The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1321  
Old 11-02-2020, 06:56 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 332
It's confirmed.
https://twitter.com/RE_DailyMail/sta...86944520691712
Quote:
Rebecca English
@RE_DailyMail
KP have belatedly confirmed that Prince William did have coronavirus in April - Kate and the children did not. Valid questions as to why this was kept secret, although KP say he didnít want to alarm people after his fatherís diagnosis. Original story by @clemmiemoodie
The DM link
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rus-April.html

Mr Palmer is not the only RR who's fuming. Robert Jobson of Evening Standard:
https://twitter.com/theroyaleditor/s...54789178499072
Quote:
Prince Williamís decision to LIE about contracting COVID-19 earlier - for whatever reason - is appalling. KP were are asked several times by the media whether Prince William had contracted the virus and were told categorically ďnoĒ. This has created a serious issue of trust.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
(...)
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 ...
You're right, according to Palmer, in 2018 when the Queen had Cataract Surgery, he "asked a senior royal aide whether there was any medical reason why the Queen had worn sunglasses to a number of events and that person told me no, it was just because it had been sunny." (quoted from his tweet). Only to be announced few weeks later that she had surgery.

Someone pointed out also about communication between KP and no 10 (that KP informed the government of W's condition at some point), but "The Royal Family is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and most government papers released after 30 years are censored if they include sensitive material about the royals" (also Palmer's word), so there's no way to know unless either KP or no 10 revealed it (which I doubt they will).

But yes, the timing is rather interesting. If it's indeed slipped out during W's conversation with Kate Garraway during The Pride of Britain Awards filming, why it only makes news now, day after Boris's press-con fiasco.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1322  
Old 11-02-2020, 06:57 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
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.



It was totally wrong to hide that he was sick and, even worse, symptomatic. The Royal House has to be transparent.



Other questions will be raised now. Kate and the children most likely were infected too if William was sick and they were together. Was that also kept from the public?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1323  
Old 11-02-2020, 07:04 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,758
Robert Jobson is complaining that KP lied to the media. He is claiming he (and other reporters) asked if william ever had covid and was told no. Now it’s revealed he did. I get the idea of withholding due to public image of the palace or whatever. That said I also can see why some will question statements from the palace. They clearly have no issue lying to save face, what else have they been lying about?

Anyways it will be a talking point for the day and we will move on to something new.
Reply With Quote
  #1324  
Old 11-02-2020, 07:05 AM
Nico's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The Royal House has to be transparent.



Other questions will be raised now. Kate and the children most likely were infected too if William was sick and they were together. Was that also kept from the public?
You are so naive ...
As for Kate and the children, they were possibly not infected. See Charles with Camilla ...
Reply With Quote
  #1325  
Old 11-02-2020, 07:07 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
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.
Good point, Osipi. And for that, I'd give Catherine a big hug if I could.
Let's see:
- isolated at Anmer Hall,
- sick husband
- 3 young kids (all that normal ruckus and maybe question like "where's Daddy, Mummy?" since he's isolating),
- a prospect if worse comes to the worst, all would come down on her 7 yo son's shoulder,
And with all of above, she still had her usual radiant smile in those zoom appearances, not letting anything slip out on her face.

This lady really has a spine made of steel!!
Reply With Quote
  #1326  
Old 11-02-2020, 07:07 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
I very much doubt that anyone would have been panicking that Prince George would end up becoming king at the age of 6, with Harry as regent! It was made quite clear that Prince Charles only had mild symptoms, and, from what's been said, William was unwell but not badly enough to need hospital treatment. We saw Prince Charles making a speech not long after his diagnosis, and it was obvious that his life was not in danger.


However, the Prime Minister nearly died at the beginning of April, and, if it had become known that the third in line to the throne had had the virus as well as the second in line, there might well have been a sense of panic that the virus was absolutely everywhere, and people would have been going to hospitals and doctors' surgeries when they'd been asked not to do so unless it was a genuine emergency.
Reply With Quote
  #1327  
Old 11-02-2020, 07:08 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Robert Jobson is complaining that KP lied to the media. He is claiming he (and other reporters) asked if william ever had covid and was told no. Now itís revealed he did. I get the idea of withholding due to public image of the palace or whatever. That said I also can see why some will question statements from the palace. They clearly have no issue lying to save face, what else have they been lying about?

