Queen Elizabeth skipped church on New Year’s Day because she’s still sick

wenn29991747

A week before Christmas, I went down with what I thought was just a nasty seasonal cold. As that sh-t lingered for two weeks though, I realize that it was probably the respiratory flu, the same one which has also been going around. I’m mostly fine now, although I’m still taking a half-dose of Tylenol PM at night. But I’m a relatively healthy 30-something. Surely this cold and flu season is even worse for a 90-something queen? As it turns out, Queen Elizabeth and I probably had the same flu. More than ten days after she came down with a terrible “heavy cold,” the Queen is still feeling terrible.

Queen Elizabeth II missed church on New Year’s Day – a week after canceling her annual trip to Christmas mass for the first time in decades as she battles a heavy cold.

“Her Majesty The Queen will not attend Sunday worship at Sandringham today,” a statement from Buckingham Palace released early Sunday reads. “The Queen does not yet feel ready to attend church as she is still recuperating from a heavy cold.”

Her absence from two consecutive high-profile appearances underscores how seriously doctors are taking the 90-year-old sovereign’s illness. After canceling their annual train trip to Sandringham Estate for Christmas due to “heavy colds,” the monarch and Prince Philip, 95, were well enough to travel the following day by helicopter. However, the Queen was forced to drop out of the royal family’s annual walk to church on Christmas morning as she continued to recover.

“Her Majesty The Queen will not attend Church at Sandringham this morning,” a Palace spokesperson said in a statement obtained by PEOPLE. “The Queen continues to recover from a heavy cold and will stay indoors to assist with her recovery. Her Majesty will participate in the Royal Family Christmas celebrations during the day.”

The Queen’s last public appearance was Dec. 9, when she hosted the ambassador of Liberia for a private audience at Buckingham Palace. She also made an appearance across the realm during her pre-recorded Christmas broadcast. It also marked her first outing since she was the victim of a Twitter death hoax last week.

[From People]

To be fair, I think it was a bigger deal to miss church service on Christmas. Christmas is more church-oriented than New Year’s Day, just my opinion. Her Maj probably still feels like ten kinds of hell, and if we had the same illness, she still has a rattling cough, chest congestion and general tiredness. Let her take a year off, I say. I think her doctors are smart to tell her to rest and really get better before making any appearances, even to go to church.

Meanwhile, did you see this item in Ephraim Hardcastle’s column a few days back? Apparently, the Queen supported Brexit – which was widely rumored at the time – because of the British Commonwealth. Hardcastle’s “royal source” told the Daily Mail: “After Elizabeth II, who was crowned Queen of an Empire, all will be different. Charles’s inevitably short reign will be followed by that of William, who grew up in an EU nation. And, like his father, he doesn’t seem keen on courting most of the realms his grandmother currently reigns over.” Meaning, the Queen wanted to Brexit because her priority is holding together the British Commonwealth nations, as opposed to holding together European nations in the EU.

wenn29935274

Photos courtesy of WENN.

 

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

121 Responses to “Queen Elizabeth skipped church on New Year’s Day because she’s still sick”

  1. Lingling says:

    I’m not English and I’m actually curious what will happen when the queen passes away?

  2. COSquared says:

    The “Queen backs Brexit” rumour was a clear vote-baiting tactic to garner support amongst hardcore royalists.

    • Sixer says:

      Yep. Unsure why anybody thinks that fake news is a recent development.

    • suze says:

      Are there such things as “die hard” royalists? Except maybe a few elderly pensioners that don’t make up a significant voting block?

      I comment on royal posts all the time so I obviously have an interest in them, but I treat them like a fabulous living soap opera (flying Elvi!). I thought that was what everyone was doing! I am not a Brit, though, so I may well be entirely off base.

      • spidey says:

        @ suze

        Those few elderly pensioners actually make up quite a significant voting block.

