the main areas British forces operate - so where can he go and serve as a normal soldier?

Alex, Bristol,

why is the british government wasting prescious resources not to mention money on training a member of teh royal family if they cant even serve their country? what a joke!!

christina, brisbane, australia

Tom, Basingstoke - we live in a kingdom If you don't like it then leave the country.
God bless our queen, country and our armed forces.

Peter, London,

Its clear enough that it will not be possible for Royals to serve in the Armed Forces in the future, given that they will be such an obvious target of any opponent.

Mike Homfray, Liverpool,

Shame that so many commentators are ill-informed thinking Harry is soft and cosseted. Harry has had to work hard to even qualify for Sandhurst with his attempt at the RCB being successful. Look up Army-RCB and see what these young would be leaders have to do to even get considered. Then the 44 weeks at Sandhurst, where the training is such that anything that anyone is expected to do physically/mentally, is taught to a high degree and their recognised leadership skills (RCB) are honed so's their actions/orders to their men/women are clear and that their well being is paramount under his/her command. Soft? He has proved he's one tough cookie. Lets hope that all of our troops now going to Iraq with their T-Shirts marked 'I'm Harry!' ** will convince these un-informed commentators that loyalty to their officers is natural when they, the officer, have their men/women's respect. They know how hard he's worked and only they are qualified to comment. **'Sparticus' comes to mind.

Peter, Birmingham,

If our starting point is that those who sign up to the army recognise that they could die at some point, what then does it matter that Harry's presence will bring about this end? Or is it the "fact" that he is more important than other soldiers? Or is the fear down to the possibility that he could be captured, tortured and ...?? If the latter, then, the Royals should have no business in the military.

Annie, Cambridge, UK

Well done the British & Foreign media for ensuring those who wish to do Harry,and British soldiers harm,had an up to date,purely speculative based, factfile on Cornet Wales & his troop.

Disgraceful.

Ash, New York,

I really find it difficult to understand how some commentators on this board somehow associate cowardice on Prince Harry's part to a military decision to stop him deploying to Iraq.
Specific intelligence shows that Harry is at greater risk of kidnap, torture and execution than any other soldier and consequently so are all those men serving with him. The only possible decision in that case is to stop him going for his and everyone else's safety. I imagine if 'ordinary' soldiers were killed in an attempted attack on Harry's life the same people criticising him here would just as quickly blame the army for sending him.

Emma, Swansea, UK

Best keep Harry in reserve to guard his Gran.

Pfffill, Shanghai, China

This is entirely the correct decision by the Head of the British Army as Prince Harry would undoubtedly have endangered the lives of those under and around him. Suicide bombers would have taken delight - if that's not a rather perverse way of stating the obvious - in taking out the third in line to the British throne. The more critical question now is whether any royal should be admitted to Sandhurst in future? Prince William won an award at Sandhurst and yet he will never now lead in an active duty role. This is a waste of time, effort and treasure and unfair to the applicant candidate he displaced. Worse still, it turns him and his brother into "chocolate soldiers" - to use one of George Bernard Shaw's more indelicate descriptions of certain types of soldiery. I have every confidence that Her Majesty the Queen will ensure that this situation is never replicated in the future as, in the final analysis, it has been highly embarrassing and damaging to the British monarchy.

Dr David Green, Athens, Greece

It is quite obvious that Prince Harry was more than prepared to serve in his military capacity in any role his commanding officers felt fit. He is blameless in this ludicrous situation. However, IF his presence in Iraq had created an additional risk to his colleagues, then this had to be a factor in his deployment. I am sure that Prince Harry would have carried out his duties to the best of his ability but his mere presence would have created an additional risk. The decision was therefore about this risk. It was nothing to do with Harry's ability or willingness to serve his country.

Colin, Wokingham, UK

Harry is not the one who said he would not go , it was those in charge that did. As for those who think that Harry has been put up more important then their Children - He knows he is NOT . After all he was treatend and so would have been their children. He can not help who he is so quit blaming Him. He saved lots of lives who would been around him around him . So Thank him not blame him. He still is going to help his troups out -one way or another. He is a man now not a baby and a good man.

