Rebecca English Spins Away the Rift Between Charles and William

Rebecca English frames any suggestion of tension between King Charles and Prince William as mere gossip, online chatter, or even the work of Russian bots. Her latest Daily Mail piece stretches to explain away awkward silences, public frostiness, and years of well-documented conflict. The result is a showcase of Kensington Palace spin. Crucially, English’s defense comes on the heels of Richard Eden’s article warning of a “sinister plot” against William and Kate. Together, the two stories look like a coordinated Daily Mail effort that is designed to shield the Waleses and get ahead of damaging narratives.

“But there’s now more than a flicker of suspicion in royal circles that something more calculated could be at work. What or who may be behind the conjecture isn’t clear. But it is a worrying turn of events after I revealed earlier this year that Kensington Palace had discovered Russian bots were seeking to disseminate misinformation around the Princess of Wales’s prolonged absence from public life in the run-up to her cancer announcement last year.” – Rebecca English

Excuses That Do Not Add Up

English claims William looked solemn outside the Duchess of Kent’s funeral because he was protecting the dignity of the grieving family. To bolster the heir’s image, English even dredges up a supposed row between father and son over ivory artifacts. William wanted them destroyed, Charles wanted them preserved. Readers are told this spat is the kind of clash any family might have. But how many families are shouting at each other over ivory treasures? The piece also spends time reminding us William is Diana’s son, as if repeating this softens the hard truth that father and heir remain visibly distant.

Embed from Getty Images

Blaming Bots While Skipping the Real Story

Perhaps the most striking part of English’s article is the attempt to push criticism onto Russian bots. According to her, online speculation is being stirred up by outside actors. What goes unsaid is that William’s record of light duties and repeated holidays has been criticized for months.

The Prince and Princess of Wales skipped solemn occasions like VJ Day but turned up at Wimbledon and other glamorous outings. William’s sporadic work contrasts sharply with Prince Harry, who often delivers more impactful results in a single week than William does in months, if not years. It is not foreign interference that fuels frustration. It is the heir’s choices.

Even the portrayal of Donald Trump’s state visit as a diplomatic “triumph” is absurd. Protests erupted across London. The royals were criticized for entertaining a leader accused of racism and authoritarianism, who insulted Britain and its London mayor almost as soon as he left. Eco-activist Livia Firth returned her MBE in disgust, calling the royal embrace of Trump appeasement. English’s glowing assessment reads as fantasy.

A Heir Without His Shield

For decades, William avoided scrutiny because Prince Harry was the lightning rod. Negative stories about William were swapped for attacks on his younger brother and his wife, Meghan. Now that Sussexs has stepped away, William has no shield.

English dares not pin the current rift on Harry. Doing so risks provoking a public response with evidence to back it up. Instead, she and her colleague, Eden invoke vague conspiracies, hoping readers will believe invisible forces are at play. But the more excuses she offers, the more William looks weak and unable to face criticism on his own.

Even engagement data shows the problem. Coverage flattering William and Kate struggles to gain traction, while a simple post about Meghan Sussex’s endeavours attracts thousands of comments. The contrast is stark. The Sussexes thrive on merit and independent projects, while William depends on a palace machine, tabloid protection, and taxpayer funding to appear relevant.