      • Sixer says:

        Suze – a much smaller number than you’d think from the endless coverage. The vast majority of Britons don’t really care. HM has very high approval ratings, however. I think this is more an anti-politics thing than anything else. There aren’t many flag and bunting wavers. But, there is still an ex-colonial exceptionalist attitude prevailing among a much bigger segment of the population. And the BRF is part and parcel of that, just not the BRF in isolation, if you see what I mean. You could certainly find correlation in the Brexit voters and monarchy supporters. Does that make sense?

      • frisbee says:

        I once read that 20% of Brits are die hard Royalists, 20% are died in the wool Republicans and the majority really couldn’t care less one way or the other. Most of the support seems to center in the South East – the ‘Home Counties’ while the further north you go the less eff’s anyone can give. As Sixer say’s the coverage gives a very biased view and always has done.
        I think of it as being the ‘Downton Abbey’ effect, there are clearly people in the world who saw that show and thought (or liked to believe) it was still an accurate depiction of British Society – it’s not and was an incredibly sentimental and rose coloured view of the period it depicted. In the same way the British media still promote the same ‘rose tinted’ view of the attitude of most Brit’s towards the royal family.

  3. Kali says:

    looking forward to the comments on this one. It will be fun, informative and hopefully provocative. Post on Celebitches

  4. LAK says:

    It’s funny to think that William is aware or educated enough to recognise the EU or the Commonwealth. I’m willing to bet he understands both entities in so far as he can holiday there and not much else.

    This is a man who went to one of the best schools and Universities in the world and thinks National dress at a diplomatic reception is fancy dress as in costumes. And no self restraint NOT to say it in a TV broadcast highlighting the event.

    Charles may not think much of the commonwealth, BUT his actions say otherwise. He is courting the commonwealth because it’s not a done deal that he will be it’s head after HM dies. Thus from a self interested position, Charles cares.

    • Sixer says:

      I’ve suddenly got this marvellous farce of a fantasy in which Boris suggests he’d do a better job as head of the Commonwealth than Charles could ever manage. Then the entire Commonwealth runs away screaming and Richard Branson catapults the entire UK into space for his first commercial galactic flight.

    • Kali says:

      Hi LAK, why dd you say it’s not a done deal Charles would ascend to the throne? What do you know?

      • Sixer says:

        It won’t be a done deal that he’ll be head of the Commonwealth, not King of the UK. He’ll be King.

      • Kali says:

        Yes but why Sixer? Surely King of uk and commonwealth? Who else would be or are you anticipating end of commonwealth?

      • Sixer says:

        Because a large proportion of the Commonwealth countries are republics. The UK monarch is head of state of some Commonwealth nations. Charles will succeed as head of state in those. But the head of the Commonwealth as a whole is an entirely different thing. No automatic succession. You’re asking the wrong question. Why *should* he automatically succeed? Not why shouldn’t he?

        It’s just a free association of states. Nothing to do with anybody’s head of state or constitution. Charles has no succession rights within it.

      • Kali says:

        Well he certainly does in my country. We (republicans) sit here waiting for the day we can return to that debate, apparently her mag has to be dead for that.

      • LAK says:

        What sixer said.

        Put simply, the British Monarchy is head of state of 16 countries. Assuming nothing changes after HM’s death, Charles will be King of those 16 countries.

        HOWEVER The commonwealth is 52 countries. The 16 countries headed by the British Monarchy are also members of the commonwealth.

        The other 36 countries are republics and are only in the commonwealth for economic reasons. Like the EU without the federal and judicial parts.

        The position of head of the commonwealth is voted on by member states every few years. The Queen has held this position primarily out of sentiment and some good old fashioned lobbying by the British govt behind the scenes.

        For the same reasons that no one is prepared to remove her from the British throne, she remains head of the commonwealth. There seems to be an understanding that she will hold this position for life despite the voting process they go through every few years.