Sharon Coffin, Arizona , USA

I think he shoule be re assigned to be one of the Cooks in the army since as far as I know they are kept well behind the front lines with no risk of any danger to himself, except perhaps accidentally prodding himself with a sharp kitchen Utensil.

Trevor, Tunbridge Wells, Kent

bravo Jon, Actually Americans were shocked and more then a little embarrased that such a key imprtant and prividged person would choose to serve. It prompted even harder glances at our silver spoon politicians and their "Fortinuate Sons". I feel sorry for Harry and agree the Army Botched this deployment up. In the states details of deployments are very confidential. We took note here and the English should right now be proud they have such dedication in the royals, it certainly dosn't exist here.

Dave, vernon,

01st your navy surrenders, now our army doesn't want to send soldiers in case they get shot at. Why did you start this war?

Denis, Swords, Ireland

ER Roberts of Cheadle is correct...Blame the media for all this. If some of the papers hadn't brought it up at all then he would have been treated the same as all the other servicemen. But because the medai have brought it all up they have played into the insurgents hands. Don't blame the Royals.

kirk, Rotherham, UK

Surely the issue here is not so much the risk to Harry's life but the unacceptable risk it would have placed on the lives of the men around him. By Harry serving in Iraq there would have been a heightened risk to his soldiers. Soldiers are already doing a difficult job and they shouldn't be expected to deal with even more dangerous and difficult conditions because their officer is a terrorist target.

Phil Exham-Lane, London,

I am sure that Prince Harry is very upset that he is not going to Iraq with his troops however it would hve been unfair to his men to allow him to go and it would have handed opposition forces a huge coup if they had captured or killed him. Peversly, if the war in Iraq was of higher intensity it would probably have been acceptable to send him. In the Falklands Prince Andrew could not be targetted as an individual but only more generally as a member of the British armed forces. Neither The Irish Guards or Ghurkas were ever sent to Northern Ireland and nobody questions their status within the military. I didn't think that I would ever say this, but I actually feel sorry for Prince Harry.

JC, London,

Ok then, why even let the Royals join the forces then. I know they all like to parade around in uniforms full of medals, but really how can you have a “full and active role in the Army” if you cant enter any combat zone ? Without the fighting bit, the Army is just a bunch of guys in uniforms. If its peace keeping and cleaning up after natural disasters they want, then Harry should have joined the Red Cross.
As for specific threats to his life, any man in any war has a very specific threat to his life, the enemy is their to kill him, to kill us all. Seems lots of people have a very naive and twisted view of what the armed forces are all about. Case in point Mr. A. Batchelor !

Mike, Edinburgh,

Whatever your views about the Royal Family, I think you have to feel a little sorry for Prince Harry, whose Army position as a Troop Commander must now be regarded as untenable. The prospect of having his men go off to face the perils of Iraq without him must be frustrating in the extreme - and I don't think there is any doubting Harry's willingness to do his job. Hard to imagine how he has a credible career left in the Army though?
Its difficult to imagine why this decision took so long to make, and unless they are happy to fulfil little more than a "toy soldier" role (which I guess you could argue has happened in the past on occasion) it surely calls into question future Royal placements in the armed forces?

Derek, Southampton , UK

To me the life of Harry is worth exactly the same as the life of any member of our armed forces. Any soldier captured and paraded on TV by any insurgent organisation would be absolutely terrible.
However, I support the decision not to send him. I support the decision because it would endanger the lives of so many of the soldiers serving with him so as to negate the benefit of him serving.
I feel for Harry - I genuinely believe he wants to serve his country but has been held back by circumstances outside of his control.
For those who would question the ability and moral fibre of our armed forces, in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world I would suggest that you watch any of the videos floating around on the internet and see what an amazing job soldiers on the ground are doing.
*steps down from pedestal*

David, Norwich, England

Please read the articles before your comment on them - its not too difficult a task is it? The Prince wated to go - his regiment wanted him to go - his family stood back from the question as it would be improper for them to comment. The senior soldier in the Army made the decision and told (not asked) the Prince that he could not serve in Iraq. The reasons were clear and concise - and only a moron who had never served in the forces would suggest that any of this was the Prince's wish, or that he would stand and argue the decision with the Chief of the General Staff.

