Kings and princes in the West stopped leading from the front after the Napoleonic era, when standing, professional armies came into existence in nation states. The royalty was no longer required to participate actively after World War I, as monarchy declined and democracy arrived.

The British monarchy has been an exception. Occasional controversies notwithstanding, the men of the House of Windsor have had a close contact with the armed forces. Queen Elizabeth II’s son, Charles, the Prince of Wales, commanded the Royal Navy mine hunter, H.M.S Bromington, in 1976. He also successfully completed pilot’s training at the Royal Air Force base in Cranwell in 1971. However, he did not have to prove his skill as a naval commander during the Falkland war of April-June 1982.

Perhaps the best instance of a royal in action came from Charles’s younger son, Harry, known more as a party animal than for his heroics in war. Harry managed to do the impossible with his 10 week sojourn in Helmand in south Afghanistan. He reportedly directed the US bombers to target, led the men to counter-attack the guerrilla fighters and manned 50 mm machine-guns within 500 yards of taliban frontline. This heartening performance was quickly acknowledged by the British media, which commended Harry for growing up “extremely fast in Afghanistan”.

Not all of United Kingdom, however, appears impressed. Parents of deceased British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan feel that Harry’s bravado is a publicity stunt, meant to improve the public image of the royalty. There also is growing resentment about the British involvement in the “war on terror” led by the United States of America.

The presence of foreign troops has failed to bring stability to Afghanistan. The US has almost 50,000 soldiers in Afghanistan — twice as many as in 2004 — while the UK has 7,700, mostly in Helmand. Another 2,200 US marines are due to combat an anticipated taliban surge. In spite of the strong presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan, the country still continues to be the graveyard for these outsiders.

Amidst the gloomy reality came the sensational news that the students’ union at University College, London, has passed a motion attacking the government for “waging an aggressive war overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq”. To make matters worse, the students prohibited the military from setting up recruitment stalls. Understandably, this will further fuel the debate about the treatment of military personnel, particularly after servicemen and women from the RAF at Wittering in Cambridgeshire were ordered not to wear their uniforms in Peterborough. This was after allegations of verbal abuse were levelled against them. The counter-reaction to the prevailing anti-war sentiment is reflected by the headlines in the British media — “Our soldiers, sailors and airmen deserve better” or “We need to see more uniforms on our streets, not fewer”.

Thus Britain today is divided over Afghanistan and Iraq, and appears somewhat confused as to how to treat its soldiers. No doubt Harry in Helmand did something to cheer the sagging morale of the ordinary soldiers and their families. But would his magic work in Hampstead or in Hampshire to rescue his comrades-in-arms from further public humiliation?