The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1301  
Old 11-01-2020, 09:10 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
I am sorry a bit over dramatic to think the country would go into alarm panic mode. The queen is a figure head, with 1000 heirs or more. There is no shortage of people to step up as regent if some how both Charles and William had died from it. We're not talking Sweden before they changed the succession laws where the only heir was in his 60s and there was no one else (prior to CP being born).

There would be more concern over Borris as he is the one with actual political role. But then again, and who would take over if he had died. Unlike the US, there is no written in the constitution line of succession to who would succeed as PM if Borris had died. Someone had to be deputized.


I actually in part wonder if it was damage control. If the men in grey were trying to save some face.


https://ca.hellomagazine.com/royalty...s-coronavirus/


I remember this visit to NHS in the start of April. Where neither he nor Kate were wearing masks, and they were touring health workers to show support. I was not alone in pointing out that not wearing masks, and making an unncessary visit to front line workers wasn't the best idea. Thinking not only William and Kate could be at risk, but they too could also bring germs with them to the workers they met with.

Now we learn William was sick soon after that with covid.


Thankful that he is okay. But I don't think it was right to hide that he was ill.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1302  
Old 11-01-2020, 09:19 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
I am sorry a bit over dramatic to think the country would go into alarm panic mode. The queen is a figure head, with 1000 heirs or more. There is no shortage of people to step up as regent if some how both Charles and William had died from it. We're not talking Sweden before they changed the succession laws where the only heir was in his 60s and there was no one else (prior to CP being born).

There would be more concern over Borris as he is the one with actual political role. But then again, and who would take over if he had died. Unlike the US, there is no written in the constitution line of succession to who would succeed as PM if Borris had died. Someone had to be deputized.


I actually in part wonder if it was damage control. If the men in grey were trying to save some face.


https://ca.hellomagazine.com/royalty...s-coronavirus/


I remember this visit to NHS in the start of April. Where neither he nor Kate were wearing masks, and they were touring health workers to show support. I was not alone in pointing out that not wearing masks, and making an unncessary visit to front line workers wasn't the best idea. Thinking not only William and Kate could be at risk, but they too could also bring germs with them to the workers they met with.

Now we learn William was sick soon after that with covid.


Thankful that he is okay. But I don't think it was right to hide that he was ill.
I thought their NHS visit was around March 20th. Did they have a 2nd one in early April?

When I look up NHS and the Cambridges at a later date around your time frame, I only find by phone engagements-

The Duke of Cambridge, President, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, this morning held a Meeting via telephone with Ms Caroline Palmer (Chief Executive).

- Court Circular ll 31 March 2020

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge this afternoon talked to staff at Queen’s Hospital Burton, Burton on Trent, Staffordshire, via telephone

Their Royal Highnesses afterwards talked to staff at University Hospital Monklands, Airdrie, Lanarkshire, via telephone

- Court Circular ll 1 April 2020
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1303  
Old 11-01-2020, 09:33 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 326
I am so glad Prince William recovered. It was the right decision not to disclose at the time.

People are interested in his life way more that Boris and Prince Charles, so this would have been a VERY big news and it would have taken attention away from other important things.

Prince Charles is old, so I can imagine royal reporters would have focus on succession stories if Prince William is sick.

Kudos to the Cambridges for continuing to leave drama behind and focus on the work for the Monarch. [....]
Reply With Quote
  #1304  
Old 11-01-2020, 09:48 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
I am sorry a bit over dramatic to think the country would go into alarm panic mode. The queen is a figure head, with 1000 heirs or more. There is no shortage of people to step up as regent if some how both Charles and William had died from it. We're not talking Sweden before they changed the succession laws where the only heir was in his 60s and there was no one else (prior to CP being born).

(...)
I actually in part wonder if it was damage control. If the men in grey were trying to save some face.

https://ca.hellomagazine.com/royalty...s-coronavirus/

I remember this visit to NHS in the start of April. Where neither he nor Kate were wearing masks, and they were touring health workers to show support. I was not alone in pointing out that not wearing masks, and making an unncessary visit to front line workers wasn't the best idea. Thinking not only William and Kate could be at risk, but they too could also bring germs with them to the workers they met with.

(...)
I agree that possibly there's some damage control in play here, but on the other hand I don't think a concern to prevent mass panic can be set aside.

Let's put it this way.
IIRC UK didn't have mask policy in March (when the in-person visit to NHS-111 happened, as later engagements always via phone call and video link). From the documentation of that NHS-111 engagement, the Cambridges were not the only one who didn't wear mask. I also remember early 2020 (or maybe late 2019) there's a comments about how snobbish the Queen was for wearing glove when shaking hand (the one who defended her said she was in risk age, the one attacked her said she's snobbish or selfish since most still took Covid lightly, no regulation etc). So imagine if the Cambridges wore mask while NHS staff didn't wear it (on paper, they should know better about health and safety better than the royals). The public response would be:
- "Does the Cambridges they know better than NHS staff?"
- "Snobbish royals don't want to be contaminated by "dirty" peasant."
- "The government lies to us, we should wear mask. See even royals don't trust Boris."