If anybody is to blame for this fiasco, it is the Ministry of Defence who 1) should never have commented on the future deployment of named personnel, and 2) Requested a D Notice against any publication of the matter.

I note that the 'serious' press have all agreed that this would have been a more prudent approach to the matter - and indeed would have had no argument against this.

Jon Mills, London,

Am I the only person who believes it was never the intention of the MOD to send Prince Harry to Iraq? In these days of 24 hours media intrusion, there was not a chance that he would be allowed the opportunity to perform as a "normal" troop commander. Every time a troop deployment took place from squadron HQ, the eyes of the world would be gawping, hoping to glimpse Harry and, because that is the way people are, perhaps something worse!! How on earth is an army meant to operate in that kind on environment?

Norman Unwin, Kabul, Afghanistan

The lives of our brave troops who have been killed and wounded are of greater value to Britain than this pampered privileged spare part to the throne. He should never have been given the honour of joining the Army.

Michael Boughton-Fox, cambridge, England

It's an absolute disgrace that he is prevented from serving with his men. He wil face no more danger than any other combatant on them streets in Iraq, and if he does then it is his job. He is no different to anyone else, he is a soldier. This is a properganda victory for the Islamic extreemists. What is the matter with this country? where has it's backbone gone. His uncle served with threats of targeting during the Falklands War, but he still did his duty as a military man. This decision HAS not just come from Dannatt, It has been forced upon him by political and royal pressure but it will all be denied. Great Britain; I used to think so. Get a Backbone, we are fast becoming a laughing stock. I am an ex Para who has seen action during the Falklands war, and lost many a mate, people die in battle, when you become a soldier those are the risks you accept and live by, or die by. We have become the NANNY state Thatcher talked about.

Colin, Chester,

I am TOTALLY DISGUSTED by the whole affair! He joined the army, it's his duty to fight simple!. He should fight with his men, and be shoot at. Maybe, yes maybe loss a leg to a road side bomb. Why not? it's happened to so many other young, normal, COMMON people. Just because he is a Royal does not mean he is any BETTER than the souls who have lost their lives for G W BUSH and AMERICA's
GREATEST MISTAKE.

Lets DISBAND this out of date, tourist institution of a monarchy!!!

darren hopkins, somersham, cambs

I have to say that regardless of whether he goes or stays:

1) The Army have had had their decision affected by good/bad intelligence, something that will have an effect on moral on the troops, and shouldn't have been trusted after the 45minute debarcle. Imagine what would have happened in WW1 if they had acted and thought like this? I thought when you signed up, you agreed to die for 'king and country'
2) His mates will be targets anyway now, because that will get to him if not the Royal Family by targetting Harry's mates. I hope he said goodbye to them.
3) I blame the press, why not draw a map highlighting the exact operating procedure of the The Blues and Royals in Iraq? That way the press won't have to speculate on his capture, and have extra press coverage.....whatever happened to secrecy..
4) The main worry I could see , would have been if a 'snatch squad' had pulled him over the Iranian Border, generating another international incident for that nutter in Iran to gloat over.

M jeary, London, London

The difference between Agincourt and Iraq is that there was no media reporting your whereabouts 24/7 back then. If proper Operation Security had been taken the insurgents wouldn't have known that Lt Wales was going to Iraq. So thanks to the gutter press looking for a story they put not just "Harry" in the firing line but also the men in his troop. Why didn't they paint a big target on the side of his Scorpion tank.

