Prince William ‘expects to be given more influence and control as the years go by’

The whole “racist royals” newscycle around Omid Scobie’s Endgame overshadowed some of the fascinating stories Scobie wrote about. Notably, very few people have talked in-depth about the way Endgame makes it clear that King Charles and Prince William’s separate royal courts are constantly briefing against one another, and there’s always a lot of angst, anger and palace intrigue. William and Charles have never gotten along or any kind of traditional father-son bond. Pre-2017, we often talked about how Harry was much closer to Charles. Now that Charles is king and William is Prince of Wales, what is this whole thing going to look like for the rest of Charles’s reign? Imagine the dumbest power struggle ever. The Daily Beast’s Royalist column had some additional insight into Charles and William’s ever-changing dynamic. Some highlights:

The two royal courts: Concerns over how the two men’s vastly differing styles might clash have long vexed palace insiders. The two courts are very much separate entities with little regular day-to-day interaction other than exchanging diary dates. While Charles runs a traditional, buttoned-up operation, William and Kate Middleton encourage the use of first names, and strive for a more informal but still professional feel. As one former Palace employee who went between both courts in their role told The Daily Beast: “William and Kate would do things like give you two weeks off if your father died, while Charles’ office has a more workaholic vibe.” A courtier in Charles’ office once joked to The Daily Beast they didn’t have time to use the bathroom.

A not quite united front. Cracks and differences of opinion have nonetheless come to light: As recently as November, for example, it looked like William was flexing on his father when he told a reporter that when it comes to charitable causes he wants to “go a step further” than his family previously has and avoid spreading himself too “thin” and finding himself with “loads of causes that you sort of turn up and keep an eye on.” It was a pretty sharp rebuke of his father’s way of doing things. The comments fed a perception of steadily increasing tension between the courts of the new king and the heir apparent.

Competing agendas: Scobie says that the rival courts are now “hives of competing agendas and different ideas about how to modernize…behind closed doors, the King and the Prince of Wales are embracing very different approaches.” This is true, but friends of the king reject the suggestion that William is breaking precedent or behaving badly by having a strong, independent court. One said: “Charles absolutely wants William to plough his own furrow, he is encouraged to do so, just as he was.”

Unsubtle Peggington: However a former Buckingham Palace staffer told The Daily Beast: “I am sure they will butt heads as Charles is allergic to anyone telling him what to do, and William is not exactly famed for his subtlety. But I think it is broadly seen as a productive rivalry, rather than a destructive one, because William respects his father’s ‘rank’ as head of The Firm. Ultimately the monarchy is a hierarchical structure based on military principles, and when push comes to shove, you have to obey orders from your superiors. That’s what William and Kate understand, and Harry and Meghan could never accept. They would not do as they were told.”

William’s priority is his family: Given that Charles turned 75 recently, it is perhaps not entirely surprising that there have been regular suggestions by outsiders that he will or should stand down when he reaches his 80th birthday. But a friend of William’s said: “William and Catherine have three children under the age of 11, so that is very much their focus right now. William neither expects nor wants Charles to ever abdicate.”

William is simply more popular: Unfortunately for Charles, William and Kate consistently get stellar poll ratings in the mid-70s—and Charles is of course well known for his jealous streak.

William’s expectations: The king’s and Prince William’s offices did not comment to The Daily Beast about reports of tension between the two courts, but another friend of William and Kate said: “Of course William expects to be given more influence and control as the years go by. That’s how it works. It’s total rubbish to suggest that means they are at each other’s throats.”

[From The Daily Beast]

“Of course William expects to be given more influence and control as the years go by. That’s how it works.” Well… I think that says a lot, actually. Charles wasn’t “given” more influence and control, he went out and sought it and fought for it, even if it meant giving his mother Covid and controlling which staffers were around her. Charles’s de facto regency in QEII’s final years was something he actively pursued. William “expects” power. William feels he’s entitled to it, that it should be given to him and he won’t have to work for anything, ever. Charles is a dagger slipped into someone’s back – William is a chainsaw coming to lop off his father’s head.