        There have been gossip stories over the years that she has personally lobbied various govts in the commonwealth to hand over it’s headship to Charles when she passes, and finally a story with sources was reported in October this year. This one was about lobbying Australia.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37609806

        It’s often reported that when Charles attends the Commonwealth conferences, he lobbies hard for his future position.

        Going by his own track record, William is too lazy to lobby for the Commonwealth position. Too much work and no obvious personal advantage.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Cannot post the link. Found an interesting article about HM as Head of State vs. Head of the Commonwealth.

        Only the Queen understands the true value of the Commonwealth
        Telegraph, December 2013
        By Peter Oborne

      • LAK says:

        Nota: here is your link
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/10539479/Only-the-Queen-understands-the-true-value-of-the-Commonwealth.html

        Reading that article, Peter Oborne seems to be saying that the Commonwealth is to the Queen what The Prince’s Trust is to Charles except her pet project has far reaching consequences than Charles’s pet project.

        It’s an interesting thought.

      • Sixer says:

        If he does ever become king (or last any length of time as heir), he’ll be lobbying like Chuck if the FCO tells him to, don’t you think, LAK?

        This is really what makes me think he’ll never succeed. Nothing to do with charities or charitable work or lack thereof. When he is finally in the position that government expects him to be the face of its soft power lobbying, that’s when it’ll all go to pot. He won’t want to do it and he won’t be able to do it.

        It’s David all over again. If he had been a tenable king, the establishment would have found a way for him to keep Wallis. It was his total unsuitability that did for him. And it’ll do for Normal Bill too, when the time comes.

        Kali – precisely as you say for your country. Tradition and vestigial respect for a longstanding monarch means the title will be Her Maj’s for her lifetime. After that, nothing’s stopping anyone from electing a representative from any Commonwealth country from taking the headship for a period of time. Chuck has no actual right to it.

      • LAK says:

        Sixer: i agree vis a vis William.

        At the end of the day, as much as we gripe about the lack of charitable endevour, it’s not a deal breaker as far as TPTB.

        Being rubbish at the soft power, not signing documents thus stagnating govt business……those are the things that will force him out. And these are not things he can use PR or the Diana card to avoid. Currently, it’s to his advantage that Charles and HM are in his way, but it is to his disadvantage that they are not training him in *diplomacy or simply having a work ethic.

        *do you remember when he was supposed to volunteer at the FO to learn about diplomacy before he signed upto EAAA?

      • Sixer says:

        I do remember! He crashed and burned even more quickly than he did at the estate management nonsense.

        And you know, it *is* a tricky balance, this monarch thing. No power of your own. No opinion of your own. But a requirement to be the apolitical face of soft power projection. Ribbon-cutting is the least of it.

        This really is why I’m a republican, you know. But not in the American vein. We need a nice, non-party-political person who can do this job from volition and talent for it. The Irish manage it well. We should too. And get ourselves out of this post-colonial delusion once and for good. We’d be a better country for it and we might also stop shooting ourselves in our international feet.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Thank you, LAK. My posts with links never make it out of moderation. That article does make it sound that she wasn’t impartial, silent, or apolitical regarding things in the Commonwealth. Her version of the Prince’s Trust, The Duchy of Cornwall, and a little of her own game of RISK. Interesting idea.

        Among other things, William lacks the ability to think on his feet which is crucial. Multiple comments during the Asian tour regarding elephants and ivory showed it. He doesn’t even think “fake it until you make it.” He thinks he has nothing to learn, so he ignores advisors, opinion, briefings, preparation, documents, all of it.

      • Nic919 says:

        William acts a lot like Trump. Proud of being ignorant, unwilling to learn and listen to others and demands his way or the highway. Kate and Melania have a similar trajectory as well. Both ornaments who say little and have no interest in doing more.

    • yuck says:

      Don’t revenues from the Commonwealth still help support the royal family?

      • LAK says:

        The direct answer to your question is no and it’s complicated.

