Prince William is by far the most popular member of the royal family. And when his stylish wife Catherine is by his side, those approval ratings go even higher.
This popularity is united by two inherited – and diametrically opposed – traits: the caution of his grandmother, the late Queen Elizabeth, and the impulsive instincts that came so naturally to his much-missed mother, Princess Diana.
Strange misjudgments occur from time to time – but on the whole, unlike his brother Harry, William pauses to think before he speaks.
Yesterday's impassioned plea about the war in Gaza suggests that in this battle between hearts and heads, the dominant influence has suddenly and dramatically shifted in favor of the late princess.
In a few short words, presented against a captivating black background, William offered a look at the conflict that came dangerously close to falling into a political and diplomatic minefield.
Prince William is by far the most popular member of the royal family
Although he refrained from directly calling for a ceasefire, as many on the left might have wished, his statement certainly allowed for such an interpretation in the hope of “an early end to the fighting.”
He also spoke of “the terrible human cost of the conflict in the Middle East since the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7.”
This formulation was clumsy.
By referring to the deaths “since” that atrocity, William risked appearing to exclude the hundreds of Israelis killed by Hamas.
His deeply emotional language – “Even in the darkest hour, we must not give in to the counsel of despair” and his determination to “hold on to the hope that a better future can be found” – will clearly appeal to a younger demographic, many of whom are supportive you the Palestinians.
But this approach carries risks.
Almost inevitably, the statement immediately sparked hostility online.
“He should not have a public opinion on political matters,” one commenter wrote. “He is not elected and has no democratic mandate.”
“We elect the government to run the country. “He should keep his mouth shut and take care of the children.”
Another posted: “Hamas must be dancing with joy that this idiot has stuck his oar in and become part of their mouthpiece.” [sic].'
A third warned: “Be careful William.” “The last monarch to get involved in politics lost his head.”
The clearest was this blunt warning: “He must follow his grandmother’s example and not comment on anything political.”
Although public figures have shied away from openly criticizing the heir to the throne, some compared his intervention to that of Princess Diana over her landmine campaign, when she was forced to deny that she was involved in party politics and insisted that she was she is a “philanthropist”.
Dealing with the intricacies of the fighting in Gaza is a far more serious approach.
When Diana was criticized for her support of an international agreement to ban anti-personnel landmines, she was divorced and stripped of her HRH title.
However, William is not only Prince of Wales and a heartbeat away from the throne, but – due to his father's cancer treatment and absence from royal duties – also the de facto “deputy” king.
If ever he needed the late queen's persistent stance, it would certainly be on the most intractable problem in geopolitics: the Israel-Palestine question.
And yet he burst onto the international stage with a statement that quickly made headlines around the world for all the wrong reasons.
When William's stylish wife Catherine is by his side, his approval ratings rise even higher
Needless to say, this approach would have been anathema to his grandmother, whose one observation on domestic politics – during the Scottish referendum debate in 2014 – left her significantly disturbed 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 – was far more cautious as monarch.
His infamous “black spider” letters to ministers, in which he railed against official policy, have not been repeated, while his public statements, like those of his mother before him, have always been measured and nuanced. In short, he did nothing wrong as king.
So what made William undertake this extraordinary procedure? Until recently, he showed little interest in international affairs, instead limiting himself to issues in which he had some expertise: conservation, the environment, and saving the planet. His Earthshot Prize was well received and sparked optimism about humanity's ability to solve global emergencies, not least the climate crisis.
On a smaller scale, he put into action the youthful insight into homelessness he learned at his mother's knee and committed to putting his own money into building houses.
But just as he moves away from such familiar territory, William reveals his naivety more than once.
William meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara in Jerusalem in 2018
A few years ago, even his critics were prepared to blame youthful exuberance for his proposal to destroy Buckingham Palace's ivory collection.
There was a similar willingness to ignore both his “unfortunate” decision to hunt wild boar a day before his speech on the need to curb illegal poaching, and his unpleasant visit to a nature reserve in China, apparently unaware that elephants there had legs in shackles as entertainment for the public.
But after a backlash in 2017 when he inadvertently – and incoherently – entered the drug debate by asking addicts whether they thought drugs should be legalized, William is said to have learned his lesson and been determined to put his impetus to use To keep character traits under control.
Until yesterday.
Friends say William, like so many of us, has not been immune to the horrific images and videos from Gaza since Israel began its operation to eradicate Hamas.
I'm told he also wants to move away from the mere platitudes that characterize royal statements. If so, we are heading into dangerous new territory. With the king incapacitated, what William does and says is bound to come under additional scrutiny.
The prince is accompanied by security forces in Ramallah during his official tour of the Middle East in 2018
Unlike his father, who spent decades as Prince of Wales only offering his views on issues after thorough research, William didn't have that luxury.
He delayed becoming a full-time king for several years, instead prioritizing his family and his career as a helicopter ambulance pilot.
It was a move for which he received much praise at the time.
And it's only fair to point out that almost six years ago, William became the first member of the royal family to visit the West Bank and apparently came away extremely moved and disturbed by what he saw.
But is pure emotion enough?
Before his own interventions, Charles carefully studied issues close to his heart – from genetically modified foods to mainstream farming practices, education, inner cities and poverty, to the armed forces and alternative medicines.
He met and corresponded with ministers and officials as well as many relevant experts.
When governments accused him of all kinds of irresponsibility, he rejoiced in the public support his interventions generated.
But in matters of national and international diplomacy he, like his mother, was extremely cautious.
How ironic that just a few years ago, before his accession to the throne, all the talk was that Charles was desperate to rule as an interfering monarch.
Instead, he was a model of prudence and common sense – and it is William whose judgment is called into question.