The last response could lead to mask panic buying (it happened in my country: the price of the mask rose rapidly, panic mass buying which led to lack of supply for medical staff). This scenario can also happen if the news of William illness went public. So if there's someone who need to save face, it's the government.

On another note, it brought a question, for those engagements (the NHS-111 in particular), who requested it? Was it NHS-111 to raise awareness about the increase of unnecessary calls to 111? The government? Or the Cambridges who shamelessly barged into someone's workplace as PR move to stay relevant?

Really, I don't believe during breakfast, one of the staff or William/Catherine suddenly had this idea of "Hey, let's visit NHS-111 today. I think it's a good to promote us. We're royal, there's no way the will refuse us."
Reply With Quote
  #1305  
Old 11-01-2020, 09:52 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Florida, United States
Posts: 226
If Prince William and Prince Charles being sick made headlines, oh my imagine the insanity. We'd have to hear about the whole Cambridge family being in danger. [...]
Reply With Quote
  #1306  
Old 11-01-2020, 10:04 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess_Watcher View Post
If Prince William and Prince Charles being sick made headlines, oh my imagine the insanity. We'd have to hear about the whole Cambridge family being in danger. [...]
I think the discussion would have been about a possible regency for Catherine, in a worst case scenario for Charles and William. Just like Margret would have been passed over in lieu of Philip. So the media would have talked about the 1953 regency act and if we'd have a 2020 regency act.
Reply With Quote
  #1307  
Old 11-01-2020, 10:16 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 10,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess of Wakanda View Post
No it wasn’t. It was the exact opposite. Irresponsible and selfish.
What was irresponsible and selfish about not wanting to cause worry and alarm?

ETA: If God forbid, the disease had claimed both the Prince of Wales and his heir, [...]

A Regency would have been put in place for Prince George. Poor child.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
Reply With Quote
  #1308  
Old 11-01-2020, 10:35 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Richard Palmer needs to quit while he’s ahead. Comparing the BRF to American politicians like the President, VP and Senators is asinine. William does not wield any power; he is not in the same position at all as any of the people who hold these offices. Palmer keeps asking why people pay attention to the BRF if they have no power, are so irrelevant. He’s missing the point. You can be relevant without holding power. We aren’t talking about a cover up by the Queen or even Charles - William is the heir to the heir; he likely won’t be King for a long while. There’s just no urgent “need to know” in his case.
Reply With Quote
  #1309  
Old 11-01-2020, 10:48 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
Richard Palmer needs to quit while he’s ahead. Comparing the BRF to American politicians like the President, VP and Senators is asinine. William does not wield any power; he is not in the same position at all as any of the people who hold these offices. Palmer keeps asking why people pay attention to the BRF if they have no power, are so irrelevant. He’s missing the point. You can be relevant without holding power. We aren’t talking about a cover up by the Queen or even Charles - William is the heir to the heir; he likely won’t be King for a long while. There’s just no urgent “need to know” in his case.
Oh please forgive him. He's on holiday, how dare William to let this info slip out now?

I mean, imagine the miss opportunity, those headlines to write if this came out in April?
"Irresponsible William Risking NHS-111 Staff"
"Succession Crisis"
"Harry Abandoning His Old Grandpa and Sick Pa and Brother"
"Andrew for Regent?"
(I can make up 100s something more outrageous variations, but let's not do it here).
And don't forget since it's Express, their online version will have something like: "ROYAL HORROR", "ROYAL HEARTBREAK" (yes, in capital).

What a waste, William!
Reply With Quote
  #1310  
Old 11-01-2020, 11:07 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 225
Richard Palmer is just angry because he lost all those chances for clickbait .
Reply With Quote
  #1311  
Old 11-01-2020, 11:43 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by akina21 View Post
Richard Palmer is just angry because he lost all those chances for clickbait .
That is an ad hominem response.
Reply With Quote
  #1312  
Old 11-02-2020, 12:42 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
Richard Palmer needs to quit while he’s ahead. Comparing the BRF to American politicians like the President, VP and Senators is asinine. William does not wield any power; he is not in the same position at all as any of the people who hold these offices. Palmer keeps asking why people pay attention to the BRF if they have no power, are so irrelevant. He’s missing the point. You can be relevant without holding power. We aren’t talking about a cover up by the Queen or even Charles - William is the heir to the heir; he likely won’t be King for a long while. There’s just no urgent “need to know” in his case.
I don’t really disagree but he does have a valid point about relevance. It does seem like people pick and choose what is deemed important to know. I happen to agree that privacy is important. Personal info should be private. Work should be public.

Palmer is bringing that up here. Does he have a right? What’s the difference? William is the 2nd in line. They told us about Charles and Sophie, but not William? Why? It does look odd from that point of view.
Reply With Quote
  #1313  
Old 11-02-2020, 02:08 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
I don’t really disagree but he does have a valid point about relevance. It does seem like people pick and choose what is deemed important to know. I happen to agree that privacy is important. Personal info should be private. Work should be public.

