So that might be the reason why William, out of nowhere, released a rather remarkable statement to warn that “too many have been killed” in the Gaza conflict. He urged more humanitarian aid and the release of hostages as he called for “an end to the fighting as soon as possible”.

“Sometimes it is only when faced with the sheer scale of human suffering that the importance of permanent peace is brought home,” he said. “Even in the darkest hour, we must not succumb to the counsel of despair.”

These sentiments should in no way seem controversial. Few could dispute the substance. Who could argue with his observation that “too many have been killed”? The combined death toll of Palestinians and Israelis since October 7 is thought to be nearing 30,000.

His plea for increased humanitarian aid to ease the suffering of Gaza’s inhabitants, who over four long months have been shelled, shot and starved, is not controversial either.

And, of course, he was 100 per cent correct to call for the release of those Israeli hostages still suffering in darkness and terror.

But this was by no means just another remark. As a central figure in the most famous royal family in the world, his comments are far more likely to be heeded by people across the globe than those of mere politicians.

The rhetoric, unusual for a senior British royal, risked sparking a diplomatic rift with Israel, which responded by insisting that the fighting would end when all hostages have been released and Hamas has been defeated.

William clearly knew his statement would cause a stir because it was cleared by both the UK’s Foreign Secretary David Cameron and Downing Street. That has left him open to allegations he allowed himself to be used as a pawn in a diplomatic game. The Israeli reaction was restrained but tinted with irritation.

It has all sparked fierce debate in the British press. The Times labelled the statement “a serious lapse of judgment” with an editorial saying it was a mistake to omit the caveat that Hamas should first be disabled. “In doing so, the heir to the throne crossed into the territory of politics — and deeply contentious territory at that,” it said.

Leading conservative figure Nigel Farage said on social media platform X: “I’m not sure that our future king should be doing this. He should stick to the BAFTAs”.

Loading

It has been written that William, who knows the issues surrounding the Gaza crisis are highly politicised, felt he had some credibility to make the comments, having undertaken a well-received visit to Israel and the West Bank in 2018. He is also expected to denounce the rising scourge of antisemitism in a speech in coming days.

But the backlash that followed this week’s intervention might signal that we are not going to see the dawn of a new era of royal politicking.

If his grandmother could keep her feelings on world affairs to herself for decades, then William should probably also aspire to do the same. At a time when politicians are driving the world mad, it would be a good idea for a future king to rise above them.

Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for the weekly What in the World newsletter here.