Prince William’s Somber Year Fuels Debate Over Monarchy’s Future

Prince William’s public appearances over the past 18 months have drawn renewed attention to a noticeably somber demeanor, a trend royal observers say has become more evident in recent appearances and is now the subject of a controversial assessment by veteran royal biographer A.N. Wilson in the Daily Mail. Wilson notes that William appeared unusually subdued at high-profile events, including the Duchess of Kent’s funeral at Westminster Cathedral, where observers said he bore a heavier weight on his shoulders than in previous years. The impression of a prince bearing a heavy burden accompanies broader commentary about his public mood, and the piece argues the mood is part of a wider shift in the heir’s public persona as he contends with an array of pressures surrounding the monarchy’s future.

At Westminster Cathedral, Wilson writes, William’s expressions and posture suggested anger and unease, with some observers noting he appeared to have lost weight and seemed less buoyant than in past royal occasions. The author stresses that the funeral, a solemn moment in royal life, may have accentuated those moods. A few days later, at a State Banquet in Windsor honoring Donald Trump, William again appeared more pensive than celebratory, even as Catherine Middleton offered a warmer, more outward smile to the visiting U.S. president. In Wilson’s view, the banquet underscored the monarchy’s continuing role in soft power, as Britain showcases its bond with the United States even amid a global moment of uncertainty. While Catherine engaged with Trump and the royal household performed its ceremonial duties, William’s demeanor stood in contrast to her friendliness and to the broader pageantry of the occasion.

The Daily Mail piece cites evidence of William’s ongoing proximity to Trump as part of a broader “charm offensive” that has reportedly brought the two closer in recent months. Vanity Fair has noted that William developed a rapport with the president after being tapped to help steer the British government’s outreach. A Paris meeting described as originally planned as a brief encounter reportedly extended to 40 minutes, underscoring the depth of the U.S.–U.K. engagement as viewed by some royal observers. Trump has publicly praised William, calling him a “good man” and “really very handsome,” among other plaudits, according to the article.

Beyond the Trump visit, the piece connects William’s mood to a broader family dynamics narrative that includes Prince Harry’s return to public life in Britain. Wilson points to Harry’s four-day, pseudo-royal tour of Britain, which included tea with King Charles, as evidence that reconciliation between Charles and his younger son is underway—but not a reconciliation between the two brothers. The article notes that Harry’s ongoing efforts to reassert a royal presence have created a sense of tension within the Prince of Wales camp, with some commentators suggesting William feels betrayed by Harry’s broader revival of public interest in the family. Vanity Fair and Tina Brown, a frequent chronicler of royal affairs, have described a contrast between William-Kate public engagements and Harry’s more buoyant media appearances, framing the latter as a potential challenge to William’s perceived centrality in the monarchy’s future.

Brown, writing in her Fresh Hell column, suggested that King Charles is “underwhelmed” by William’s perceived failure to shoulder a larger share of royal duties, a claim that Wilson echoes in his assessment of William’s workload and public profile. A White House source is cited as saying William wields “really powerful, really important” influence over the future of the special relationship, a characterization that underscores the political weight accompanying royal diplomacy in an era where the monarchy’s relevance is increasingly debated.

The piece also surveys a more structural concern: whether William will be able to sustain public affection for monarchy as the institution faces questions about its long-term legitimacy. Wilson argues that unlike Queen Elizabeth II, William may not be able to rely on a spontaneous, nationwide belief in the monarchy as a unifying national symbol. He cites a contemporary survey indicating that about 60 percent of people aged 16 to 30 favor Britain becoming a republic, with older age groups more divided on the question. The author suggests such a shift could complicate William’s path to the throne, particularly if the Crown remains closely tied to a model of hereditary leadership that the public doubts in a modern, diverse society.

William has himself signaled a relatively protective stance toward traditional royal prerogatives—telling at least one interviewer that he does not expect Prince George to serve in the military unless he chooses to do so. Yet the monarchy remains deeply linked to national institutions and traditions, including the defense of faiths and the ceremonial duties of the Crown. Charles has framed his reign as Defender of Faiths, a concept that Wilson says opens questions about national identity and the church’s role within the monarchy. The piece notes that William has made clear his own belief system diverges from public Catholic and Anglican tradition, a point that could complicate perceptions of the Crown’s role as Supreme Governor of the Church.

As the public weighs these dynamics, Wilson emphasizes the tension between William’s modernizing instincts and the enduring expectations of a constitutional monarchy. He argues that William’s approach to family life—prioritizing the couple’s roles as parents to George, Charlotte and Louis—has drawn scrutiny from some corners of the press and public, particularly at moments when the King and Queen have faced health challenges and personal strain. The article does not deny the personal hardships involved: Kate’s ongoing battle with cancer, as noted by Wilson, adds a layer of strain to the couple’s public life and their private balance as a family under intense media scrutiny.

Diana, Princess of Wales, long an informant about royal fragility, is cited by Wilson as offering a warning that the monarchy could face a future without a spontaneous national embrace once Charles is gone. The author recounts a conversation in which Diana said there might not be a monarchy after Charles’s death, a prophecy Wilson says could come to define the Crown’s strategic imperative: to cultivate a public narrative and a modern arrangement of royal duties that preserves legitimacy without relying solely on inherited prestige.

Against that backdrop, Wilson argues that William’s evolution into the throne’s direct heir will require balancing deference to the royal tradition with a renewed, relatable form of monarchy that resonates with younger Britons. He cautions that while William is being eased into greater responsibility—engaging in meetings that were once run by his father and overseeing shoots at Balmoral and Sandringham—he must navigate a hierarchy in which deference remains a part of the job description. Critics warn that failing to do so could alienate a public whose support for the monarchy is already more fragile than it was in the reign of Elizabeth II.

The piece closes on a somber note about the broader historical arc of the Crown. William’s generation faces the dual challenge of modernizing the monarchy while preserving its enduring aura of duty and service. A major question remains: can a Prince who has described himself as not wanting to be “royal with a capital R” reconcile that sentiment with a role that is in many ways inseparable from the very concept of a national symbol? Wilson suggests that the answer will hinge not only on William’s actions, but on the monarch’s ability to articulate a compelling case for why a constitutional crown remains essential to Britain’s national identity in a rapidly changing world.

As observers weigh these developments, the public will continue to respond to the Crown’s evolving balance of ceremony, duty and personality. William’s somber tone, Harry’s return to public life, and the ongoing discourse about the monarchy’s place in a modern Britain will all shape how the institution is perceived in the years ahead. If the Crown can demonstrate relevance and humility in equal measure, its supporters argue, it may still endure; if not, critics warn that the momentum behind the monarchy could wane, altering the country’s constitutional landscape for generations to come.