Palmer is bringing that up here. Does he have a right? What’s the difference? William is the 2nd in line. They told us about Charles and Sophie, but not William? Why? It does look odd from that point of view.

The media in general - UK, USA, etc...- is always insisting that they have a right to know everything, and are quick to scream “cover up” when they don’t get the scoop. Add in Palmer’s poor comparisons to American politicians and it’s hard to take him seriously here.

As far as relevancy, I don’t think that people are really picking and choosing. William is reported on because he’s a future King, but that’s his working life. He’s not the direct heir, so I don’t think people have the right to know everything in his private life, and in this case, it seems he had the right motives in keeping his condition secret. Palmer resorting to hyperbole in saying that this will haunt W is only weakening his already weak argument.

I go back to this question of “need to know”. Why exactly did the British people NEED to know back in April that William was sick with COVID ? The only people it really affected was himself and his family. Now with Charles, his bout with COVID could have immediately affected the line of succession - had he had a serious bout that left him in poor condition, well...that’s a big deal. I guess overall the difference is that father is closer to the throne than William. I will say, bad as his case was, if W‘s had been really serious - then I’d think differently. If he were hospitalized, a future King...then I think privacy goes out the window (because, that could have been a tragedy which would affect the line of succession)
Reply With Quote
  #1314  
Old 11-02-2020, 02:18 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,750
I just have been thinking back to all the times that I've read the statement "The Palace does not comment on the health of the royal family". If there is a press release about Philip's health or Charles or any member of the BRF, it is not a palace release but a statement that most likely has been approved by the family itself. If William wanted to keep the status of his infection of Covid-19, that is his right to do so.

I just keep thinking of what it would have been like with William home and isolating with the virus and his family also in isolation. It may have been traumatic should one of the kids turn on the TV and hear reports of "breaking news" of their father being seriously ill with the virus. Kids get scared by illnesses much easier than us adults do.

I totally agree that their public lives should be public and their private lives remain private.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #1315  
Old 11-02-2020, 02:24 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
From what's being said, they didn't want to panic people. Prince Charles had already had it, Boris nearly died, and people were anxious enough. Neither Charles nor William were in serious danger, but it would still have caused worry.


I would think they're announcing it now to remind people that even young, healthy people can be badly hit by it, so we all need to take this very seriously, which not everyone is doing.
Reply With Quote
  #1316  
Old 11-02-2020, 05:28 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess of Wakanda View Post
No it wasn’t. It was the exact opposite. Irresponsible and selfish.
How might it have been "Irresponsible and selfish"?
Reply With Quote
  #1317  
Old 11-02-2020, 05:52 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
While I somewhat understand the decision not to make it public at the time, I don't think it was the best decision for a few reasons:
1. For some it might be hard to trust them to release relevant health information in the future (although I still think that if hospitalization had been needed it would have been released).
2. Contract-tracing requires that people that you have been in touch with know that you contracted the virus.
3. Even if you decide to withhold that information for the time being; why not release it when you are in full health again - instead of let is slip now (as that seems the way it has become public knowledge): it might have made especially the younger generation a bit more cautious.
Reply With Quote
  #1318  
Old 11-02-2020, 05:54 AM
Blog Real's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 7,120
I think it was better that way, because if it had been announced at the time that William was with Covid-19, people would have been very worried, especially at that time also Prince Charles and Boris Johnson were infected.
I believe that Prince William will not have taken the decision alone not to make public that he was infected. William and the Royal House just didn't want to alarm people any further.
__________________
My blogs about monarchies
Reply With Quote
  #1319  
Old 11-02-2020, 06:20 AM
Nico's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess of Wakanda View Post
No it wasn’t. It was the exact opposite. Irresponsible and selfish.
Sounds like the Sussex brigade is on the case. Smelling blood already ?
Oh well.

It's not rocket science to understand that two heirs + the PM tested postitive to a potential mortal disease could have been quite challenging for the entire state structure of the UK.

Again, if it's true, it was an obvious, and let's say classical, political move especially in time of crisis. How many times have we learnt afterward that a "simple cold" from HM or the DOE was, in fact, a bit more serious ?

Unlike some other peripherical members of the BRF, the Cambridges are precious cargo for the sake of the poitical balance of the UK. Secrets and tactical decisions are part of the game. And by that, i guess the choice to hide the Duke's condition could well have been taken at Number 10, not less ...
Reply With Quote
  #1320  
Old 11-02-2020, 06:35 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
2. Contract-tracing requires that people that you have been in touch with know that you contracted the virus.
IMO, it is difficult to conclude that contract tracing protocols were not complied with .
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Extended Bernadotte Family, News Part 1: March 2017 - JessRulz Royal House of Sweden 316 09-20-2021 02:48 PM
General News for the Cambridge Family 2: January 2015-March 2017 JessRulz Current Events Archive 1570 03-19-2017 12:27 AM




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asian biography birth britain britannia british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing colorblindness coronation dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf henry viii highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan history king juan carlos liechtenstein list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy mongolia names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics prince harry queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tradition unfinished portrait united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:20 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×