        The 16 countries under the British Monarchy, who also happen to be Commonwealth countries, have to pay for the upkeep of the crown in the form of the apparatus that supports a Governor General, the Queen’s representative, in their countries. If the Queen or her representatives visit the country, they use this apparatus to fund the visit.

        That money doesn’t flow into the royal family’s confers.

        The complicated part is when you remember that many of the 52 commonwealth member countries made up the British Empire. I don’t think that the wealth generating activities of the British govt, including the royal family, in those countries ended when we gave up empire, do you?

  5. JustME says:

    It’d be interesting to know whether she is a Brexit supporter or not. The young royals probably not.

  6. Katydid20 says:

    I take comfort in the fact that Will and Kate haven’t been by to visit – only way we know she probably is doing ok. Otherwise I’d be really worried she might die :/

    • Dolphin7 says:

      @katy
      That’s a great point! No visit from William or Kate. If she has a bad cold I can see keeping George and Charlotte away but come on, how many more Christmases are your 95 yr old grandfather and 90 yr old grandmother going to have? They could have at least done Christmas with the Royal Family and Boxing Day with the Middleton or vice versa. But you’re right, hopefully this means she isn’t that sick.

    • Janetdr says:

      That is a good point! Getting sick at 90 is a much bigger deal. It so easily turns into pneumonia. That’s how my mom went at 92.
      Side note: I love seeing the queen in her matchy outfits and especially the blue!

      • Belle Epoch says:

        Pneumonia used to be called “the old person’s friend.” They’d get a bad cold, a fever, an infection, and be gone in 3 days. My father had intravenous antibiotics, oxygen, etc. and they kept him alive for several more miserable weeks. He finally just stopped eating. End of life issues are very tough.

        Is it assumed the Queen has to die before Charles can take over?

      • LAK says:

        Belle Epoch: it’s not assumed. It is fact. That is what a monarchy in Britain is.

        In cases where Regency has been invoked, the long term propects of the monarch have to be extreme and predicate on the monarchy resuming their duties at some point.

        As long as they are living, the Regent is is not fully in control.

      • Christin says:

        One thought that has come to mind (from experiences with older folks having pneumonia) is that she could possibly be having infection-related cognitive issues and/or needed a few days of respiratory assistance (possibly intubated).

        That would require being out of sight for at least a couple of weeks, not to mention possible rehabilitative time.

      • greenmonster says:

        All of this reminds me of a former client/tenant of a assisted living I used to work at years ago. She caught a bad cold last spring which turned into pneumonia. She went in and out of hospitals. When everything seemed fine, she could go back home. She got just a little bit sick again around christmas and passed away on Boxing Day. She was only in her mid thirties, but comparible to an older person health wise.

    • notasugarhere says:

      If HM was on her deathbed, I don’t see W&K rushing to her side.

  7. rosalee says:

    I think the paperwork is one of the reasons it wasn’t done earlier..just look at the logistics of separating from the commonwealth. We Canadians are practical people we know there is no benefit to being attached to the crown..but we’d have to change letterheads and business cards..change titles..we’d have to eliminate the positions of Lieutenant Governors and the Governor General what would we do with all those retired CBC folks…the court of Queen’s bench would simply become “The Bench” our legal system would have to be revamped..nope just too much work..we don’t pay attention to them except when the Queen comes to town..Eddie rolled through town a few months ago and slipped by without anyone noticing.

    • LAK says:

      On the question of changing letterheads, it’s completely superficial, but overnight, all the money and Crown insignia on things like post boxes and street lamps, will have to be changed to CIIIR and his face. In all the countries that retain the British Monarchy as head of state. Imagine that headache.

      • Rapunzel says:

        LAK- that all has to be done overnight? Like when she dies, or after the coronation of the next sovereign? I always thought it was after the coronation, which is why they take so long to plan? But I’m a dumb Yank.

