Inside Prince Harry's 'perilous' Afghanistan tour and how it ended in a 'depressing' way: Young royal 'revelled in the simplicity' of army life until a scandal forced him home
The late Queen Elizabeth II was enlisted as a mechanic during the Second World War and her son Prince Andrew was dispatched in a Royal Navy taskforce during the Falklands War in 1982.
But no deployment as been hailed as dangerous as the tours Prince Harry - who at the time was third in line to the throne - took with the British Army in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban insurgency.
Despite the perilous nature of the deployment, Harry reportedly 'revelled in the simplicity' of army life during his two tours in the wartorn country.
Writing in her biography - The Making of a Royal Romance - royal insider Katie Nicholl looked back on Harry's time in Afghanistan, what impact it had on the Royal Family at home and how the tour was cut short.
'Cornet Wales', as Prince Harry was known, arrived in Afghanistan in late 2007 amidst a media blackout from the UK press in order to keep the 23-year-old prince safe.
Despite the dusty battlefield being drastically different from Harry's life, he settled in quickly.
'Harry's easy nature and sense of humour quickly won him the friendship and trust of his comrades.' Nicholls wrote.
Despite the dusty battlefield being drastically different to Harry's life in the Royal Family, he settled in quickly
Indeed, the prince very much enjoyed the 'simplicity and anonymity of this life' and seemed 'more comfortable being a soldier than a prince'.
This was despite not being able to wash and having to spend Christmas Eve in Garmsir - an area of Afghanistan close to Pakistan which was rife with Taliban activity.
The prince would go on to remark that 'Christmas is overrated anyway'.
But back at home on that December 25 there is no doubt that Harry would have been on the minds of the Royals as they celebrated the holiday while the prince was thousands of miles away.
Nicholls wrote: 'The press kept their word and little was made of the fact that Harry was absent from the family's traditional lunch at Sandringham. When the Queen delivered her traditional Christmas Day speech, she poignantly prayed for the safe return of every soldier in Afghanistan.
'Few knew she and the rest of the Royals were feeling the same fear and worry as every other family who had sons and daughters on the front line that Christmas.'
Harry still kept in touch with loved ones. Prince William sent him a letter saying how "proud" their mother would be of him' and he also spoke to the rest of the family once a week in a 30-minute call on a satellite phone.
And Harry's then-girlfriend Chelsy Davy kept in touch with him through Facebook using pseudonyms.
But by the start of 2008 rumours that Harry was fighting on the front line in Afghanistan were beginning to gather momentum.
Despite the embargo on reporting the Prince's whereabouts, an Australian magazine called New Idea chose to report his deployment in January.
It wasn't immediately picked up by the global press until the US media outlet the Drudge Report reported the story making the news impossible to contain. It then 'spread like wildfire', according to Nicholl.
Harry's evacuation plan was immediately put into action and he was given just a few minutes to say goodbye to his fellow soldiers.
The prince said at the time: 'They were upset, they were pretty depressed for me. They were just like "It would be nice to keep you here".'
Nicholl said: 'Prince Harry didn't smile as he descended the steps of the RAF TriStar passenger jet at exactly 11.20am on Saturday March 1.'
Upon Harry's return to the UK, the Daily Mail reported that Harry had been warned he was now a target for terrorists after his deployment was made public knowledge.
Reacting to having to cut his time in Afghanistan short, Harry said he wasn't angry but 'slightly disappointed' because he couldn't 'see it through to the end and comeback with our guys.'
Best selling author, journalist and broadcaster Katie Nicholl has been writing about the British royal family for nearly two decades
He later received praise for his service in particular for how he helped Gurkha troops repel an attack from Taliban insurgents.
For his service, Harry was presented with an Operational Service Medal for Afghanistan by his aunt the Princess Royal.
In 2012, he returned to Afghanistan with the Ministry of Defence publicising his second deployment on the understanding that the media would allow him to get on with the job at hand.
Years later Harry would recall his army service in his memoir, Spare, where the Duke of Sussex revealed that he killed 25 Taliban fighters during his second tour of duty in Afghanistan, when he flew an Apache attack helicopter.
