Ok then he's a trainee. And a trainee shouldn't lay a wreath when more experienced veterans have a bigger cause to do so. He's a boy playing VIP - it's very sad to watch.
I want to get this clear - in your opinion ALL the graduates from Sandhurst aren't soldiers until they have been in a war zone - right.
I think that you would be in the vast minority in that view.
ALL the graduates of Sandhurst get the same pay from the British government (public taxes) with only those actually serving getting a bit extra called 'danger money' but on return to Britian their pay returns to their pre-service rate (until they get promotion).
In short William is getting paid the same as any other graduate who graduated on the same day as him, who isn't currently serving in a war zone (and I doubt if all of them have served yet). Those who are currently serving will return to the same pay level as William when they return.
William has completed the initial training as a commissioned officer (something which the vast majority of soldiers in the field haven't done as they aren't commissioned officers and the training is harder for officers), and then, like most other officers done the next part of the training to serve in his chosen unit.
His job now is to train his men and to do other jobs on the base to assist and back up those who are serving in a war zone.
I would really like to know why you think that a trained officer who is being paid as an officer and doing officer's duties isn't a soldier when they are doing the job of a soldier? Soldiers actually spend the vast majority of their service time in non war zones and many never actually go to a war zone. As a British citizen you are paying a lot of soldiers to be soldiers who, in your opinion, aren't actually soldiers.
I think you need to write to your government with your definition of a soldier and insist that only those who are actually serving in war zones be paid like soldiers and referred to as soldiers while those who are training to go, arent' paid or called soldiers. William and Harry are training others to go because the government (the same one that is paying them as officers by the way) has said that they can't go.
You definition of a soldier is very, very, very, very narrow and excludes the majority of the army, by the way.
According to figures available in 2006 8,000 British soldiers were in Iraq and others serving elsewhere but that was the largest deployment but there were 109,000 soldiers. That would mean that quite a large percentage weren't in war zones and a reasonable percentage of that number wouldn't have seen any service in a war zone at that time due to the fact that since they joined their unit that unit hadn't been deployed to a war zone. As the numbers are reduced in Iraq the percentage not being deployed will increase but the size of the army and the work of the army will continue with all these non-soldiers getting paid as soldiers but...
William is a serving officer in the army - you do need to accept that fact and accept the fact that having that position makes him a soldier. Any other definition just defies logic and insults all those men and women who are in your country's army but who haven't seen service in a war zone and may never do so.