[Pinckney]

The first world war is a bad example. While the war was absolutely started by royalty, they did send their sons to the front to die along with commoners.

> Although the great majority of casualties in WW1 were from the working class, the social and political elite were hit disproportionately hard by WW1. Their sons provided the junior officers whose job it was to lead the way over the top and expose themselves to the greatest danger as an example to their men.

> Some 12% of the British army's ordinary soldiers were killed during the war, compared with 17% of its officers. Eton alone lost more than 1,000 former pupils - 20% of those who served. UK wartime Prime Minister Herbert Asquith lost a son, while future Prime Minister Andrew Bonar Law lost two. Anthony Eden lost two brothers, another brother of his was terribly wounded, and an uncle was captured.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25776836

Also, Princes Oskar and Eitel Friedrich of Prussia both served in front-line combat roles and both were wounded.

[Jaruzel]

The hubris of the British at the time, where they fully believed that the war would only last a few weeks and they'd be 'Home for Christmas', is mainly what led to many sons of the Upper Class willingly signing up to fight in droves.

Alas, as we all know, the war lasted a lot longer than 'a few weeks'.

WW1 directly impacted the ability of many large estates across the UK to survive beyond the 1940s. It changed the cultural and class landscape of the UK significantly.

[darkerside]

This has probably been thought, at least publicly, about almost every offensive war waged by a democratic nation. Few civilizations (there are exceptions) would stomach a war that they knew from the outset would last for years.