Is Fortinbras right?

Fortinbras says that Hamlet "was likely, had he been put on, to have proved most royal." Fortinbras is saying Hamlet, was the most kingly out of himself, Claudius and Laertes, and would have made the best king. So does Hamlet have the right qualities for a king? He is certainly a clever, learned scholar, and is at least at the beginning, a good character. However during the play his emotion and madness directly causes the death of Polonius, the madness of Ophelia, the deaths of Rosencrants and Guildenstern (though these men were planning to kill him, and Hamlet's escape of their clutches and changing the letter so Rosencrantz and Guildenstern would instead be killed shows great cunning, a good attribute for a king.) Indirectly he has also caused the death of Laertes and his own mother Gertrude as well as himself. This is not a good quality of a king, Hamlet has desamated everything around him, and it is thanks to his actions in the play that Denmark is easily conquered by Norway. Hamlet is perhaps too emotional to be King, showing great emotion throughout the entire play, particularly jumping into Ophelia's grave, hardly something a respectable king should do. Hamlet has also shown himself to be rather cowardly, waiting and waiting to to avenge his father and murder Claudius, who deserves to die. This is in great contrast to Fortinbras and Laertes, who assemble armies and march on the royal house of Denmark as soon as their own fathers have been killed, showing bravery and qualites of a knight and war leader. Hamlet is in fact a good swordsmen, showed by his fight with Laertes, but instead of using his sword to kill Claudius he delays and delays, and could never be the war hero like his father You could say in his favour that Hamlet is more controlled than Fortinbras and Laertes, but infact the killing of Polonius is rash and uncontrolled, so Hamlet doesn't seem to be able to use his emotion when the time is right, something that would not make him a good king. Hamlet has also shown himself to be misogynist, calling his mother every name under the sun and being incredibly cruel towards Ophelia. A royal king should show restraint, but in Act three Hamlet disregards his former restraint he had in Act 1 by openly showing his disgust at the marriage of Gertrude and Claudius during the play and later in the conversation with Gertrude herself. Hamlet shows only slight remorse for his murder of Polonius, and seems to accept no punishment, which is in contrast to Laertes, who repents for poisoning his sword and killing Hamlet even though Hamlet murdered his father in cold blood. Laertes shows underhand tactics by poisoning his sword to kill Hamlet, something Hamlet wouldn't do, however i do not think Fortinbras is right and Hamlet does not act very royal and king-like in the play. He is more King-like than the murdering Claudius, but i perhaps think Laertes would be a better king, showing bravery and remorse.