Prince William & Kate will not have an ‘organized’ walk to church on Christmas Day

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are visiting Cardiff Castle to meet local univ

Every year, the day after Christmas, I usually have to get up and do a little work because of the Windsors’ Christmas Day photos. Every year, the Windsors do the Christmas walk to church at Sandringham, and people in Norfolk come out to see the royal family for the church walk. There have been some iconic Christmas Day moments during the church walk. But not this year. This year, the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh will be in Windsor Castle, not Sandringham, and no one knows if they plan to go to church in Windsor. Prince Charles and Camilla will be at Highgrove and we won’t see them at all on Christmas Day. But… Prince William and Kate are in Norfolk, at Anmer Hall. So will they do a special Christmas walk? Probably not. The Norfolk Police have issued a rare statement discouraging people from coming out on Christmas Day.

William, Kate and other royals will not be attending church at Sandringham on Christmas Day for the first time in 32 years due to the coronavirus pandemic, police have revealed. Norfolk Police today released a statement confirming that ‘no members’ of the Royal family will be at the traditional service at St Mary Magdalene Church. William and Kate will stay away even though they are spending the festive break at their country home Anmer Hall which is just two miles away.

Police broke with convention to make the announcement to try and persuade members of the public to stay away from the church on Christmas Day. Thousands of loyal fans normally pack into the paddock beside the church to watch the Queen and other members of the Royal family attend the 11am service. But they are being advised to keep away this year due to the risk of Covid-19 spreading among crowds gathering for a glimpse of the Royals.

The Norfolk Police statement said: ‘Members of the public and media are advised there will be no organised royal event at Sandringham this year. Members of the Royal Family will not be attending the usual Christmas Day service.’

It was revealed at the start of December that the 94-year-old Queen and Prince Philip, 99, will be spending Christmas quietly at Windsor Castle instead of Sandringham. The Sandringham Churches website confirms that the Christmas Day service is going ahead at the church with two metre social distancing between worshippers and no singing. But it is expected that only regular local members of the congregation will be admitted, and they will be required to use hand sanitiser on entering and leaving. Anyone who wants to attend is being asked to contact the church warden in advance.

[From The Daily Mail]

“But it is expected that only regular local members of the congregation will be admitted, and they will be required to use hand sanitiser on entering and leaving…” And masks, surely?? Hand sanitizer will do f–k all if you’re going maskless the entire time. Anyway, the point is that the Windsors won’t do a church walk and – just my guess – the Norfolk Police have told William and Kate that they shouldn’t organize their own little church stroll where they pretend to be King and Queen for the day, with all of the attention on them. Considering how infrequently Will and Kate have actually paid attention to that kind of public safety guidance, who knows what will happen though.

Princess Charlene of Monaco shows off her new punkish hairstyle at The traditional Christmas Tree children event at Monaco

The Royal Family thank Key Workers at Windsor Castle

The Royal Family thank Key Workers at Windsor Castle

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, KP social media.

Related stories

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

61 Responses to “Prince William & Kate will not have an ‘organized’ walk to church on Christmas Day”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Izzy says:

    Honestly, in future years.I would be just fine if you waited until the 27th to post stries about the church walk.

  2. Kalana says:

    It sounds like they’re not going to church at all. Seeing as they are comfortable with modelling unsafe behavior, surely the Cambridges should go because of William’s future role?

  3. Seraphina says:

    I’m sure they are tired from all their outings at this point…..

  4. Digital Unicorn says:

    This is not unexpected considering the sh!t they rightly got for the stunt last week. But am sure they will pull a PR stunt on boxing day or something. The need to feed the beast, esp now that the Sussex’s have not only dropped their christmas card but also gave donations as well.

  5. rawiya says:

    Oh, they’ll be out with the Middletons. There’ll just happen to be a photographer at the Middleton’s church to catch MaPaMidd, Pip and family, and the Lamebridges.

  6. Harper says:

    Considering they dragged the little ones out last Christmas for publicity, I hope they stay home so the kids can enjoy their Christmas morning. Plus, they’d have to leave Carole and Pippa back at Anmer so no one would know they were there.