“When push comes to shove, you have to obey orders from your superiors. That’s what William and Kate understand, and Harry and Meghan could never accept. They would not do as they were told.” What “orders” did Harry and Meghan disobey, pray tell? “Stop pursuing legal action against the Sun because that’s the publication paying William’s press secretary for information about you?”

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Kensington Palace, Instar, Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

66 Responses to “Prince William ‘expects to be given more influence and control as the years go by’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Influence and control means work Peg. He wants something that requires time and work and he is lazy.

  2. Dee(2) says:

    These friend of so-and-so quotes in stories, always crack me up. Why don’t they just go on the record, everyone knows that it’s the people that actually work for William and Kate, and maybe just them sometimes. If this was a real business as they love to pretend, having someone who was always going to the media to spill the beans would be a huge internal issue. They would absolutely deny it and do an internal investigation. Also as they love to pretend they were so stringent about who they let into their friend group because they can’t trust people not to blab about their personal lives, they absolutely would figure out who was always on a weekly basis talking to the daily beast. Anyone that believes that they don’t comment it’s just an absolute moron at this point.

    • vs says:

      They no longer use “sources close to the palace or KP or whatever” because Harry called them out….now it is “friends of”, “friends close to”, etc.
      What a disservice to the public the UK press is; except for Bylines and the FT, the rest is pure trash!

      • Holly says:

        The Guardian is quite good, after all they are usually the ones exposing the corrupt practices on royal estates.

        And for all its many faults, the Mirror did manage to bring down Boris Johnson. That’s more than any American newspaper was able to do with Trump.

      • Dee(2) says:

        @Holly the Guardian also continuously writes snarky columns that trade in tabloid narratives about the Sussexes that they pretend they are oh so above. And plenty of exposes were done in the Post, NYT, Axios, and other smaller outlets about Trump. If the Mirror gets credit for causing Johnson to resign after the no confidence votes in Parliament, then those newspapers get equal credit for getting people engaged to vote Trump out of office.

      • Holly says:

        Point well made.

        But can I just say that the Sussexes make up (or at least should make up) a very small portion of the news landscape. Is it right to condemn a news organisation for a few snarky comments about celebrities when they carry out leading liberal reporting on climate change, poverty, international and local politics, tax evasion, corruption, international conflicts, business and technology.

        The standard shouldn’t be are they nice to the Sussexes. It should be – on the whole, do they provide accurate and insightful reporting about relevant and important issues? And 9 times out of 10, the Guardian do

        (Also, The Guardian is a republican newspaper so they’re never going to be nice about someone which ‘prince’ in their name)

      • Jaiss says:

        Sure, the standard should not be whether they are nice to the Sussexes but the standard should be whether writers are repeating false and misleading narratives that originated from a tabloid. Guardian writers should not be repeating snarky tabloid takes if they want to be accurate. Obviously, not all guardian writers do this, but some have and it’s fair to question the paper’s editorial choices based on that. If they can echo misleading information about Harry and Meghan, they can possibly do it in other areas and are subject to a closer critique. I feel the same way about the NYT. If the guardian can do better, they should do better. And it’s fair to call the publication out when they do lack integrity.

  3. Josephine says:

    I’m so confused by the phrase “given influence”. But I guess if you are a royal you are used to be given things without any work or effort at all. I just don’t think influence works that way. Wake up England and abolish the monarchy.

    • Eurydice says:

      Yes, I’m also struggling with the idea of giving influence – but I suppose they mean “to be given a position in which one has control over what certain people do.”

    • Holly says:

      If the monarchy was abolished, do you think Charles, William, Harry etc. would give up their titles or keep them like Greek, German, Russian royal descendents?

      • Lady D says:

        Willie would never give up his title, Harry would laugh and turn his over.