Gen Dannatt has decided that the risk not just to "Harry" but to the men on the ground would have been too great with him there. This is not preferential treatment but a wise head knowing that he would avert a blood bath by not letting a target of opportunity get targeted. You don't walk into an ambush if you know it is there!!!! It wouldn't surprise me that this is an opportunity to turn the the tables on Al Quaeda to draw them in and ambush them.......

Mike (Ex-R Sigs), MK,

Thanks to the publicity generated by the MoD and media a PR coup has been handed to the terrorists in Iraq and deprived the Blue and Royals of a trained officer. Is there any chance that Prince Harrys next posting will not have every detail bar the colour of his underpants published, so that he can get on with his job?

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

Its at times like this that I am reminded of how stupid most people are - we have a VOLUNTEER army - if you join the army you can expect to go to war. The prince wanted to go to war but rightly was not allowed to on the grounds that his presence would have posed an unacceptable risk to others. So people use your brains before coming up with nonsense about Harry being given special favours - its not borne out by the facts.

Dan, Winchester, UK

McAleer is wrong. The Queen did not make the decision; Downing Street did. Rant if you must, but rant on the basis of fact, not an over-heated imagination.

Guardsman, London, UK

How on earth can Prince Harry lead 'his men' if he is not allowed to fulfill his role as their leader. He will not be able to command respect from the ranks if his personal safety dictates the roles he can do!! I am sure that having completed the Sandhurst training he does not want a desk job!

vicky moore, johannesburg, south africa

why join the army if you aren't going to fight? he would be best served in a public role like the rest of the unless royals! how long are we going to put up with these people?

Bob, Newcastle, England

Poor Harry. He's damned if he goes and he's damned if he doesn't. I feel it is right that he stays at home because he would be putting his men in more danger than normal and Iraq is bad enough without added pressure. He could have gone Quietly to Iraq but the British do nothing quietly and he would have to be publicised and probably followed {poor camerman}. Leave him alone let him follow his dream.

McKnight, Belfast, N.Ireland

Exactly the right decision: Harry in Iraq would have provided an irresistible target. I'm sure, cynically speaking, that had he been killed it would have been great PR for the Royals - look, it shows they lose children just like everyone else... The risk for people serving alongside him, however, would have been too great for us to even contemplate allowing him there. It's not a case of royalty so much as a case of celebrity.

Sadly, most people's arguments seem to be based on toff-bashing rather than common sense.

Thersites, Rock Ferry, England

Perhaps Prince Harry should be given an assignment in
which he is responsible for the capture of those Iranian Al Quds spys and bootlickers who made the original threats
against him and his unit. He could do that either in the
Green Zone or from London or both. No one should overlook the fact that if we pull out of southern Iraq prematurely, the Iranians will own 60 billion barrels of Iraqi oil because of their Al Quds political control of Iraq.
Times have changed; no seemed to mind when England
chased the Iranians out of Iraq and Kuwait in the 1800s.

rjthayer, Gloucestishire, UK

I think his uncle, Prince Edward, was most sensible. He did not go through this charade of being in the armed forces. He left at the first opportunity. We have wasted tax-payers money training Princes Harry and William when there are restrictions to what they can or cannot do. They have wasted two positions and deprived other deserving young men of a career.

Vinay Mehra, Purley, Surrey

the reason why he hasn't been sent to Iraq is because he isn't a leader of men (which is why his men would be endangered with his presence). He has been fastracked into his position because of his family ties - now that it's come to the crunch, he's not allowed to go (or maybe he doesn't want to go?) ! Didn't the army realise all the excuses that they are coming out with now, when he first joined them?

Rrev, Margate, uk

I find the final decision not to deploy Prince Harry in Iraq, quite rational and thanks to God they had used some common sense. First and foremost, the Government had announced that British troops would be withdrawn from Southern Iraq sometime soon; I imagine that the future PM Gordon Brown will keep on with this decision. There was not necessity at all to have the third in line to the throne send to a country, which is under increase violence and civil war, which is under an endless butchery with hundreds of deaths every day. Why put in risk the live of other officers and soldiers? Just to “please” some “ultra patriots” in a war, which has nothing to do with British patriotism a tragedy was avoid, which would possibly involve not only his royal person but his comrades as well.