    • Mac says:

      The Wessex children have been doing the church walk for years. I believe everyone old enough to behave is expected to attend the service.

      • PEARL GREY says:

        Which makes it all the more obvious why the Cambridges waited until Harry and Meghan’s absence to debut their kids at the church walk for the first time. They knew just the two of them couldn’t draw headlines. The kids must be glad they don’t have to be wheeled out this year and can actually enjoy their morning like children and not PR bargaining chips. Louis already seems like he is struggling to hide his royal shade face on these outings.

  7. Elvie says:

    Masks are mandatory in all indoor spaces including Churches and is on the Church of England guidelines so weird they didn’t mention it, but yes parishoners will be wearing masks. You’re also not allowed to share a pew with anyone outside of your household and they’ve reduced the number of pews by half to ensure 2 feet rule. You’re also not allowed to sing.

    My husband and I stepped inside our church last week for the first time since March for a Christmas Candlelight service. I had a laugh because at least we proved our masks all passed the candle test as no one could blow them out. We had to go outside and try to blow them out.

  8. Olive Malone says:

    It seems like they see their outings as gifts to the people, like they are providing a shot of joy for the masses in showing their (maskless) faces. I mean, maybe that is how the public views these outings too, not sure. But that would explain the lack of modeling appropriate COVID protocol; leave that to other leader figures. They are here, ordained by God, to grace the peasants with their presence NOT to be examples of following peasant guidelines. This does run counter to the “normal, just like you” PR angle, but that is all I can come up with to understand the train trip and the other past few outings, with and without their kids.

  9. Alexandria says:

    Please just stay indoors and donate to charities or something in lieu of going to church. Sheesh.

    • GuestwithCat says:

      Good point Alexandria. Jesus said we are to feed the poor and comfort the widow. There’s a lot of need this year especially. Attending to that need is meaningful worship. Spread food and aid, not Covid.

      • Jay says:

        Thank you! You phrased it so well.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        Amen!

      • Dollycoa says:

        Bloody hell, of all the religious leaders in the world, someone on celebitchy said the most pertinent and useful thing 😂

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        Guestwithcat
        You’re talking about the parable with the widow giving copper coins to the donations?

        If so that was very apt. It’s about those that know suffering understand the pain and wish it far away from everyone. They’ll pull out their pockets to prevent another from knowing it.
        Jesus said the widow gave more than anyone else. And those so generous should have their reasons used as a template for helping others.

  10. Lizzie says:

    I feel certain a new bespoke buttony coat will make its debut at some point.

  11. Scorpion says:

    Oh however will we cope????

  12. Keroppi says:

    They are such trailblazers! *wipes tear from face dramatically*

  13. PrincessK says:

    I actually think that they are pleased not to be doing the walkabout, especially William who is definitely not a people person.

  14. Nic919 says:

    I won’t be shocked if they put out a video of the kids in the next few days.

    • Watson says:

      Yup. Those two have nothing else about them
      that’s interesting other than their kids. I still can’t wrap my head around how lazy and dumb these two are but using these kids for positive PR whenever shit hits the fan is completely amoral especially since William knows how bad this is.

    • Tessa says:

      I think the children will be trotted out again. I think these children will complain as teens about their “lack of privacy” as children.

      • Pink says:

        Not to defend them at all cos I can’t stand the royal family but I feel like royal fans expect to see the kids. It’s not right but it’s what they want so it’s generally what the royals do.

      • Watson says:

        @Pink. I totally understand what you’re saying but I really feel that if they worked harder and made an effort on their projects vrs working on the PR they really wouldn’t have to use their children this way. They already are treated with kid gloves by the press so all they had to do was use good judgement (aka don’t have a covid super spreader event) and stay home.

  15. mlouise@hotmail.com says:

    Looks like they may have wanted to do it and put themselves around there and were discouraged- and police made it official given K&W and kids are out and about for past ten days (people who disappear for months- are very actively breaching basic pandemic rules that everyone else put up with for ten months).