      • Holly says:

        That’s interesting, I wonder why Harry doesn’t give up his title now then? I always thought that because he fought so hard for his children to get ones that either titles meant a lot to him and/or his attitude was that if William and his children get to be princes/princesses, then he wants prince/princess titles too.

      • equality says:

        PH offered to give up the titles. Since they are through his beloved grandmother, that likely factors in. IT’s the only wedding “gift” he received from her that he didn’t have to give back and pay for. Why should he, when he has committed no crime or treason have to give up his titles and decide for his children before they are adults when Andrew still has titles AND royal accommodations.

      • Jais says:

        How did Harry fight for his children to have titles? They automatically had titles as soon as Charles became king bc they are grandchildren of the monarch. The only person who could change that would be Charles by writing a new letters patent that would specifically strip the sussex children of their titles. It’s not up to Harry. He does not have the power to bestow titles or take away titles. That’s an action the monarch would have to take. But as of yet Charles hasn’t done that.

      • Visa Diva says:

        None of the deposed royals got to keep their titles. They’re used as a by media for the clicks and by other royals as a courtesy.

      • Kingston says:

        Some folks are either deliberately dense or……….not being deliberate.

        FYI: Prince Harry did not take onto himself the titles of ‘Prince,’ ‘Duke,’ Marquis,’ or ‘Earl.’ Nor, indeed, did he ask to be born the son of King Charles and the son of the late Princess Diana. He has these titles and is these things by the mere fact that he was born, and lives and breathes. Also, by the fact that his late grandmother was Queen Elizabeth, II.

        Little Prince Archie and little Princess Lilibet Diana likewise did not take the titles of Prince or Princess onto themselves. They have these titles because they were born the children of Prince Harry and they live and breathe. Also, by the fact that their grandfather is King Charles.

        Ergo, Prince Harry is NOT going to give any envious, jealous, impotently angry peasant the satisfaction of handing these titles off. So dont hold your breath while you wait for that NOT to happen.

        If you or anyone else wants the titles, go get them. If you dare. That is to say, do the blatantly racist thing of TAKING THE TITLES from Prince Harry, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet. Then we will all watch in glee and with great satisfaction as the fast-decaying british monarchy finally dies in our lifetime.


        Now download and print this and keep it tacked to your mirror and send copies on to your fellow imbeciles so we can all put paid to this “give up titles” narrative.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Visa Diva, you are wrong. Edward abdicated and was and REMAINED HRH Duke of Windsor until he died. Now the evidence is out there that he was a TRAITOR, but did anyone take his title? No, they did not.

        Prince Harry was never King and was never “deposed”. I’m not even sure where you’re coming from with that.

        What people will not recognize is that it wouldn’t matter whether he has the title(s) or not. If you and others and the bm and derangers still exists, H&M and their children will continue to be pilloried. So, you tell me, what difference does it make if they have titles or not? Is it just to punish them, so that you can find something else that needs to be taken from them? The fact people keep focusing on this issue makes absolutely no sense. Find something new to use. It’s getting stale.

      • Christine says:

        Exactly what Saucy&Sassy said.

      • aftershocks says:

        💯 @Kingston, and thanks for articulating! Furthermore, Harry offered to give up the Sussex title, and he was told, “No.” Thus, people should stop suggesting that H&M ‘give up’ their title. They can’t. The Sussex title can only be removed by an Act of Parliament (for serious misconduct, such as treason), which I doubt would occur. If removal did occur, it would end up opening a can of worms for titles held by aristos in the House of Lords, to also be removed for flimsy reasons or because of vendetta reasons.

        Prince Harry can’t simply ‘give up’ being a prince either. He was born a blood royal prince. If his father tried to strip Harry of the prince title (the only way it could happen), what would be the reason? Chuck can’t just draw up a new Letters Patent to solely strip Harry and his family. There would have to be a cited reason, which could end up affecting other royals.

