What is, above all else, the defining characteristic of a monarch? Of course, it’s that he leads his armies into war That’s how he (or more commonly his ancestors) attained the position in the first place, and how he maintains it. Our monarchy has a long history of it.
Of course, monarchy has degraded with the rise of parliament. W.S. Gilbert poked fun at cowardly aristocracy in the person of the Duke of Plaza Toro:
In enterprise of martial kind, when there was any fighting. / He led his regiment from behind, he found it less exciting.
Now, it’s degraded to the point where the Queen’s grandson, being of prime fighting age and a soldier by choice and training, has to be kept out of any possible danger, while his subjects continue to suffer casualties. Despicable cowardice by any standard!
Of course, the cowardice isn’t really his. If the decision were his own and he, as a prince, put himself anywhere but on the front line, that would make him a total and utter coward. But it isn’t, and the cowardice is coming from elsewhere. The ultimate coward is The Liar, from whose crimes this stems.
Let’s have done with this anachronism the “United Kingdom”. The “united” part is looking fragile, with Scotland likely to increase support for their nationalist party (Good luck to them – our countries can and should be friends without this unwanted union. Just as we are friends with our neighbours to the south, east and west). And now the “kingdom” part is a laughing stock. At least, insofar as it was supposed to mean anything.