Random thoughts on Prince Harry and Afghanistan

I watched the start of Any Questions last night while completing some odds and ends where Prince Harry was the major topic of discussion, and I listened to a similar, though less vitriolic discussion on the Today program this morning.

Now my feelings about the Royal Family and the Military lifestyle are fairly equivocal (the former more so than the latter). I don't have as much problem with the invasion of Afghanistan as I do with the invasion of Iraq and I do believe that now we've gone into these countries and removed what stability they had we have a responsibility to do all in our power to help restore stability to at least its previous level*.

All that said, I believe that if Prince Harry is a member of our armed forces then it is his duty to serve wherever he is sent as much as possible as if he were any other soldier. What really struck me was that the word duty which I thought was key to the issue was never mentioned - instead Any Questions focused on how much he wanted to serve on the front line and the Today program focused on what an extremely competent soldier he was. No one seemed prepared to discuss how problematic it is if a member of the Royal Family is exempt from dangerous duty while serving as a member of the armed forces. So I have no problem with the British press concealing the fact he was there since it allowed him to do his duty without endangering his fellows (much).

However, like George Galloway (with whom I would otherwise appear to disagree on nearly all the above points), I am less keen on the fact that a BBC documentary crew went with him. I don't see how this documentary can do much more ultimately than cast the Royal Family, the Armed Forces and the occupation (its not an occupation, officially, any more is it? are we peace-keeping? I've lost track of the terminology) of Afghanistan in a good light. I'm sure it will be more subtle and balanced than the propaganda films of the second world war but even so, as a project, it does feel uncomfortably propagandist.


* although I accept that "all in our power" may amount to "going away and leaving the people who actually live there to get on with things".

Oooh! 1090

Late last night I ended up making contact with a second cousin once removed who has traced one branch of the family back to 1090. This is quite exciting even taking into account the fact that conventional wisdom in genealogy is that most people who claim their family go back to the conquest are indulging in a wish-fulfilment fantasy. I've skimmed the 250 (!) pages she has sent me and clearly the early history of the Benthall family (of Benthall Hall) comes from a National Trust publication so it seems fair to assume that most of that is as correct as its going to be. I suspect the tricky bit will be making the connection between the Benthalls and my branch of the Shuttleworth family (Mum, Sophie, this is Grandad Dennis' mother).