Louis v. Wetzler, Buenos Aires, Argentina

I find the final decision not to deploy Prince Harry in Iraq, quite rational and thanks to God they had used some common sense. First and foremost, the Government had announced that British troops would be withdrawn from Southern Iraq sometime soon; I imagine that the future PM Gordon Brown will keep on with this decision. There was not necessity at all to have the third in line to the throne send to a country, which is under increase violence and civil war, an endless butchery with hundreds of deaths every day. Why put in risk the live of other officers and soldiers? Just to “please” some “ultra patriots” in a war, which has nothing to do with British patriotism a tragedy was avoid, which would possibly involve not only his royal person but his comrades as well.

wetzvonken, Buenos Aires, Argentina

I've had enough of this story, of 'Prince' Harry and the rest of them.

When are we going to have a country where such archaic privilege and absurd deference to people just because they were born of a particular blood line ceases?

I am proud of my family roots and try to honour them by what I do, because of what my father and my forebears achieved to serve their fellow men.

When the so called royals are born, they are the same as us. The paths then diverge rapidly as they get and expect everything to be paid for and done for them, while the rest of us try to honour our God, our humanity and others and ourselves last (not always successfully, or in the right order but we try).

Let us give honour and deference where it is due; to great men and women who serve their God (whatever that may be), their country and their fellows before themselves.

edwardingle, Chesham,

Gil in Tel Aviv - not a great answer from youI 'm afraid especially with all the problems you have at the moment -I doubt there is any respect for your army around the world...

Philip, B.Regis, UK

My husband is in Iraq right now and Harry would have been working alongside him very soon. I am extremely pleased this decision has been taken, as hopefully it means less incoming flack for all those 'normal' soldiers involved.

Louise, Tidworth,

Another reminder, if we needed one, of what a pointless anachronism the monarchy now is. Democratically, politically, economically and morally indefensible. Why do we continue to tolerate it let alone support it?

Tom, Basingstoke, UK

All men are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Arthur, Newcastle,

The situation should not been allowed to develope in this way.
The problem should have been foreseen before making it so public.
War is more than just a publicity stunt, it is for real.
Not only was the Prince's life at stake ; those arround him might also die.protecting him.
This young man must be given full credit for his stand on the matter, but he was put into an IMPOSSIBLE situation.

Bernard Parke, GUILDFORD,

Harry didn't "pull out" (Simon, Hong Kong), the army decided to pull him out. The point about the mothers of other soldiers (Donald954) isn't well made. Harry would have been a particular target for terrorists - and so placed his colleagues in extra danger - in a way that other individual soldiers aren't. I admire the courage of everyone serving in war zones, but they know the risks involved when they first join up, and many even seem to enjoy the excitement of it all.

Barry, Wallington, UK

Forgive me for being a little cynical here, but all this hoo-hah about Hooray Harry being denied joining the rest of them in Iraq seems a mite over the top. Why did they tell everyone in the first place that he would be going? Looks like another media-manipulation to give him a good excuse not to go.

The same publicity stunt cannot be employed for Joe Blogg's son who HAS to go to Iraq despite the danger to his life.

Double-standards? Hypocrisy? NO, REALLY . . .

Mitch, Saumur, France

Harry's not going because he never was. People who believe the Windsors and their like ever really get their hands dirty in war are delusional, and spare me the "what about Andrew in the Falklands" line the facts about his 'involvement' are well known in military circles.

As Barry said they don't mind and we don't matter. We should stop the pretence and let them stick to their ceremonial roles, thats what their best at.

GK, London,

I find it most disturbing that the media spend so much of its time thinking about Harry. We should have proper news in our newspapers but one quick glance in my newsagents this morning and theres Harry all over the front pages! I just hope the army concentrate more on its mission in Iraq without spending too much time worrying about Harry.

