“Ruthless” Prince William Or Just A Petty Prince With A Grudge Problem?

The Daily Mail would like you to believe that Prince William’s habit of cutting people off without warning, freezing out former friends and apparently conducting a years-long silent war against the Archbishop of Canterbury is, actually, good news. A sign of strength and brilliant leadership material.

Royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams obliged with the framing, telling the paper, “William is our future king. Thank goodness he has a ruthless streak, as this is needed in today’s world.” He went on to describe William as “an excellent judge of character” with “diplomatic skills.”

As you marinate on those words, let’s look at the full picture, shall we?

The Archbishop who dared to counsel Harry

The latest installment of “Wiliam holds a grudge” comes courtesy of the Archbishop of Canterbury situation. Or rather, the former Archbishop, Justin Welby, who had the audacity to provide guidance to Prince Harry and Meghan Sussex.

Royal correspondent Roya Nikkah dropped this information on Times Radio, explaining that Welby and his team “did try very hard to get meetings with William, and there was just a wall of silence that came down.“

The future head of the Church of England couldn’t be bothered to meet with the most senior bishop in the Church of England because Welby had the temerity to be kind to Harry and Meghan?

“William is someone who does hold a grudge, he does choose sides,” Nikkah added. “If someone picks the other side, he remembers that.” This is being presented as a positive character trait by some. Royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams actually said: “Thank goodness he has a ruthless streak, as this is needed in today’s world.”

Since when did “ruthless” become a glowing reference for a constitutional figurehead whose primary duties involve ribbon-cutting, charity galas, and the occasional state dinner? In a world currently watching Donald Trump’s brand of ruthlessness destabilise entire alliances, tank global markets, and unravel decades of international cooperation, it takes a particular kind of editorial blindness to look at that landscape and decide that what the British monarchy needs is more of the same energy.

When “Consumed With Grievance” Stops Being A Warning And Becomes A Royal Endorsement

Yet here we are, with royal experts cheerfully presenting William’s grudge-holding as a qualification rather than a character flaw. It is worth remembering that Kamala Harris stood at The Ellipse in Washington in October 2024 and warned the world in plain terms about exactly this kind of leader — “unstable, obsessed with revenge, consumed with grievance, and out for unchecked power.” She drew a now-famous contrast: Trump would walk into office with an enemies list. She would walk in with a to-do list.

The world has since watched what the enemies-list approach looks like in practice, and the consequences have been neither stable nor reassuring. So it is a peculiar moment for the royal rota to look across the Atlantic at that unfolding chaos and decide that what the British monarchy needs is a future king operating on strikingly similar emotional architecture — cutting off journalists, freezing out archbishops, and cataloguing perceived traitors. “Mean streak” does not appear anywhere in the job description for Head of the Commonwealth. Neither does “freezes out the Archbishop of Canterbury for being kind to his brother.” The role is largely ceremonial. It calls for grace, consistency, and the ability to remain above petty personal grievances — precisely the qualities the reporting suggests William lacks.

Tom Bradby: from wedding guest to persona non grata

The list of people who have felt William’s chill is growing longer by the season. Take journalist Tom Bradby. He was once close enough to William to score the exclusive engagement interview with Kate Middleton and an invitation to their wedding. Then he interviewed Harry and Meghan during their 2019 tour of southern Africa and had the audacity to report, accurately, that the brothers were on “different paths.”

For this, Bradby has reportedly been cut off. Completely and permanently. Fitzwilliams frames it diplomatically, explaining that Bradby “was regarded by William as having betrayed him” and that he has “reportedly cut off all contact for obvious reasons.” Obvious to whom, exactly? From where many observers are sitting, what this actually describes is a future king who appears unwilling to tolerate dissent, particularly from those who do not adopt the same stance toward his younger brother.

It also feeds into a wider concern about how sections of the press operate within the royal ecosystem, where access to senior royals can shape editorial tone. One frequently cited example is Amy Robach, who in 2019 was recorded expressing frustration that her reporting on Jeffrey Epstein had been held back while she was at ABC News over concerns about losing royal access.

While ABC later disputed aspects of her claim, the incident reinforced broader concerns about how access journalism can influence coverage. Taken together, this is less about strength or decisiveness in leadership and more about a system where image management and narrative control take precedence, raising questions about how much independence the press truly has when covering the monarchy.

The York family: toxic by association

Then there are the York sisters, Beatrice and Eugenie, who seem destined to spend their lives paying for the spectacular failures of their father. Richard Fitzwilliams says William has never been close to them and knows perfectly well that the York “brand” is radioactive. There is even speculation he could move to curb their use of titles when he is king, though that is rather easier for commentators to declare than for a monarch to simply do.

What makes it all so revealing is the double standard. William and Kate had no apparent problem being seen at the same public events as Prince Andrew in 2023, even as Andrew remained a walking scandal with a thoroughly ruined reputation. And yet parts of the press still found time to weaponise Andrew against Harry and Meghan, as if the disgraced duke were somehow the less embarrassing option.

