EIIR
Heir Presumptive
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,656
- City
- Somewhere
- Country
- United Kingdom
She could give exactly the same honour she gave Andrew for his service in The Falklands campaign. He too was admired for his war service. He didn't receive any more acknowledgement than given to the rest of those who served.
What you are suggesting is that she should honour her grandson for serving his country with a greater honour than she gave her own son for the same reason - serving his country in a war.
Sorry but that is just saying that The Queen should honour her grandson more than her own son - but with no reason for doing so.
But that's entirely different. The Falklands was a bloody but short campaign; Afghanistan is 11 years and counting and is very much at the forefront of the British public's consciousness. Giving her grandson an honour for heading to an incredibly dangerous war not once but twice, makes complete sense. It's also, by extension, a reflection of HM's gratitude to all those who have served over the last decade in a war that's really taken an enormous toll on the British Army in particular. She can't give awards to the many thousands of British service personnel who have served as it's just not practical, but she can give this very personal award to her grandson.
There's also the fact that the Queen's very, very unlikely to live to see Prince Harry hit his 40s, if she's going to give him the ultimate recognition she can, she's going to have to do it sooner rather than later. 30 years ago the Queen knew she'd in all likelihood live long enough to give Andrew the honour when he was older, that's not the case here. I firmly believe that the Queen would want to honour Harry herself, rather than leave it to Charles when she's gone.
I hope Andrew would be big enough to understand that.