      • LAK says:

        My hyperbole, but the reality is somewhere between the 2 events. It starts to change the minute she dies and the right people informed.

        As for the coronation, there is no reason not to hold it immediately beyond decency for the mourning period/ state funeral and the length of time it takes to organise the pagentry of Coronation. In ye old times, the organisation was the only reason it was delayed.

      • Sixer says:

        We had a GR post box at the top of our road for years when I was a kid. It was a standing joke locally that the Royal Mail was late to the party!

      • Josie says:

        It’s been a long time since it was even an issue, but I understood that they only change the post boxes as old ones wear out, and the old money keeps circulating as well. So yes, they will need to create new coin molds and new pillar-box designs but it’s not as if anything will be ripped up. There will be vestiges of QEII for a long, long time.

    • Tina says:

      Exactly. Americans always ask why we don’t “just change it” but it’s an expensive thing to do that will have few practical effects. It doesn’t affect people’s daily lives at all.

      It’s going to be weird enough here in the U.K. purely from a naming point of view when the Queen dies. The national anthem will change (God save the King), we’ll have King’s Counsel (KCs) instead of QCs, the Queen’s Bench Division will change to the King’s Bench Division, etc.

    • Lascivious says:

      “what would we do with all those retired CBC folks”
      😂 Brilliant, rosalee! Thanks for the laugh

    • Prairiegirl says:

      Can you IMAGINE the political and constitutional wrangling that would ensue if someone seriously suggested Canada become a republic after the Queen dies? It would make the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords – which were absolutely raucous at the time – look like Children’s Hour. And a republic, like the Americans, with all the good government that’s brought them in the last two decades? A-HAHAHA! Will never happen.

      http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/colby-cosh-canadian-republicanism-is-a-pathology-but-it-wont-survive-past-the-next-coronation

    • Arpeggi says:

      It’s not just the changing the letterhead and the face on coins; to get rid of the monarchy in Canada would require a constitutional reform and thus a referendum on the subject in all the provinces…

      Remember that Quebec has never signed the Constitution (because the old Trudeau and Chretien acted like morons) and that the Meech lake and Charlottetown deals failed. I’m pretty sure Quebec would have no problem getting rid of the monarchy (and not just because of separatists, they’re not that many anyway), but we’d demand other things to be added to the deal. I’m pretty sure Newfound Land and Alberta would do the same.

      Think about it: the Libs went back on their promise of an electoral reform in part because it’d require the approval of all the provinces (and because now that they won the majority, they don’t think the system is unfair anymore). If they didn’t want a pan-country referendum on such a thing, no government will want to go through opening the constitution

  8. Rapunzel says:

    Here’s my question: If QEII is deathly sick, how honest would the palace be about that? I know there were/are some conspiracy theorist who think she could die and it be held back from the public. Would that really be possible? What’s to gain from hiding it/ delaying the announcement?

    On another note: Dying or not, I’d go see my 90 yr. Old grandma if she was sick. Willy boy is a petulant manchild. He’d be a perfect King to match Unpresident Fart (my official new for the new US toddler-in-chief)

  9. Cee says:

    2016 was a bad year in terms of health for me. I had 6 flus, and one lasted 4 weeks. I got used to feeling like an extra in The Walking Death, until spring finally arrived in Argentina and I’ve been healthy ever since. If this got me down I can’t imagine what it’s like for a 80+ year old person. Hope she feels better soon.

  10. Lorelai says:

    Apologies for the threadjacking, but does anyone know anything about this?

    Scrolling through fb a few hours ago, some site posted a link from the Mirror, and the headline was “Kate Middleton has been honored for her photos of Princess Charlotte” – which is obviously laughable – but when I clicked the link, it was broken and I got a 404 error message.

    Could this possibly be true? Is there a New Years equivalent of “April Fools Day” in the U.K.?

    I took a screenshot of the headline that I wish I could post here because it was truly comical!

