Prince William is by far the most popular member of the Royal Family. And when his elegant wife Catherine is by his side, these approval ratings skyrocket even more.
This popularity is fused with two inherited (and diametrically opposed) characteristics: the caution of his grandmother, the late Queen Elizabeth, and the impulsive instincts that came so naturally to his much-missed mother, Princess Diana.
From time to time, there has been the occasional error in judgement, but generally speaking, unlike his brother Harry, William stops to think before speaking.
Yesterday’s passionate plea about the war in Gaza suggests that in this battle between heart and head, the dominant influence has suddenly and dramatically shifted in favor of the late princess.
In a few brief words, presented against a dazzling black background, William offered a view of the conflict that came perilously close to entering a political and diplomatic minefield.
Prince William is by far the most popular member of the Royal Family.
While he stopped short of directly calling for a ceasefire, as many on the left would have wished, his statement was certainly open to that interpretation in hopes of “an end to the fighting as soon as possible.”
He also spoke of the “terrible human cost of the conflict in the Middle East since the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7.”
This sentence was clumsy.
By referring to deaths “since” that atrocity, William risked giving the impression that he was excluding the hundreds of Israelis murdered by Hamas.
Its deeply emotive language (“even in the darkest hour we must not succumb to the counsel of despair” and its determination to “hold on to the hope that a better future can be found”) will clearly appeal to a younger demographic, many of which to support the Palestinians.
However, this approach is fraught with danger.
Almost inevitably, the statement sparked immediate hostility online.
“You should have no public opinion on political matters,” one commenter wrote. ‘He has not been elected, he does not have a democratic mandate.
‘We elected the government to govern the country. You should shut up and take care of the kids.
Another posted: ‘Hamas must be dancing with joy because this moron has stuck in his oar and become part of their mouthpiece. [sic].’
A third warned: ‘Careful William. The last monarch who entered politics lost his head.
Most significant of all was this blunt warning: “You need to follow your grandmother’s example and not comment on anything political.”
Although public figures are cautious about openly criticizing the heir to the throne, some compared her intervention to that of Princess Diana on her campaign against landmines, when she was forced to deny that she was engaging in partisan politics and insisted that she was a “humanitarian.”
Dabbling in the complexities of the fighting in Gaza is a much more serious course of action.
When Diana faced criticism for supporting an international treaty banning anti-personnel mines, she divorced and was stripped of her HRH title.
William, however, is not only the Prince of Wales and one step away from the throne, but also (due to his father’s cancer treatment and his absence from royal duties) the de facto ‘deputy’ king.
If ever you needed the late Queen’s unwavering focus, it was surely on the most difficult problem in geopolitics: the Israel-Palestine issue.
And yet, there he was, entering the international arena with a statement that quickly made headlines around the world, for all the wrong reasons.
When William’s elegant wife Catherine is by his side, his approval ratings soar even higher.
Needless to say, this approach would have been anathema to his grandmother, whose only remark on domestic politics (during the Scottish referendum debate in 2014) caused her considerable distress after her views were foolishly leaked by then-Prime Minister David Cameron.
How ironic that Lord Cameron is now Foreign Secretary, whose office was informed in advance of the prince’s statement.
Charles, who was often accused of meddling as Prince of Wales, has been much more circumspect as monarch.
His infamous “black spider” letters to ministers criticizing official policy have not been repeated, while his public comments, like those of his mother before him, have always been measured and nuanced. In short, as a king, he has not made a false step.
So what prompted William to carry out this extraordinary intervention? Until recently, he has shown little interest in international affairs, limiting himself rather to issues in which he has some experience: conservation, the environment and saving the planet. His Earthshot award has been well received, and invokes a spirit of optimism in man’s ability to solve global emergencies, including the climate crisis.
On a smaller scale, he has put into practice the youthful views on homelessness he learned at his mother’s knee, vowing to invest his own money in building homes.
But it is when he strays from such familiar territory that William, more than once, has exposed his naivety.
William meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara in Jerusalem in 2018.
A few years ago, even his detractors were prepared to blame youthful exuberance for his suggestion to destroy Buckingham Palace’s ivory collection.
There was a similar willingness to overlook both his “unfortunate” decision to hunt wild boars a day before giving a speech about the need to curb illegal poaching, and his uncomfortable visit to a nature reserve in China, apparently unaware that there the elephants had their legs. chained as entertainment for the public.
But after a backlash in 2017, when he inadvertently (and incoherently) entered the drug debate by asking addicts if they thought drugs should be legalized, William was said to have learned his lesson and was determined to maintain his trait. impetuous under control.
Until yesterday.
His friends say that, like many of us, William has not been immune to the horrific images and videos that have emerged in Gaza since Israel began its operation to eradicate Hamas.
I’m told he also wants to move away from the mere platitudes that are typical of royal statements. If this is so, we are heading into dangerous and uncharted waters. With the King incapacitated, what William does and says is necessarily subject to additional scrutiny.
The Prince is escorted by security in Ramallah during his official tour of the Middle East in 2018
Unlike his father, who spent decades as Prince of Wales defending his position on issues only after thoroughly investigating them, William has not had that luxury.
He delayed becoming a full-time royal for several years, instead prioritizing his family and his career as a helicopter ambulance pilot.
It was a move for which he was widely praised at the time.
And it is also fair to point out that, almost six years ago, William became the first member of the Royal Family to visit the West Bank and clearly came away hugely moved and concerned by what he had witnessed.
But is pure emotion enough?
Before his own interventions, Charles carefully studied issues close to his heart: from genetically modified foods to conventional farming methods, education, slums and poverty, the Armed Forces and alternative medicines.
He met and corresponded with ministers and public officials, as well as many relevant experts.
When governments of all stripes accused him of being unaccountable, he enjoyed the public support his intrusions provoked.
But in matters of national and international diplomacy, he has been, like his mother, very careful.
How ironic that, just a few years ago, all the talk before he came to the throne was that Charles was hell-bent on reigning as a meddlesome monarch.
Rather, he has been a model of prudence and good sense, and it is William whose judgment is being questioned.