Andrew is, plainly, a disaster in a morning coat. But punishing his daughters for the sins of their father, while other inconvenient associations are politely overlooked, says less about principle than it does about palace hierarchy. In royal life, it seems, toxicity is not the problem. It is who gets made to carry it.

The elephant in the room: can William even read?

Now, before we get too carried away with this “ruthless prince” narrative, can we address the rather large elephant in the room?

Because while William is busy freezing out archbishops and cousins, there’s been an uncomfortable question hovering over Kensington Palace for months now: is this man actually equipped to be king?

Let me direct your attention to journalist Will Lloyd, who caused quite a stir in the New Statesman when he described William as sounding “functionally illiterate.” Lloyd pointed out that William cannot name a single favourite author, is obsessed with “Batman-related” movies, dodges written briefings like they carry the plague, and will be the first monarch in generations who hasn’t bothered to read Walter Bagehot’s The English Constitution.

William: future King "can't or won't" read@Will___lloyd

Listen to the New Statesman podcast:https://t.co/kgxpUYpkVf pic.twitter.com/3yMyWc47Ks

— The New Statesman (@NewStatesman) October 29, 2025

That last one is not a small thing. Bagehot’s work is basically the instruction manual for the British monarchy. It’s the textbook. And the future king couldn’t be bothered?

Palace insiders have long admitted he refuses briefing memos, skips books for pleasure, and prefers staff spoon-feeding him verbal summaries. Because reading is apparently too much work for the man who’ll one day be expected to review government documents, meet with world leaders, and represent an entire nation.

A confident, capable leader doesn’t purge allies over petty slights. An insecure, under-read bully does.

The “excellent judge of character” problem

Fitzwilliams claims William is “clearly an excellent judge of character” and has “won praise for his diplomatic skills.”

Really? Shall we talk about the company William has kept? Remember Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, the executive chairman of DP World — parent company of P&O Ferries? The one who provided £1 million in funding for William’s Earthshot Prize? The same Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem who, in 2022, had former MPs urging William to cut ties with him after P&O Ferries provoked national outrage by firing hundreds of workers and replacing them with cheaper labour?

Or how about Bill Gates — another Earthshot partner — whose connections to Jeffrey Epstein have been well-documented, including flights on Epstein’s private jet and meetings long after Epstein’s conviction?

For a man who is supposedly such an “excellent judge of character,” William seems to have a remarkable talent for finding friends with extremely questionable baggage. But those people don’t get frozen out, do they? Only the ones who are kind to Harry.

The temper problem

And let’s not ignore the long-running narrative that the palace PR machine has been desperately trying to suppress. The one about William’s anger. We’ve seen the headlines for years now. “Flies off the handle.” Broke out “into rage.” “Short-tempered.” “Prone to rant and rave.” “Molten anger.” “Notorious rages.” “Tantrums.”

And yes, Harry’s allegation that William “physically attacked” him. These are not isolated incidents. This is a pattern. A pattern of a man who is emotionally reactive, controlling, and easily enraged, especially when it comes to criticism or family conflict. But we’re supposed to believe that same man is ruthless in a strategic, admirable way? No. That’s not how this works.

The real question: is William fit to be king?

The word “ruthless” keeps being deployed as if it were a compliment. As if cutting people off and holding grudges were marks of strength rather than symptoms of insecurity. But let’s be clear about what ruthlessness actually looks like in practice.

King Henry VIII was ruthless. He tore apart the Church, beheaded wives, and destroyed anyone who crossed him. Is that the model we want for a modern monarchy? Donald Trump is described as ruthless. He boasts about revenge, keeps an enemies list, and has spent years threatening retaliation against anyone he perceives as disloyal.

So why are royal experts framing William’s petty grudge-holding as a positive? The Crown is sold to the public as a symbol of stability, continuity, and grace under pressure. Ruthlessness has no place in that vision. Vengeance certainly does not. And freezing people out for the crime of being kind to a brother? That is not a strength; it is simply small.

William doesn’t need a “ruthless streak.” He needs a thicker skin, a longer memory for loyalty rather than perceived slights, and perhaps a reminder that the Archbishop of Canterbury showing compassion to Harry and Meghan was not a betrayal; it was his job. And becuase he is Christian, something his “quiet faith” has not informed him

The monarchy is already teetering. Public affection for the institution is fading, especially among younger generations. Handing the crown to a prince who cuts off anyone who displeases him isn’t strength. It’s a slow-motion disaster.

Britain deserves better than a future king who mistakes pettiness for power. But what do I know? I’m just a royal watcher who remembers that ruthlessness is a warning sign, not a résumé line.

What do you think, readers? Is William’s “ruthless streak” a sign of strength or insecurity? And more importantly, can a man who won’t read Bagehot be trusted with the crown?

Drop your thoughts in the comments. And someone please send the future king a copy of The English Constitution. For all our sakes.