  11. Alix says:

    Just to nitpick: the queen was never “queen of an empire”, as (a) India was already independent she came came to the throne, and (b) the female head of an empire is an empress. She has always been “Elizabeth R(egina)”, not “Elizabeth RI(mperatrix)”.

    • LAK says:

      ‘Empire’ isn’t limited to existence of ‘Emperor/Empire’ titles. It is primarily defined as an extensive group of states, territories or countries ruled over by a single monarch or Sovereign state.

      The use of titles has always been about upmanship and often used in that way. See also the Hapsburgs declaring themselves Archdukes as upmanship over the other dukes in their region.

      For Britain specifically, every monarch had been happy to be King/Queen of a British empire that covered the globe without needing to call themselves an Emperor/Empress. Until Queen Victoria realised that her own daughter was going to be Empress Victoria of Prussia and she could not stand being of less rank than her own child in the royal club.

      So she commanded her PM,Disreali, to do something about it which he did by making India an empire within her global empire and Victoria, Empress of India. That change was made in 1877, some 40yrs after she came to the throne and some 19yrs after Britain had officially annexed India from the East India trading company.

      As long as India remained within the British empire after 1877, the British monarch could call themselves ‘King/Queen of UK AND Emperor/Empress of India blah, blah blah ( sorry it’s a long title)’.

      After India gained it’s independence, the ‘Emperor/Empress’ bit was dropped as well, but the British empire still existed.

      Officially, the British empire ceased to exist in 1997 with the Hong Kong handover.

  12. Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

    It’s v unusual for her to miss events. The palace will always under play these thinks but she must have been really ill.

  13. Citresse says:

    I’m concerned HM may actually be suffering from something known as walking pneumonia and certain officials are remaining quiet. The good news is it’s far more deadly with smokers. HM is not a smoker as far as I’m aware, so recovery is likely.

  14. Jenny says:

    My whole family got that flu Christmas week too. It was really, really bad and we’re still feeling like a train hit us, the cough won’t let up and we’re all so tired. So I feel for the Queen, and hope that she makes a full recovery asap and regains her strength.

    Also, I have to say and I’ve thought it before, she has a really good make-up artist or whoever does her make-up, she always looks so fresh and rested and beautiful for her age.

    • Kay dee says:

      ITA, she always puts her best face forward, which shows that she has a great deal of respect for her role and takes that very seriously. While she is undeniably very attractive, Queen Elizabeth has substance, intelligence and gumption. All of those qualities make her magnetic and beautiful.

    • Dolphin7 says:

      @Jenny and Kaydee
      She does always dress so beautifully doesn’t she? I love her in her bright colors. Didn’t she get some great new stylist about 10 years ago? And her makeup is perfect too. It helps she has great skin. I just hope she’s okay. I admire her work ethic and her graciousness.

      • Kay dee says:

        I remember always being told growing up that dressing well and making sure you were “presentable” before leaving the house was important, not because of personal vanity, but it shows respect for all of the people that have to look at you. My Grandmother’s reaction to me wearing running attire to the grocery store is priceless! However, I do appreciate when someone makes an effort….and that effort can simply mean being the best version of “you” that is happening that day. It’s much more of a mental thing than an asthetic thing. I would much prefer to have a conversation with someone who is wearing whatever the heck they feel like wearing, with unbrushed hair, who is fully present and engaged, rather than someone who dressing for everyone but themselves. Regardless, the Queen is always on point, but always retains “Elizabeth”, the woman.

    • Liberty says:

      Me too. I’ve still got a lingering bit, those I work with and friends are miserable with it, and we are decades younger than the Queen! Let her get well in front of a good warm fire.

      She is beautiful in that sweet way, isn’t she? I have been charmed by a few media quotes from the public over the last week, wishing the best to “our little queen.”

    • notasugarhere says:

      Some articles put her good skin down to Murray’s Emollient Skin Cream, from a retired pharmacist who lives near Balmoral. Not available to the general public it appears.