  16. Jane Doe says:

    I too, will refrain from any church walkabout appearances in the near future, in case anyone is deeply concerned.

  17. Keen Kate says:

    Does Kate even care about church/faith, or is it for show/a fashion show?

    The Guardian:
    “I cannot help feeling that if Kate Middleton had been serious about her Christian faith, she would have been confirmed in the Church of England at a somewhat younger age than 29. Having attended such expensive private boarding schools as Downe House and Marlborough College, she would have been offered the chance of confirmation while still in her teens… neither she nor other members of her family appear until now to have been regular churchgoers. And while sources “close to Kate” are quoted in the Daily Mail as insisting that she went through the ceremony in St James’s Palace because of a “personal journey” of a religious nature and not in order to avoid the awkwardness of being denied Holy Communion when married to a future Defender of the Faith, it is hard to relinquish the suspicion that she did it more for convenience than from conviction.”

    • Sofia says:

      I’ve seen pictures of Kate wearing a cross. And also in her defense I suppose, none of the royals seem particularly very into their faith, save for the Queen

      • Nic919 says:

        Most of the MAGAs wear a cross and claim to be religious but their actions speak louder then their words. An adult woman who didn’t get confirmed until 29 when she had to in order to marry a future head of the church does not have a religious bone in her body. And her actions since her confirmation show no spirit of charity either.

      • Sofia says:

        @Nic hence why I said, I don’t think she along with the rest of the family are particularly religious anyways

    • Ainsley7 says:

      She’s not particularly religious and neither is William. The church walk on her Birthday every year is her mom’s doing. She is pretending it’s the Christmas walk in her head. Kate is living Carol’s dream. Before her brother talked about his struggles, it’s always been a pretty clear sign that all was is not perfect in the Middleton family, no matter what their PR says.

      • Nic919 says:

        There is a reason why the comparison of Kris Jenner to Carole Middleton has stuck over the years. Both helped to market their daughters but it was done in slightly different ways. Carole’s method (with approval from Mike of course) was spun as something more acceptable as using a daughter to move up social ranks was what the upper classes did up until recently. But any decent parent would have been doing more than let their daughters do nothing with their lives but hang out with rich men. And anyone who was an adult during the Diana years, especially in the UK, would think long and hard about encouraging their daughter to marry into the Windsor clan.

  18. CatWomen says:

    Those people who wait to see them it’s just weird. They make it seem like they are watching animals in a zoo .

    • Babz says:

      That’s how it’s seemed to me, too. While I enjoy the photos, more or less, seeing that the crowds are extremely close to the path, too, gives it an even more zoo-like feel. You can almost hear Steve Irwin or Sir David Attenborough narrating one of their nature shows as they walk along. “Watch the royal family in their natural habitat, as they move close to us on their way to church! And notice how the females of the group are decked out in their winter finery, trying not to preen and therefore, shame the males!” I can hear it plain as day, either in that Australian accent, or the rich, plummy tones of the English aristocrat!

  19. PurpleMask says:

    From “….And What Do You Do?”:
    - Security costs for entire royal family amount to around 100 m pounds a year, at taxpayer expense.
    - They have a sweet, sweet deal to get 25% of the profits generated from the Crown Estates each year, which at 25% is hitting 100 m pounds soon. This practice of extended fam members getting these civil list payments only started with the present Queen, in 1952. Before that it was only the monarch’s wife/husband who got anything.
    - Their wills are sealed, top secret, prob because making them public will shock the public into how rich they are and how they’re possibly passing on art and other items that should be part of the Crown Estates or held by the government for the benefit of culture and the people
    - Frogmore cost 2.4 m pounds to do up, at taxpayer expense. Then they decided to not live there. It costs 5 m pounds annually to keep Frogmore absolutely empty.
    They also get the “red boxes” which contain secret briefings from the government and intelligence departments as well.

