With news today that Iraqi militants are explicitly threatening to kidnap and murder Prince Harry and reports that militants have also been able to penetrate the armour of Challenger 2 tanks, will Mr Blair's legacy be that he is the first Prime Minister ever to send a monarch's son to his death ?
SKY News were recalling earlier that in World War One, when the then Prince of Wales was fighting on the Western Front, his ADC, who was at his side at all times, was ordered that "in no circumstances should he be captured or fall in to enemy hands". Make of that what you will, and remember, this was in against a far more civilised enemy than Iraqi insurgents.
To my mind Blair will be remembered more for the war than for anything else, but if he send a Prince to his death in order to fight his war, Blair will have been in charge when Harry's mother died, and then sent her son to his death.
Is Prince Harry's life more important that anyone other British service man or womans life ? No, of course not, but because of what he represents and the prize he would be to insurgents he does represent an important symbol.
Of course, no British soldier should be dying fighting Blair's war in the first place.