  15. ravensdaughter says:

    She’s 90 years old and she’s the Queen. Her health is paramount. If she needs to be tied down until she FULLY recovers, let it be so. Just a bad cold in a person her age could morph into a bacterial superinfection, although I think Elizabeth is one tough cookie. She has the Queen Mum’s longevity gene, and she does not smoke nor drink to excess like her sister did.
    Thank goodness it’s not the flu!

  16. Eric says:

    I thought I’d heard via the BBC that Brexit passed due to large swaths of Britian voting it in and overpowering the London voters who, by an inordinate ratio, voted against it.

    The London vote was as lopsided as the Wash DC vote was for HRC v. Orange Julius Caesar.

    • Tina says:

      It wasn’t just Londoners who voted against Brexit, it was 48% of all those who voted. Areas that voted to remain include affluent areas in the Southeast outside London, other metropolitan areas such as Manchester, Liverpool and York (inner cities only) and Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  17. Who ARE These People? says:

    Not much of a cough but I’ve had this stubborn head cold since before Christmas and it is the gift that keeps on giving. Feel better Kaiser and anyone with it – including Her Majesty !

  18. Timbuktu says:

    I was hoping for a royal thread to ask this:

    I’m watching “the Crown” and they made a big deal about how Elizabeth didn’t want this, nor did her father, so it was all her uncle’s fault. However, her uncle didn’t have children, did he? And he never had them, if I remember correctly? So, if he ruled childless, who would be his heir? Wouldn’t it be his brother? And the way it went down, given that his brother died before him, would Elizabeth be the one to succeed him then? Granted, it would’ve been years later, but still? Just making sure I got the facts right, perhaps there are some other rules I’m not aware of?

  19. Kay Hendricks says:

    I was under the impression that the Queen does smoke. I really admire her, though, and hope she makes it as long as her mother. I had really been more worried about Prince Philip, since he is older and had been ill. I love the British Royal Family and would rather have the Queen than Trump.

  20. Kitty says:

    William, Kate and Harry need to step up!

  21. Elise says:

    I was wondering…. If William decided to abdicate, couldn’t the government force him to renounce the crown rights of his minor children was well? In which case, the crown would go to Harry, wouldn’t it? I doubt Harry would want it, but as a representative of the British government he would certainly be a lot better than Will, yes?

  22. Jessica says:

    Just wanted to say thanks to everyone. I’m an American of Scottish and Welsh descent who has always followed the Royal family. It has been fun this year to follow your posts and comments! No snark.

  23. Scarlett says:

    Hope she gets to feeling better. At her age, a bad cold can be very hard on an older person. Good luck and best wishes.

  24. aerohead21 says:

    This bothers me. The royals underneath her need to do some maturing and deep introspection about their duty and the future of the monarchy before she passes.

  25. Cerys says:

    It really is time for the Dolittles to step up. The DM did an article a few days ago comparing the number of engagements W&K do in comparison with Charles and Diana at the same stage in their marriage. The contrast was laughable. All the apologists are saying that William is second in line and not the heir. True, but if we apply that logic then he should be doing less than Charles but more than those who come after him.
    A cold is nothing to a healthy younger person but can lead to more serious issues for elderly people. It is time for HM to ease up and let the others pick up the slack.

  26. Maria says:

    I think she has very good genes, takes after her mother. I read that she was back doing her boxes so that’s a good sign.

  27. Ravine says:

    I hope Charles doesn’t become head of the Commonwealth of Nations. It’s time to end the colonial hangover and give the post to someone with some actual credentials. I suppose you’d have to pay them, but that’s how modern institutions work.

Commenting Guidelines

Celebitchy aims to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy

Use the "Report this comment as spam or abuse" link to ask the moderators to delete a comment if it's offensive. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please e-mail cbcomments at gmail.com to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment