Lefty, a very well written post..... have you ever thought of taking up writing?

Where's Lefty's post?

Bugger - no wah.

Do we expect any better from a newspaper that has employed members of terrorist organisations, and even paid them to glorify the terrorism they advocate within its own pages?

I have yet to see the Grauniad in an Army Officers' Mess and was genuinely surprised to find one in a RAF Officers' Mess. I can understand its absence from the first - but can't understand its presence in the second.

I might have not read it correctly but I understand him to have explained that the life of an Army Officer is a waste for Prince William. Whilst I don't entirely agree with his sentiments (although admit I am biased) he puts a good arguement forward to say that given HRH is unlikely to serve 'properly' (active service, treated as normal) and is therefore a wasted choice. I believe his hint to journalism was tongue-in-cheek and subtle acknowledgement of his own biased view.

Anyway, what do you expect from the Guardian?

NonGrad - you are right in that the overall aim of the article was to put across Preston's entirely subjective view that a military career is a waste for Prince William. The claim that Royals do not serve 'properly' is, of course, incorrect as to fact - several members of the Royal family have seen action (the latest being Prince Andrew), and some were killed in WW2 - but this clearly does not fit Preston's agenda, so he has ignored it.

Putting Prince Andrew in the line of fire is not in the same league as doing so to the heir to the throne. Simple as that. Journo though he may be, this bloke's got a point, and some have obviously completely missed it.

ViroBono: Fair one.

But do we really expect to see Prince William serving a full tour somewhere dodgy? [Not saying that he wouldn't want to.]

The article doesn't slate the Army - it states that William will never be allowed a proper military function whilst serving. It may not portray the Army in the most favourable light but fortunately we live in a society that allows the press to write such articles.

What Preston fails to recognise is that Wiliam will never fulfil a 'normal' function in whichever profession he chooses - had he been a journalist or a cartographer or a teacher he would still be selected for special attention, his mistakes would be splashed across the press and he is unlikely to ever suffer the indignity of failure in a career. That's the reality of life as the heir to the throne.

Personally I wish the man well in his military career. I hope he enjoys it, his soldiers respect him and that he makes a valuable contribution to military life. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that his OJARS will be above average and that he wil pass whatever course he elects to undertake - brave would be the DS who failed the future monarch!!

As an aside, it seems a pity that men like Preston rarely acknowledge that it is soldiers, sailors and aimen who die to ensure that we do live in a country where human rights are taken for granted and where people like him can express whatever opinions they wish without fear of punishment or retribution.

petermtm - if you'll forgive the pedantry, putting Prince Andrew in harm's way in 1982 was *exactly* the same as putting William in harm's way would be today. William is second-in-line to the throne, just as Andrew was when he was in the South Atlantic.

I agree that the overall context was different, though - a new 2nd in line to the throne was on the way - William was born on 14 June 1982 (prompting the suggestion from, IIRC, 2 PARA that he should be called 'Stanley'), and it was clear that Andrew was unlikely to become king - whereas William is an automatic choice for the job. That said, what if Charles and Diana had been killed in an accident on the way to an engagement at some point while Andrew was in the South Atlantic? He'd have been the next in line in one fell swoop.

I make the point because people tend to forget that Andrew was actually fairly important in the line of succession when he went to the South Atlantic.