Most men of his class?
While I have the utmost respect for Harry and what he is doing, it's really not all that unusual for members of his 'class' to serve in the military, and that often includes service in combat.
(Disclaimer - I know the Prince of Wales slightly, and like him, and am honoured to consider the Duke of York a friend, and really like him - so I'm not posting as an entirely disinterested party - but these people can't really defend themselves).
It's unusual for the actual heir to serve, because they do have a duty to stay alive to fulfil their constitutional function. But the Prince of Wales served in the Royal Navy for five years - and it was genuine service. He's also had a symbolic role in the military - but those five years were real naval service.
The Duke of York served in the Royal Navy for 22 years, again genuine service, including combat service in the Falklands.
Go back another generation - Her Majesty the Queen, as Princess Elizabeth, served in the Auxiliary Territorial Service during the last year of the Second World War.
The current Duke of Edinburgh (at the time His Royal Highness Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark) served in the Royal Navy during the Second World War, including service in combat in the Mediterranean.
Back a further generation - His Majesty George VI (as HRH Prince Albert) served in the Royal Navy in World War I, including combat service at the Battle of Jutland. His Majesty Edward VIII (as HRH The Prince of Wales) served in the Grenadier Guards. Though denied a combat posting, he spent as much time as he could manage at the front. Their brother the Duke of Kent, served in the Royal Navy and then the Royal Air Force and was killed on active duty during World War II. Their other brother, the Duke of Gloucester spent 18 years in the peacetime British army, before returning to military service in World War II - rather ironic that the only career military man among the brothers had the least active experience.
The point is, Harry is simply doing what is expected of someone in his family. He could opt out (as his uncle the Earl of Essex really has) but that would be quite unusual.
He deserves honour and praise for what he is willing to do - but I don't like seeing the suggestion that others have not done their duty as well.
I can understand why some people (especially Americans) have issues with the whole ide of royalty - but whatever else you can say about the Royal family, or the relevance of their role, they have generally been patriots who have done their duty by their nation.
there is a lot of information on this here I did not have or know....the lack of replies may indicate that no one else on this thread knows more than you on the subject, in this case....
My only beef with royalty is one spoiled Royal Princess
that thought of herself instead of Duty, Honor and Country
and one Royal Highness that seems to have some odd new-
age views that don't always seem to mesh with his position.
Beyond that I believe most Americans admire the royals
more than you might imagine. Even Mark Twain wrote
about the royals only 100 years after our Revolution.
IIRC, Princess Elizabeth drove a jeep around during the Blitz, which was a somewhat shocking thing for a Royal to do (though, at the time, she was not thought to be in the short line for the throne).