Rod Munch, Northampton, UK

Our media has once again proved it's irresponsibilty and lack of sense. Had they not blazoned the proposed deployment of the Prince in Iraq, the insurgents would have had no knowledge of it. Unless, of course, their intelligence services are very much on the ball. I would suggest to the military/politicos that they keep their traps shut on issues such as this. If the media are not told there would be less problems.

E R Roberts, Cheadle, Cheshire

I'll pop in today into my local Army recruitment centre and say that I don't "do" wars, but can I still join in ? .. Can well imagine what their reply will be...

volia pollastre, birmingham , uk

Its a sad day when the British army gives in to terrorists

Richard, Dubin, Ireland

This is an outward sign that Royals trying to behave like more ordinary citizens doesn't work, you're either Royal or you're not, them and us. If you're born into such priveledge you have to take the responsibilities of it which doesn't been getting hammered in nightclubs and brawling.

David Chamberlain, Westgate on Sea, Kent

I'm pleased that the Monarch believes it is acceptable for young men from all over England to die in her name but not one of her own brood. As they say "we don't mind and you don't matter".

Barry McAleer, London,

The once valued British military has again shown it's weakness. First blabbermouth members of the DoH's staff couldn't wait to tell the world where the Prince would be serving, but what he would be driving, where he would be sleeping, the number of men under his command, everything but his actual postal address. Then the out of control British media couldn't wait to blast the news all over the world. Making sure that either the Prince would be killed and his men as well, or the Army couldn't possibly allow him to serve at the front.

You all should be quite proud of yourselves. Goverment that lives by media spin will die by media spin.

Joshua, Oxford, UK

The general seems to have made a decision on the basis of fairness and common sense. It deserves to be judged in the same light, and it is a pity that it probably won't be. That doesn't make it any less right.

John Bald, Linton , Cambs

I understand that there is an excellent Knitting Brigade in the British Army where Harry can spend many happy hours clacking away knitting nice warm undies for the Queen. Ha what a joke we are laughing at ur army.

Gil, Tel Aviv, ISRAEL

It is sad, that so many commentators make their mind up on predjudice. Harry is not going to Iraq, because, if he did so, he would raise the risk level of ALL soldiers around him, as he is a specified target. Harry has been singled out to be kidnapped/eradicated. therefore ALL soldiers around him are placed at greater risk han any other soldier posted to a war zone.
As for the armchair warriors castigating him, may I ask, what have you done for your country?

Dave Edwards, Burnham on Sea,

It used to be that Kings and Princes and in our East Anglian tradition, even Queens followed that good old English management tradition of leading from the front and by example. I have no doubt our noble Prince would wish to do so, but the PC Brigade afraid for their Knighthoods appear to not think so. This being the case, retire the lad from the job he has trained for and stick him behind a desk in the City somewhere where he wont die from embarrassment rather than in pursuit of his chosen and inherited duty.

Snowy, Thetford, England

The right decision, but why has it come so late? It would have better to have not even considered sending Harry to Iraq in the first place.

It's not Harry's fault , he is not lacking in courage and it's wrong to criticise him for the mess. It's obvious that he would be a prime target and that would include the soldiers under his command.

Another propaganda coup for the terrorists caused by indecision by the Army leaders, but perhaps they were leaned on by government ministers.

Rodney Vincent, Ely, Cambs UK

If he HAD been killed,kidnapped or any of the countless ways he and his men could have been hurt I really do think the repurcussions would have been frightening for the Muslim population of Gt. Britain. Hooray Henry,wastre,playtime soldier...call him what you will but he is incredibly liked in this country for him being himself, for his obvious humanity and common touch,for having a posher version of Sharon from Eastenders for a girlfirend, and for being a boy who followed his dream to join the Army. His death would have have brought flames to Bradford and many other places here. He is not a coward, so you people in Austria and Hong Kong should grow up and REALLY contemplate what it would mean if YOUR equivalent of Harry were killed by members of of a sizeable and vocal part of your population. It is SO easy to read our papers from afar and make glib and asinine comments.If you have to,at least make them humorous!

