This is in keeping with the idea that no British person entitled to bear a coat-of-arms can have the exact same blazon as anyone else. So while all male descendants of the original grantee are entitled to the arms, they all have to be ‘differenced’ as described above, for younger brothers, cousins, and so on ad-infinitum. On the Continent, by contrast, differencing is usually not used and all male descendants can bear the same arms, though I suspect it’s done differently in the higher reaches of the aristocracy and remaining royalty there.
For the insurgents in Iraq, the symbolic value of kidnapping or killing him is so great that he would be much more of a target than the average soldier.
Worse than that. Napoleon III’s son was killed during Zulu War in South Africa. For some reason Victoria was fond of Napoleon the Little and granted him sanctuary after the catastrophe of the Franco-Prussian War. The Queen was very attached to Napoleon’s wife (who may not have been the most stable ex-Empress in the world). The junior officer who was with the Bonaparte Prince may or not have acted properly but ended up being the scapegoat for the whole thing. The whole thing was a tremendous embarrassment to the British government. The real problem was allowing the kid to join the British Army and then letting him go into a dangerous situation. I can’t imagine that Prince William will draw combat duty. I suppose that is understood – the same way it was understood that GWH Bush and FDR’s sons were not going to be put in a situation where they could be shot at.
You mean GHW Bush, right? AKA “Number 41”? Just trying to clarify here, cause the Bush clan does love the name “George”.
As for Prince William being an obvious target for enemy attack, I say use him for bait, luring overly ambitions enemy forces into carefully prepared ambushes. That said, I can easily see how this would be a rather unpopular (not to mention distasteful) tactic, and one that could concievably blow up in one’s face in a big way.
I do feel sorta sorry for the guy, it seems no matter what HE wishes, he’ll never be allowed anywhere where he might see any kind of action, and that will no doubt have an effect on how people regard him in military matters throughout his life, ie: “Oh, that King William, you know, HE never had to fight in a war, and now he’s sending our young boys to fight in insert name of country here.”
That said, now that I’ve said that, I’m not sure how likely it is that a King of England would have much oppertunity one way or the other to send troops or not send them to fight anywhere. Maybe if he is just really good at having the Prime Minister’s ear, he could have an indirect effect on that sort of thing. shrug
The last British sovereign to lead troops in battle was George II. I guess they decided it’s good policy to keep them off the field, and not only because war is a business best left to professionals.