Harry, who was known as 'Captain Wales' in the military, wrote that he did not think of those killed 'as people' but instead 'chess pieces removed from the board', or 'bad guys eliminated'.
This was the first time that Harry, now 40, had specified the number of insurgents he had personally killed during his time in Afghanistan.
While many soldiers do not know how many enemies they have killed in combat, the Duke wrote in Spare that 'in the era of Apaches and laptops' he was able to say 'with exactness' the number of insurgents he killed.
During Harry's 2012 tour, he also helped provide helicopter support to the International Security Assistance Force and Afghan forces operating throughout Helmand province.
Based out of Camp Bastion, 662 Squadron Army Air Corps, to which he belonged, flew more than a hundred missions over 2,500 flying hours, providing surveillance, deterrence and, when required, close combat attack capabilities as well as escort duties for other aircraft.
Captain Wales, who qualified as a co-pilot gunner in February 2012, was posted to 3 Regiment Army Air Corps, part of 16 Air Assault Brigade, to gain further flying experience and to operate the Apache on a number of exercises before deploying to Afghanistan in September 2012.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
William and his family will live in Forest Lodge even when he is King, reveals REBECCA ENGLISH. So what will become of Buckingham Palace?
Almost exactly 85 years ago, German bombs struck Buckingham Palace. As the Queen Mother stood among the rubble and debris, she memorably remarked that she could finally 'look the East End in the face'. It became a point of national pride that she and her husband, King George VI, refused to leave their London residence during the Second World War. Yet, almost nine decades on from those devastating raids, the landmark faces an even more uncertain future – as a palace without a king. With the news that the Prince and Princess of Wales plan to move to a new 'forever home' – Forest Lodge in Windsor Great Park – the spotlight is being shone on the Royal Family 's huge portfolio of properties, and the ever-dwindling number of tenants to occupy them. The Daily Mail has been told that it is William's 'intention' to remain in their new Grade II-listed property even after he accedes to the throne. 'This is for the long term and it's their intention to stay in Forest Lodge once he becomes king,' a source said. Understandably this has prompted serious questions in royal circles about the long-term viability of both Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, as well as other private royal estates such as Sandringham in Norfolk and Balmoral in the Scottish Highlands, which the prince is eventually set to inherit. Locals say the eight-bedroom Forest Lodge is a definite 'step up' from the family's current four-bedroom home, Adelaide Cottage, where they have lived since 2022 (after deciding to leave London and move to Berkshire while their children were still young). Once described as a 'very substantial house in one of the loveliest parts of the country', the Georgian mansion dates back to the 1770s. The three-storey home boasts elaborate plaster cornices and ceiling decoration, exquisite marble fireplaces and a half-barrel-vaulted ceiling. It also has six bathrooms, a long gallery and a tennis court, which will doubtless suit the sporty Princess of Wales. Since the lodge was acquired by the Crown in 1829, a number of equerries, private secretaries and other royal staff have lived there. It underwent a £1.5 million refurbishment in 2001 so that it could be rented out commercially. Although well beyond the means of most families, Forest Lodge is certainly not grand – particularly when it comes to an heir to the throne. William's decision to live there shows his determination to adopt a more 'relatable' way of living, in comparison with Prince Andrew's vast 30-room Royal Lodge just a short drive away in the Great Park, or Prince Edward's Bagshot Park, which is said to boast between 50 and 120 rooms. The Waleses will pay a market rent for Forest Lodge, which is never publicly disclosed for commercial reasons. (The freehold is owned by the Crown Estate which also owns the freehold to Prince Andrew's home.) Plans have already been approved by the local council for a limited amount of internal and external renovations, which William and Catherine are funding themselves. Building works have already begun, with the family hoping to move in by the end of the year. Sources close to the couple stress their initial decision to up-sticks from their apartment at Kensington Palace to Adelaide Cottage in 2022 was 'designed to test a new location and see if it worked for them as a family' – and it very much has. Currently, all three children attend Lambrook School, a short drive away in Bracknell, and are said to be 'thriving' in the new environment. William and Catherine remain determined to be as hands-on as possible with their children while continuing to work as senior members of the Royal Family. Living in Windsor, insiders say, offers them the opportunity to do just that. 'They want to continue to do the school run, even if they are king and queen,' adds a source. Friends also say the move to Forest Lodge will allow the family to start a new chapter after a 'challenging' few years which have seen both the Princess of Wales and King Charles diagnosed with cancer. While Catherine is now in remission, a source says of the move: 'It's a fresh start for them after three really tough years. 