    These people are constantly doing PR, esp the new generation because as Norman Baker points out, Britons have nostalgia for when their land was the most powerful empire in the world, and Liz II is from that era. When Charles is handed the crown, I think these people will start going extinct day by day.

    • Courtney B says:

      The extended family actually used to get much more. They were granted annuities when they came of age and large marriage settlements. It caused huge controversies especially with foreign matches.

      • PurpleMask says:

        This is what he wrote:

        “It is worth noting that the practice of paying sums to the monarch’s relatives, other than the King’s wife, only started when the present Queen came to the throne in 1952.”

    • Sofia says:

      Does the book explain where the 5 million figure for Frogmore comes from? I don’t think keeping a house empty would be that expensive. Maybe it’s security costs from making sure no-one tries to break in, idk.

      And surprised that the Mail has not published that. Either they don’t know or they do but don’t want to publish because it’ll draw viewers to the book.

      • PurpleMask says:

        He doesn’t say but at around page 328 it goes:

        “That still left an estimated £5 million annual bill to look after the empty Frogmore Cottage, and who would pay for their static protection at their new home in California, an $18 million mansion equipped with twelve bathrooms and sitting in twenty-two acres?”

        Maybe he’s including opportunity cost in terms of lost rental income as well, but I think not. Also:

        “Totted up, the true cost to the public purse stretches well beyond £300 million a year. On top of that are the substantial incomes from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, which are pocketed by the Queen and Prince Charles but which seem only to have escaped the 1760 deal on the Crown Estates because at the time they were insignificant. This is covered in a separate chapter in this book. And of top of that is the cost of the uniquely favourable tax treatment which the royal family enjoys and which thus represents an unnecessary and unjustified loss to the Treasury.”

        Very well researched book and goes into the freebies and above-the-law benefits the UK royals exploit as well.

      • One Katie of Many says:

        There are real problems with the $5M estimate. Here is how Baker describes his source for it, on pages 326-27:

        …if the Metropolitan Police were to continue to provide security while they were abroad, the cost to the public purse would actually increase significantly. In the event, Metropolitan Police officers were indeed sent to Canada and were captured on camera meeting Harry off a flight at Victoria International Airport. Of course, this was Canadian soil, so the Mounties also had to be involved, pushing the cost of security up even further, as did the fact that Harry, Meghan and Archie each qualified for protection, which meant three teams if they were in three separate locations. Or four, in fact, as there still needed to be cover for the now empty Frogmore Cottage. Ken Wharfe, the former royal protection officer, has estimated that that last element alone would amount to some £5 million annually, for security officers to patrol the extensive premises, and for a full security entourage including motorcycle outriders any time Harry needed to get to London. The bill for the ongoing security falls to Thames Valley Police, a force which has seen large cuts to its budget.“

        If Frogmore is empty, why would the budget for its security need to include a full security entourage ready to accompany Harry to London? Also, Ken Wharfe was Diana’s royal protection officer until the early 1990s and retired from the police in 2002, so I would not be confident that he knows the security measures they are using for Frogmore in the present day or how much those cost. He is guessing, and possibly inflating his guess based on his audience wanted to hear. Given that Wharfe also has written a book about Diana to shill, he probably wanted to make sure he was quoted. And he was, by the Daily Mail in November 2018.

        And this is the problem I have with Baker’s book. He is fast and loose with his sources, and a lot of his sources for information about Harry and Meghan are tabloid trash that he is just reprinting.

        Given that Frogmore is part of the grounds at Windsor, where the Queen spends so much time, I would be shocked if it costs that much extra to include the grounds in patrols.

      • Becks1 says:

        That book is really good overall but he’s wrong about a lot of stuff re: Harry and Meghan and Frogmore. (He implies they can’t settle into a permanent home, that taxpayers are paying for their security etc). Overall it’s well sourced but it feels like his part on Harry and Meghan was just pulled from the tabloid headlines.

      • Sofia says:

        @Becks and @Katie: I agree with you both. That 5 million seems exaggerated to me. And if the book has come to that figure using a police force that the Sussexes no longer use, then it is inaccurate.

        I mean the Sussexes wedding (where 1000s of people attended including the monarch) security cost something like 3 million so I don’t understand how an empty 4 bed house takes 5 million

      • PurpleMask says:

        Sorry, I did skim over some bits in the book and I returned it so no longer have a copy on hand but generally it seemed very well researched to me. His figures for Frogmore might well be too much but the civil list / % of Crown Estate profits are accurate. Generally very well researched; don’t let the Frogmore detail put you off. Also, he’s positive about Megan and Harry (other than Frogmore, security costs, and their private-jet habit).

      • Becks1 says:

        But the point is that his parts about Frogmore and the security costs are just wrong. I read the book lol and agree that overall it’s well researched except for the Sussexes. It’s almost as if he didn’t want to write about them and his editor made him include it or something.

        I didn’t think he was overly positive about H&M which was interesting to me – he’s such a republican that you would think he would LIKE the royals who walked away from taxpayer dollars.

      • Nic919 says:

        Does he go into the cost of the helicopter that the Cambridges use that now gets hidden into other expenses? It used to be separately listed and then suddenly that disappeared. If he’s not discussing that then there is clear bias. The private jets that Harry and Meghan used were lent to the, by people outside of the royal family and didn’t cost the taxpayers a thing. There was far more outrage over a jet paid by Elton John for Harry and Meghan than when Kate jetted to Northern Ireland for a one stop appearance to promote her paltry survey.

        And the cost to watch an empty house seems ridiculous. Frogmore cottage is on the same grounds as Frogmore House which already has some security so when no one is resident in the cottage there is no way security would have to cost as much.

        And the book is also wrong on the protection in Canada. While there may have been the RPOs with Harry and Meghan, they would only be a few. London police would not have any jurisdiction in Canada and the Mounties would take over once they were on Canadian soil, as has happened every other time that a member of the royal family comes to Canada. Foreign police officers need government permission to carry guns in Canada. You can’t just do it because you are a cop. So whatever picture they claim showed Met Police was meaningless because they wouldn’t be able to come to Canada and carry any weapon for protection. Only Canadian cops can do that without special permission.

        When Harry was in Toronto to visit, there was a security detail but it was RCMP and one maybe two SUVs. There was never any Met police involved so why would they suddenly include a police force with no jurisdiction in Canada while in Victoria? At most their personal RPOs might have attended but that is a small number and required permission.

  20. Implicit says:

    “Everyday normal” women STAY HOME during a pandemic (hear that Waity?) clutch your Melania Trump pussybow as you try to understand the words coming out of my mouth.

  21. Dollycoa says:

    Royal superfans are nuts all round. These are the people who stand outside hospitals waiting for women to give birth, demanded to see 2 grieving teenagers after their mother had died and then insulted their grandparents by telling them to ‘ look after the boys’ to which Prince Philip, who is normally an idiot said ‘ What do you think we have been doing?’ and spend their Christmas day gawping at other peoples families rather than spending Christmas morning with their own. They are idiots but they are the people keeping the Monarchy alive, and the Royals know it- which is why they use the children as bait.

    • PurpleMask says:

      Same reason people get addicted to loving and hating characters on soap operas. And when you confront them with the facts: i.e., France’s (a republic since the 18th century) former royal estates and castles log better numbers than some of Britain’s attractions (Versailles for example), they still insist the UK needs its royals for “tourism” value. LMAO.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        The tourism argument is so funny. It makes no sense. They just pull any reason out of the air, regardless of facts.

  22. yinyang says:

    So what do they want a prize for that. This year I tried to avoid the royals on Christmas, but I forgot about the queens speech on the news. :I

  23. Carolind says:

    William and Kate did not go to Church at Sandringham – I don’t think they are Churchgoers – but Prince Edward and Sophie and their kids were staying at the Big House on the Sandringham Estate and they did go to Church on Christmas morning by car.

    Charles possibly is a Churchgoer – not sure. Any royals staying with the Queen at Balmoral do go.