      • BQM says:

        @saucy and sassy Visa Diva actually isn’t wrong. And she didn’t mention Harry. She was referring to actual deposed royals (ie greek, Russian , etc) in regards to Holly’s question about titles where there’s no longer a monarchy. Plus Edward VIII was never deposed, he abdicated.

      • sid says:

        Holly, I hope KP is paying you well because they got you out here working overtime during the holidays.

  4. equality says:

    We are expected to believe that the two who expected Easter gifts and who stress “Catherine and not Kate” are informal with employees? And there is nothing wrong with “loads of causes that you sort of turn up and keep an eye on.” as long as you see to it that the causes are staffed well and have enough money to operate. Didn’t Kate, despite not having “loads of causes” have several that went under?

    • First comment says:

      Kate, who has changed 6 secretaries in 7 years (or is it 5 secretaries in 6 years? ,lol, I mixed it up)… Kate who, according to older stories, wanted people who worked for her to call her the duchess, she even wanted her sister to call her duchess!!! who has set her boundaries as we read yesterday, and who lives and breathes for her title.. yeah, sure, she could be informal with her employees who at this point, I believe, are consisted by her mother! She definitely can call her Catherine…

    • Nic919 says:

      William may be informal with Knauf but Kate is not informal with anyone because her insecurity crosses all boundaries. She expects the curtseys and all the other nonsense she believes she is owed as the wife of the heir. Her super high stilettos for all occasions are only one sign of how she tries to place herself above others at all costs.

      • Holly says:

        How do we know for certain that she’s not informal with anyone? I don’t think there’s any proof that she’s not informal with family or close friends behind doors. Without cameras on her 24/7, it’s all supposition.

      • Nic919 says:

        We are talking about staff here. We do know that her family used to call her the duchess and Harry said she wasn’t informal with them, but the point of the story is that she not informal with her staff.

      • Jaded says:

        @Holly — We know because Harry related a story in Spare where she yelled at Meghan and said “you don’t know me well enough to make a joke about baby brain!” and was grasping the arms of the chair she was sitting in so hard her knuckles turned white. Nothing says informal like screeching at your own sister-in-law because you found her harmless quip disrespectful.

      • Christine says:

        LOL, Jaded!

  5. Eurydice says:

    The only person who could give William more influence and control is Charles. As Charles gets older it would make sense to include William in more of his work (whatever that is), but with the 2 palaces not speaking to each other, that doesn’t sound like a good start.

    • SarahCS says:

      It does not and I love it for them. Tear it all down from the inside.

      • Brassy Rebel says:

        When Charles wasn’t given “more influence and control”, we now know he just took it with help from certain courtiers. I expect that as Charles starts losing some of his energy and sharpness, William will do the same.

      • aftershocks says:

        LOL! The whole article is contradictory, as usual. They are bending over backward to tell us, ‘Everything is not okay between Chuck’s straitlaced operation and Willy’s messy, incompetent KP. But oh, everything is really okay for right now, even though there are these tensions and nothing is really okay.’ 🙄 🤦🤷‍♂️

        As usual, Harry and Meghan are named just to continue attacking and gaslighting them. We all know that Harry was always a good soldier for the firm, even in the darkest of times when he was alone in the cult (picking up William’s lazy slack), and especially when he and Meghan were graciously and long-sufferingly sucking up the blasted nonsense and doing their best to survive. Archie’s birth and the unending abuse catapulted H&M into self-preservation mode, and not a moment too soon either. 😳🫨

    • Robert Phillips says:

      I would imagine the trip to Rome is to see how William can do. We all know that William only wants the press to say he’s a statesman. But then not do any of the work to make him one. He and Kate are both that way. They think their entire job is what they look like. Not what they do. Or don’t do in their case.