'They are looking forward to creating many happy memories in their new home and leaving some of the unhappier ones behind.' There will be no live-in staff, butlers or valets for the Waleses at Forest Lodge – an illustration of just how fiercely they guard their privacy. The same applies currently at Adelaide Cottage. However, there are 'five or six' two- and three-bedroom cottages – currently occupied by estate staff – just a few hundred yards away from the Waleses' new home. Locals understand these will be occupied by the family's security detail, housekeeper and nanny after they move in. Extra security will also be needed as Forest Lodge is outside Windsor Castle's 'ring of steel'. One local tells me: 'The lodge is on a private road, close to a little village with a shop, a post office and a tea shop, which is mainly used by staff. 'It's about as isolated as you can get there, so you can see the attraction for them. 'It's situated in a huge private chunk of Windsor Great Park and the children can go out cycling for miles and not come anywhere near any of the local residents. 'There's a nearby fishing lake that's open only to staff, but that's it. It's also a lot closer – probably a 15-minute drive – to their current school.' The only concern for locals, I am told, is what will happen to their Christmas tree shop each year. 'It's run by the royal estate and is hugely popular,' says one local source. 'Thousands of people from the area come to buy home-grown Windsor trees each year over a glass of mulled wine. 'But it means people will be driving past their front door all day over the festive season and people think it will have to be moved. Generally, though, I think most are excited to see their new neighbours.' Interestingly, it seems the couple will continue to work out of Kensington Palace where their Royal Foundation and Catherine's Centre for Early Childhood are based, along with their household staff and press office. They will also retain their existing 20-room residence, Apartment 1A, at Kensington Palace, and Anmer Hall, their Norfolk retreat. However there are likely to be growing questions over the viability of their London base – not least because the Kensington apartment was refurbished in 2014 at a cost of £4.5 million to the public purse and is now used barely a handful of times a year. Might the Waleses be persuaded to use a suite of rooms in Buckingham Palace instead, allowing the Kensington apartment to be rented out commercially? It might make sense, say some. As for Windsor Castle, which was once earmarked for William and Catherine by the late Queen, the prospect of a full or even part-time royal resident after Charles also looks unlikely. But that is less concerning to many than the future of Buckingham Palace, the sovereign's official London residence, not least because £369 million of public funds is currently being invested in a top-to-toe refurbishment – including a complete redecoration of the late Queen's suite of rooms. At present, no members of the Royal Family reside at the Palace due to this mammoth ten-year re-servicing programme, which is required to bring the crumbling royal residence up to scratch. There is no doubt the works were overdue and badly needed. The Palace's pre-war electrics were verging on dangerous for such an historic building. But, without a king in situ – or even in proximity – will people really feel this is justified? One of the biggest attractions of Buckingham Palace, whether you are visiting it as a head of state, one of the 50,000 guests who attend garden parties, receptions and functions held there each year or even just as a paying punter in the summer months, is that it is the living, breathing heart of the institution. Will it have the same attraction as the nation's most-gilded museum when there is no monarch in residence? Palace aides have always carefully insisted that Charles 'intends' to take up residence in 'Monarchy HQ', as Buckingham Palace is dubbed. However, others think that is unlikely now he and the Queen are well established in the more private and homely surrounds of neighbouring Clarence House. It's worth noting that the building works are not due to be concluded until 2027, when King Charles will be 78 and William 45. A well-placed source tells me that William will be taking an even more 'pragmatic' approach to Buckingham Palace in the future, stressing that Forest Lodge will be his family's only 'long-term' home. To all intents and purposes, then, he will be the first monarch since medieval times not to live in a castle or a palace. Like his father, William is keen to open Buckingham Palace to a greater number of tourists each year than at present. This would generate funds for its future upkeep while lessening pressure on the public purse. The Prince of Wales also wants to see the amount of official entertaining that goes on at the Palace expanded, possibly even using it for government and charitable events. While Sandringham and Balmoral are very much private royal estates with no public funding, it seems that they, too, could undergo a subtle change of status, and be opened to visitors on more days than in the past. All of these are clearly sensible ideas. And yet concerns remain – particularly when it comes to Buckingham Palace. Those I have spoken to are choosing their words carefully, knowing how important it has been to William to ensure that family – rightly – comes first. As one insider says: 'The late Queen said she had to be seen to be believed. I just hope that the Prince of Wales can find the right balance between raising his family away from the public glare at Windsor with the presence required of him as a future, and eventual, head of state.'
