Speaking as a subject of the Crown, come off it, Kathryn. If Prince Harry wants to serve in Iraq, there’s no reason to stop him on the grounds that it’s “reckless”. He’s third in line to the throne: the Prince of Wales, then Prince William, then him. In dynastic terms, it’s a classic heir-and-spare situation. William’s the heir, Harry’s the spare. Likewise, a quarter-century back, the spare (the Duke of York) was flying helicopters in the Falklands War while the heir (Charles) was back in the palace murmuring hot suras from the Koran into Camilla’s ear.

To say that someone several steps from any formal role in the apparatus of the state cannot be allowed to serve in combat is to risk confirming the accusation hurled by the “anti-war” crowd – that the ruling elites regard the lives of their children as intrinsically more valuable than those of Joe Schmoe. Prince Harry’s attitude is all the more admirable at a time when many Nato “allies” dispute even the concept of “combat troops”. A poll taken a few days ago found that 58% of Canadians think their armed forces should forswear any combat role at all – presumably even if the enemy was swarming ashore at Vancouver. Unlike his Canuck cousins, Prince Harry still thinks a “soldier of the Queen” means what it says.