  6. Jais says:

    William William William. Claiming that as the years go by he expects to be given more influence and control. He doesn’t have the patience. He meant to say months, weeks, no days! Days! As the days go by, he expects to be given more influence and control. Whatever that means anyways.

  7. Anonymous says:

    I feel like giving an employee two weeks off to deal with the death of a parent is really the lowest bar the Wails could have set! Next we’re going to hear that they don’t make people work on Christmas! Madness!

    • Nic919 says:

      I would have to check the employment laws in the UK, but two weeks is likely the mandated time for all employees. It’s like giving employees the weekend off. Or not working on Christmas.

      • Lara (the other) says:

        Are we talking about regularly holidays the employees can take on a short notice or additional time off? Most companys have 2 days extra PTO in case of the death of a close relation + one day for the burial.
        Two weeks on top of the regular PTO on top of the mandatory 28 days would really be generous.

    • Holly says:

      Two weeks is probably about usual in the UK, I would have thought. How much time would you typically get in USA?

      • Dee(2) says:

        Depends on the company you work for. Since except for in a few places it is not mandated by law, it can go from zero to unlimited time off. I would say most people in an office environment after an introductory period get two weeks a year, but I do have several friends that work for companies that offer unlimited PTO, and I accrue about 20 hours of PTO per month.

      • Holly says:

        Is that two weeks bereavement leave per year? What happens in the horrible event that you lose two people in a year, do you just not get any leave second time round?

      • Dee(2) says:

        No that’s general PTO which is used for vacations and other things, bereavement leave, jury duty, school visitation, parental leave etc. are different and as I said dependent on the company that you work for. The company that I work for is incredibly generous, so in addition to the 6 weeks per year of PTO I get, I also get 16 weeks of paid parental leave if needed not including FMLA, unlimited sick time, and I believe you get 5 days of bereavement dependent on your relationship. So I could in the awful event get 5 days for either parent, grandparent, sibling or child if they all passed away in that year.

  8. First comment says:

    How they are telling on themselves!!! Charles’s employees aren’t having too much time to linger ..they don’t have time for bathroom! His schedule is full and no matter his faults, Charles has interests and he works (for a royal). Will and Kate? Not so much! Their employees enjoy a lot of time in their hands (obviously) and they aren’t having any kind of pressure apart from some weeks during the year… will and Kate’s top priority is their family (lol) and they are only preoccupied with it!!! I don’t know how the British are ok with this 🤔

    • Holly says:

      That’s like asking how are the Americans ok with the death penalty. A lot of us are not, but because it doesn’t impact most people’s daily lives it doesn’t get prioritised. People have other concerns that they view as a higher priority e.g. the economy, education, climate change, affordable housing, train prices, care for the elderly, the multiple wars going on around the world. There’s only so much time in the day

  9. Nic919 says:

    Charles waited 50 years to be king and so he knows exactly what a prince of wales can do and what they can’t. He will hold tight on the reins until his mental faculties prevent him and he’s not even close to that at this point.

    William’s arrogance is going to be exposed more and more and Charles will benefit from being the monarch and the respect automatically given, as was done to the queen. Plus as he ages, he will be sold as the wise grandpa, as the queen benefited from the wise grandma image.

    What is also missing is William’s work ethic. He is 41 and Charles at this same age had done so much more by then. No one questions Charles having a work ethic (In royal terms of course) but William is always finding new ways to do even less. The Queen was also perceived as a hard worker as well. And while a lot of it is higher engagement numbers, we also don’t have stories of Charles saying he didn’t read the briefing notes. We do with William. This is going to be an issue used against him because he wants the glory without the work. and it doesn’t help that his spouse is one of the dimmest and laziest women in modern royal history.

    Charles was criticized by the media for his personal issues and because it’s always easier to go after the heir than the monarch. This is going to flip against William, especially as the nostalgia for the queen fades and the protective bubble about the monarch, who is know Charles, increases.