BBC News
12 hours ago
- BBC News
Two men trapped in 60m Peak District cave rescued
Two men have been rescued from a 60m (197 ft) deep cave in the Peak working for Derbyshire Cave Rescue Organisation said they were called at 21:40 BST on Saturday to assist a group of four who had descended Eldon Hole, near Chapel-en-le-Frith, earlier in the rescue organisation said two adventurers had managed to climb out, but the other two men were unable to escape without from the team attended, with two cavers going underground while the others set up for a haul. The rescue team said the two trapped men were hauled smoothly up to the surface and everyone was out of the cave by 03:00 BST on Sunday.
Telegraph
12 hours ago
- Telegraph
If we have time to stream Netflix piffle, we have time to steam a pudding
In skittish mood during his tour of the Hebrides, Samuel Johnson devised a satirical meditation on a pudding in the style of a popular volume of religious homilies: 'Let us seriously reflect what a pudding is composed of.' The ingredients, he mused, are elemental: 'flour, that… once drank the dews of the morning; milk, pressed from the swelling udder by the gentle hand of the beauteous milk-maid… an egg, that miracle of nature'. And so on. Satire aside, puddings have been for centuries the foundation and ornament of our national culinary heritage. Even the French, swift to belittle the cuisine of these islands, are keen on them. 'Ah, what an excellent thing is an English pudding!' wrote François Maximilien Misson, visiting England in the 1690s. Several centuries later, Simon Hopkinson recalled with satisfaction an occasion when the Michelin rosette-laden chef Alain Ducasse dined at Bibendum, where he was so taken with Hopkinson's steamed ginger sponge pudding that he asked for the recipe. (A homely affair of breadcrumbs, flour, stem ginger, treacle and egg, the method is given in Hopkinson's recipe book, The Good Cook.) But have our historic puddings become an endangered species? A poll by YouGov for English Heritage finds melancholy evidence of popular decline, at least where homemade puddings (defined by the survey as a cooked sweet course, including pies and crumbles) are concerned. Two thirds of households in England, Scotland and Wales make a pudding once a month or less, while the remaining third never make one at all. By way of encouraging us to rediscover our traditional confections, English Heritage is offering a couple of pudding-inspired ice-cream flavours at its sites: sticky toffee, and apple crumble and custard. Ice cream now seems in danger of joining pizza toppings as a repository for random and essentially ill-advised flavour combinations: a summer pudding ice cream might have proved more appetising. Jane Grigson observed in her book English Food that puddings were 'some of the first victims of mass catering and manufacture'. Making them takes time (Hopkinson's ginger sponge needs to be steamed for two hours – about as long as it takes to watch My Oxford Year, the preposterous rom-com currently streaming on Netflix.) And time is the essential ingredient that many of us now lack. But there is also the question of the effort-to-enjoyment ratio. Hopkinson's ginger sponge is delectable, but some of the sturdier puddings belong to a less sedentary era. In Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin novels, spotted dog, figgy dowdy and drowned baby are popular delicacies of Captain Jack Aubrey's wardroom. But Lobscouse and Spotted Dog, a recipe-book based on the food described in the novels, suggests that they might lie heavy on the insides of anyone not in the habit of running up the ratlines. The original purpose of many puddings, to provide as many calories as possible, as cheaply as possible, has now been overtaken by fast food. And the generations are dwindling for whom a steamed pud with custard was the nostalgic equivalent of Proust's madeleine. So perhaps the proper place for most puddings is a dignified retirement to volumes such as the forthcoming English Heritage Baking Book – to be revived, occasionally, by those of us with a yearning for a suet-based culinary hug with custard on top, and a two-hour film to watch.
