Prince Harry's Seeing Combat, And British Media Kept Quiet

"I think most people thought this would last for at most a week before it leaked out," the source said. "It lasted much, much longer than anybody thought."

British media critic Roy Greenslade called the Harry story "an incredible piece of self-censorship."

"But in the circumstances, it's understandable," he said. "I believe this young man wanted to serve and do his duty. I think it was right to both let him go and to keep quiet."

Greenslade said editors periodically agree to withhold information if they believe it is in the public interest. He recalled a time in the early 1990s, when he was editor of the Daily Mirror newspaper, that he learned police had discovered a large cache of Irish Republican Army weapons in Wales.

He said he and other editors agreed to a police request not to reveal that information because the police were hoping that staking out the weapons would lead to the capture of key IRA figures. Greenslade said that police did capture key suspects and that the media blackout was justified.

Dannatt issued a statement Thursday praising the British media for their "highly responsible attitude" and saying he was "very disappointed that foreign websites have decided to run this story without consulting us."

"What the last two months have shown is that it is perfectly possible for Prince Harry to be employed just the same as other Army officers of his rank and experience," Dannatt said. "His conduct on operations in Afghanistan has been exemplary. He has been fully involved in operations and has run the same risks as everyone else in his battlegroup."

With the news of Harry's presence in Afghanistan out, Dannatt said he would review whether to keep him there.

Lacey said Harry was maintaining a long British royal family tradition of military service. His uncle, Prince Andrew, served in the Falklands, and his grandfather Prince Philip was a decorated World War II veteran. Harry's father, Prince Charles, served in the British navy but never saw combat.

Although William, who is in line to become king after Charles, is also a military officer, he was much less likely to be put in harm's way, Lacey said.

"There is a convention that the principal heir should be kept away from real danger," he said. "As the 'spare' rather than the heir, Harry is expected by the royal family to take the ultimate military risks."

Most Britons interviewed said they support Harry's decision to fight for his country. But others worried that his death on the battlefield would be a terrible blow to Britain, particularly given his mother's tragic death in a 1997 car accident.

"There is a sense in which these two boys, bearing the banner of Diana as they do, have created a reassuring and cheering partnership out of the tragedy of their mother's death," Lacey said.

"Apart from the obvious sadness people would feel if Harry were killed, for the royal family it would mean the loss of this important partnership of William and Harry. It would be devastating."