The Prince of Wales’s statement on the Israel-Gaza conflict raises more questions than answers. William has announced that he is ‘deeply concerned about the terrible human cost of conflict in the Middle East since the Hamas terrorist attack on 7 October’, before saying explicitly: ‘Too many have been killed.’ He then declares that ‘I, like so many others, want to see an end to the fighting as soon as possible’, before calling for increased humanitarian support to Gaza, the influx of aid and the release of hostages. The statement then concludes with him stressing ‘the importance of permanent peace’ and by saying ‘Even in the darkest hour, we must not succumb to the counsel of despair. I continue to cling to the hope that a brighter future can be found and I refuse to give up on that.’

William is clearly keen to be seen as statesmanlike in these matters

They are fine, noble sentiments (even if the ‘counsel of despair’ phrase is rather odd) but is it wise for William to wade in on this subject? The last time that William made any kind of public statement about the Middle Eastern conflict was on 11 October, when both the king and the Princess and Princess of Wales unequivocally condemned ‘the barbaric acts of terrorism’. A Kensington Palace spokesman said that both the Prince and Princess were ‘profoundly distressed by the devastating events that have unfolded in the past few days’. Then, they – along with the government and opposition – were clear about Israel’s right to defend itself in the face of such horrors. Now, four months later, matters have shifted.

It is increasingly clear that, given what is taking place in Gaza, simply holding the line that Israel is defending itself against the evils of Hamas is no longer tenable. As Keir Starmer and Labour demand an ‘immediate humanitarian ceasefire’ in the region, anyone who is still holding out against the inevitability that the conflict has to be resolved with the laying down of arms is either a warmonger or simply deluded as to what can, or must, happen. William then has placed himself firmly on the side of those who wish to see the fighting ended and conflict resolved immediately, even as he stresses the impetus for the actions as lying with the initial terror attack of 7 October. The explicit desire (some would call it demand) for humanitarian aid to Gaza is also going considerably further than the government have done recently, indicating that the heir to the throne is doing that most dangerous of things: playing politics.

The penultimate series of The Crown implicitly suggested that Prince Charles and Tony Blair shared the same political outlook and were comfortable in one another’s company. This may have been exaggerated for dramatic effect. But given the King’s (hopefully temporary) indisposition through illness and consequent withdrawal from public life, it is not too fanciful to begin to wonder what William’s relationship with Starmer will develop into, given the likelihood of the Labour leader becoming prime minister this year.

The way that both Starmer and William have placed themselves on the side of immediate resolution of the conflict – and doing so at almost exactly the same time – might simply be coincidence, or just an awareness that something must be done before matters worsen. Yet, while his younger brother distracts himself with self-indulgent interviews with Good Morning America, William is clearly keen to be seen as statesmanlike in these matters. Time will tell whether this intervention is heeded by the government, or anyone else, but the very fact that he has made this statement at all indicates that he is unwilling to sit back and remain neutral on geopolitical matters. The next reign, whenever it occurs, could be very consequential indeed.