  10. windyriver says:

    Slightly OT, but did anybody catch the end of this NYT piece that says Scobie is “now based in Los Angeles”? Basically, no surprise Endgame would mean “being essentially blacklisted from things with the palace moving forward” and he’s looking for other “storytelling” outlets.

    The Full Disclosure sit down he did with James O’Brien that someone here recommended not only talked in more depth about issues raised in Endgame but had a lot of information about the evolution of his career.

    • Snuffles says:

      No, but based on his Instagram I had already deduced that. I wonder when he left.

    • Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

      I listened to a different podcast with Omid and he intimated that it was no longer “safe” for him in London.

      • windyriver says:

        Don’t think that’s the whole reason though. According to this piece, in addition to things like writing and podcasts, he’s also “looking into other mediums” like TV and documentaries for future work opportunities . Sounds like for what he has in mind professionally, LA is a good place to be for the moment.

    • Jais says:

      He did an interview with Meredith on tik tok and he said he was not in La permanently. Maybe that will change after he’s experienced the sun for long enough😂

  11. Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

    The statement “ Of course William expects to be given more influence and control as the years go by”, really sums up William in a nutshell. William “expects” to have influence, popularity, control but does nothing to “earn” any of it, he simply “expects” it to be handed to him. Things that are “given” are rarely valued as things that are earned.

    The late queen kept a tight hold on her power right up until the bitter end, welcoming the new prime minister 2 days before her death. Charles has waited 70 long years to become king and won’t give it up until William pries the gold scepter from his cold, dead hands.

  12. Tessa says:

    He will depend on Mike tindall to be there for him or so says the spin. So pathetic

  13. Mary Pester says:

    William wants, that’s all they had to write, he wants and wants and wants, and woe betide anyone who doesn’t give, give, give. The pegging prince wants to be the kinky king and he wants it NOW. He won’t think twice about pushing his father under the bus, so watch your back Charlie, karma is coming in the shape of your son, and as for keen, you can bet your last quid, she already has her coronation gown picked out, and probably wants a new crown,with really, REALLY big diamonds in it. The house of Windsor has started it’s slide into oblivion, and I’ll even offer to push it!, because Harry and meghan did exactly what was asked of them, but the Palace and dumb and dumber, couldn’t stand the fact that the Sussex press was far far better than the Cambridge press.

  14. Denguy says:

    Hey, that’s the same deal your Dad was promised!

  15. JaneS says:

    If William actually starts and continues to work, in a way that shows results we can see, that will be the day that Keanu Charles Reeves shows up at my house declaring his never ending love for me complete w/JP and wedding ring.

    William. C’mon, man.

  16. Lady Digby says:

    More power/ influence/ control is expected to arrive by Fed Express that runs over pa?

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      LOL. Yep. As long as FedEx is delivering influence, control and Easter presents to a 40? year old, it’s all good.

  17. Jensa says:

    Yup, all about what PW “expects” – he has no concept of having to earn it. This clown thinks he’s a “global statesman”, remember – that NY visit was deeply embarrassing, PW hanging about outside the big important meetings hoping to get an invite (which never came). He’s completely detached from reality.
    And as for those comments about him “not wanting to spread himself too thin” – well there’s not much danger of that is there.
    He is going to be an absolutely terrible king.

  18. Aunt Agatha says:

    No matter how much or how little control he has, he’s always one rage attack from losing it.

  19. Lau says:

    They’re like two very different sorts of nepo babies. Also I love how the tabloids now fully admit that Charles is even jealous of his own sons lol.

  20. Anonymous says:

    He will be King. The power and control will come automatically.

  21. Marivic says:

    Doesn’t William have the most influence and control of the British monarchy? I thought Charles is a lame duck king. Be careful with William though. He’s a narcissist.

    • Tessa says:

      Charles is in charge. William wants the power but is too lazy to put in actual work. Charles is king not a lame duck. William is all talk and no action

  22. ChattyCath says:

    Clenched fists is the new virtue