"......he did serve in the army for a bit (though by all accounts had a pretty cushty time of it)
I am not quarrelling with that remark. 35 years of service seems a bit of exaggeration to me. This is just a reflection on the situation.
When the military service of a royal person is mentioned I think of two sides of the situation, at least.
I think it's quite a good idea for royals to spend time in the services, if possible, because the first duty of the government is to keep us safe, apparently.
It happened that Charles and William served in the forces when, as far as I recall, British Forces weren't fighting anywhere. It happened that when Andrew and Harry served there was war in the Falklands at one point and war in Afghanistan at another. If those two young men had been left in Britain while their units were sent overseas, imagine the hoo-ha in the press, and the disgruntlement of the young men. I expect they both wanted to go.
Having got them abroad, to the places of the fighting, their seniors would have had to decide what to do with them. It doesn't look as if Andrew was given a pretty cushty time, but maybe some would say he was. Was Harry given a cushty time? I don't know, but I always think that it must be quite difficult for a senior officer, who's thinking that he must give the young man something to keep him busy but try not to put him where there's a high chance of his being killed. Bit of a tightrope, I think.
I have been enjoying the two words 'pretty cushty' and wondering if it is possible to translate them into any other language while holding on to the nuance of them.