Niels Larsen, Masham, Yorkshire

Harry must be bitterly disappointed, and although I can understand WHY the general made this decision it does undermine Harry's affectiveness as a leader of men.

Susan S, Aberdeen,

A number of Royals have served in armed conflicts, including Mountbatten, his Greek nephew Phillip, and his son Andrew. Wales also served with the RN in a few world trouble spots. However, Dannat's military, intelligence and political advice is just a cop out! In the end, Prince Harry's title, wealth and privilege makes a mockery of the memories of every serviceman and woman killed in Iraq and Afghanistan! How the world must be laughing at Ruritania!

Mr Lachie Todd, Edinburgh, Scotland, U.K.

Killed in action.. tragic, but honourable.
Captured and decapitated on Al-Jazeera.. that's another thing entirely.
Common sense prevails. They should have joined the Navy.

Nick, Kent, England

It may not be his fault that the Army is too spineless to stand up to political pressure, but what do you tell the mothers of the other soldiers in Iraq or anywhere else? He should go and if he dies fighting or as a hostage SO BE IT. If not he might as well join his Uncle in the Theatre...........

Donald954, Portsmouth, UK

The horror scenario of Prince Harry's being kdnapped by Islamist insurgents is completely unacceptable and therefore there should never have been any question of his being sent to Iraq. The vacillation of the government and army on this issue serve to highlight the lack of credibilty of a military career for an heir to the throne.

Tim York, Lasne, Belgium

I'll pop in today into my local Army recruitment centre and say that I don't "do " wars, but can I still join in ?.. I can well imagine what their reply will be...

volia, birmingham, uk

Harry is better off out of this unjust war, and the sooner his men are brought home the better! To fight to defend your homeland is an honour, to occupy another country is shameful!!

Daryl Evans, Melksham, England

it will be safe for Harry to transfer to Salvation Army, as itm is not too dangerous.

david pandit, Dornbirn, Austria

Imagine (the original) Prince Harry pulling out of Agincourt in case he got hurt.

....and he wasn't just a constitutional royal for ceremonies, but one who had real power, and whose loss would have been a lot more significant than this Hooray Henry.

Simon Osborne, Hong Kong,

During the war, I hid in a coal bunker for 6 years to avoid the draft and now, on one senior general's words, Harry gets off the hook. Once again, it's one rule for royal princes and one rule for the rest of us.

Jim Chumperton, Edinburgh, Scotland

Many old school princes and noble men died on the battle fields while conquering or defending land with gusto. These guys couldn't be stopped from wielding swords and deggars.
On occasion Princes nowadays can only get into vulgar brawls with paparazzi. How embarrassing!

robert, vancouver, bc

Harry is a soldier or he is not a soldier. If he is not allowed to serve in Iraq, he should resign from the army immediately, as he said he would if this situation ocurred!

Les Hill, Perth, Australia

I was in the RAF and find this a dreadful business. Why was he allowed to take up a place at Sandhurst that could have gone to someone not just willing but also able to serve? Military training should not be a "finishing school" for the Royal Family.

The contrast with the Duke of York, Lord Mountbatten, Prince Phillip, and many other Royals over the years, is striking. Why is risk suddenly an issue with this generation?

I feel sorry for Prince Harry. His position in the Army will now be extremely difficult, for no fault of his own, and it night be better for him to resign his commission and take up another career.

Ken Henry-Jones, Sydney, Australia

Having served as a subaltern in the early stages of the insurgency in Malaya in the early '50's, I find it beyond belief that Prince Harry's assignment to one of the current war zones was even contemplated. As a prime target his presence would put all his, and his fellow officers', men in extreme danger. Today's terrorism is difficult enough to counter, soldiers do not need the added risks of having a 'royal' as an additional target.

Kenneth Dunjohn, London N2,