Wars and Heirs at the Front

I was wondering, in Europe from c.1500 to WWII, were heirs sent to the front? Obviously they went to war, Louis XIV sent his son and grandson to the battlefields of Flanders, his son with the order "so that when I come to die it will not be noticed that the King is dead.".

But how "close" to the front would it have been? I mean, it's one thing to send your heir to the mud of Flanders, but is he sitting in a comfortably warm and dry tent somewhere? Or is he down in the trenches (so to speak)?

The reason I extended it to the 20th century, was because ISTR reading that Léopold III of Belgium was likewise in the trenches as a teenager. Was it only if there was a spare or the heir apparent had an heir already? Did it depend on the sort of "properness" of the war. Say, sending the dauphin to go fight in Flanders was okay, but him taking a jaunt across Europe to go fight the Turks in Hungary was unthinkable?
 
Prince Harry’s unit had to be evacuated from Afghanistan a few years ago because it leaked out that he was in country and there were fears that his unit would be targeted by the Taliban for the propaganda value.
 
Hmm.
Iirc "Fronts" weren't really a thing before artillery became more and more prevalent, just battles.
Heirs and similar were expected to lead by example so they would be trained how to fight. This wasn't much of a risk since high value prisoners would be ransomed and high value commanders were easily identifiable.
The rise of the infantry and artillery made it riskier and riskier for the succession and commanders became more strategic than exemplary.
 
Hmm.
Iirc "Fronts" weren't really a thing before artillery became more and more prevalent, just battles.
Heirs and similar were expected to lead by example so they would be trained how to fight. This wasn't much of a risk since high value prisoners would be ransomed and high value commanders were easily identifiable.
The rise of the infantry and artillery made it riskier and riskier for the succession and commanders became more strategic than exemplary.

Hence why the dauphin or Louis XV were often present at say Fontenoy IIRC. Or the Prince Impérial was also present during the early stages of the Franco-Prussian War. Napoléon III sent a report back to Paris extolling how brave the boy had been during the battle. But the press seized on the fact that the prince had walked the battlefield afterwards "picking up bullets".

Prince Harry’s unit had to be evacuated from Afghanistan a few years ago because it leaked out that he was in country and there were fears that his unit would be targeted by the Taliban for the propaganda value.

This is what I was wondering. If the crown prince WERE seriously injured in a battle and the king were to order a Te Deum to celebrate his recovery, might the more republican element seize on this (as above with the Prince Impérial where they turned an admirable - if lacklustre - story (AFAIK he didn't actually fight) inyo a farce. "What about those wounded/dead whose fathers are not kings?" Sort of thing.
And would said crown prince be immediately transported to a hospital back from the front? Or would he simply be treated by physicians in royal employ at the nearest field hospital?
 
Bismarck was no kaiser (not officially), but he had two sons fighting in the German-Franco War. And was worried about them when they were missing for some time.
 
Top