Prince William’s campaign to tackle homelessness is under the media microscope, as critics cast doubt on both the strategy and sincerity of his latest project, “Homewards.”

Kensington Palace gave filmmakers rare behind-the-scenes access to showcase William’s ambitious drive, which he pitches as an extension of his late mother, Princess Diana’s, compassion.

However, early reviews have been unforgiving, with one calling the documentary “dismal television” that fails to provide meaningful insight into one of the UK’s biggest social challenges.

The documentary, We Can End Homelessness, aired on October 30 and follows William’s journey to tackle homelessness in Britain. But it didn’t take long for media analysts to question whether the Prince’s narrative could hold up against his privileged reality.

Marianne Levy, writing for i News, didn’t hold back, arguing that William missed an opportunity to address systemic issues causing homelessness. She wrote, “For if homelessness in the UK is to end, we need to know why it is at an all-time high… about cutbacks to social services, how the NHS is struggling, [and] the burden on GPs… There was nothing. It made for dismal television.”

The criticism wasn’t confined to left-leaning media. The Daily Mail’s Jan Moir questioned the effectiveness of William’s Homewards plan and raised an eyebrow at his personal circumstances, given his multiple estates and extensive resources. “What could be more worthwhile than giving the homeless… somewhere safe and warm to sleep at night?” she wrote. “Oh, if only there was someone who had castles and mansions and vast country estates and a Duchy of Cornwall property portfolio worth about a billion at his disposal…” Moir went on to suggest that the show was “a meticulously curated view of only what Prince William wants to be viewed,” painting him as an out-of-touch benefactor.

The Guardian’s Lucy Mangan was gentler in her critique, recognizing William’s desire to help but finding his plan hard to grasp. “His desire to tackle this issue is impressive, but his plan to eradicate rough sleeping is worryingly hard to understand,” she wrote, adding that the effort felt more like a charm offensive than a concrete solution.

The Times’ Carol Midgley struck a more nuanced note, acknowledging the irony inherent in a royal attempting to tackle homelessness while occupying multiple palatial homes. “Prince William must have known he’d encounter the P word—privilege… The irony klaxon is always going to parp when you pronounce on rough sleeping and enjoy a portfolio of homes…”

Not surprisingly, anti-monarchy groups like Republic were swift to label William’s campaign as “crass.” But in the court of public opinion, some argue that his efforts, however flawed, are at least a step forward. As one viewer noted, “Would it be better if he didn’t use his platform for good?”

As William attempts to bridge this chasm between royal privilege and social activism, he faces an uphill climb. In an era when royals face greater scrutiny than ever, his plan to leave a legacy of social change will need not just good intentions, but substance that resonates beyond polished footage and sentimental family photos.