Anyways it will be a talking point for the day and we will move on to something new.
Like I said I my reply to your earlier post, the media complains that they have a right to know, so to me this is them making a big flap about nothing.

I donít get this idea that they lied to ďsave faceĒ.....we know why they lied, it was because William didnít want anyone to worry. Itís up for individuals to decide if they will/can trust KP after this, not the media, who has their own agenda

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
It was totally wrong to hide that he was sick and, even worse, syntomatic. The Royal House has to be transparent.



Other questions will be raised now. Kate and the children most likely were infected too if William was sick and they were together. Was that also kept from the public?
They werenít...
Reply With Quote
  #1328  
Old 11-02-2020, 07:09 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
It was totally wrong to hide that he was sick and, even worse, syntomatic. The Royal House has to be transparent.



Other questions will be raised now. Kate and the children most likely were infected too if William was sick and they were together. Was that also kept from the public?
> It appears that Kate and the children did not contract the virus

> I respect the decision to not make the illness public at the time. Subsequently, perhaps in the summer, they could have released the information. By having the information leak, they are not controlling the narrative, a position that no principal necessary wants to find themselves in.
Reply With Quote
  #1329  
Old 11-02-2020, 07:10 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,813
I don't think they were under any obligation to announce it if he didn't want to, unless it became a situation where he needed to go to hospital or there was real danger of dying. Yes transparency is necessary to some extent but someone's health is private and he kept on working. The have been plenty of other times a member of the BRF is rumoured to be ill and nothing is announced or played down. We have no reason to think that people who needed to know weren't contact.

Now if they'd tried to pretend Boris didn't have it or it wasn't as serious as it clearly was for him, that would have been a different matter.

We've all seen before how the RR takes personal offense that they aren't "let in on the secrets" or lied to and whilst it's obviously advisable to keep them on side other things do take precedence.
Reply With Quote
  #1330  
Old 11-02-2020, 07:19 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
Like I said I my reply to your earlier post, the media complains that they have a right to know, so to me this is them making a big flap about nothing.

I don’t get this idea that they lied to “save face”.....we know why they lied, it was because William didn’t want anyone to worry. It’s up for individuals to decide if they will/can trust KP after this, not the media, who has their own agenda
Of course the media (and some public) complain. I agree with you 100% about it. As for why they lied? I don’t by that. Though I’m glad KP and the other palaces show they have no issue lying about things flat out to the media. Not that it’s new information...

All sides have an agenda.

As for Kate not getting it? We can only go by their word. And yeah...
Reply With Quote
  #1331  
Old 11-02-2020, 07:27 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Of course the media (and some public) complain. I agree with you 100% about it. As for why they lied? I donít by that. Though Iím glad KP and the other palaces show they have no issue lying about things flat out to the media. Not that itís new information...

All sides have an agenda.

As for Kate not getting it? We can only go by their word. And yeah...
You donít buy that William was concerned about reaction to his illness? What other reason could he have?

I donít love that they actually lied - as opposed to just simply not revealing the news - but I still donít think itís as big as some in the media are making out. I just donít get how they are comparing William to the PM.
Reply With Quote
  #1332  
Old 11-02-2020, 07:40 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Of course the media (and some public) complain. I agree with you 100% about it. As for why they lied? I donít by that. Though Iím glad KP and the other palaces show they have no issue lying about things flat out to the media. Not that itís new information...

All sides have an agenda.

As for Kate not getting it? We can only go by their word. And yeah...
I think whatever decisions that the Palace take, the intention is "The Crown always win", even if that means winning against the media/press and royal reporters/correspondents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
You donít buy that William was concerned about reaction to his illness? What other reason could he have?

I donít love that they actually lied - as opposed to just simply not revealing the news - but I still donít think itís as big as some in the media are making out. I just donít get how they are comparing William to the PM.
I agree with the BIB. William is not making the big decision and setting out major policies in government, it's the Prime Minister. Unlike other countries, there isn't an official "line of succession", though in most cases, the First Secretary of State (Currently Dominic Raab, who is also the Foreign Secretary) deputise the PM. Guido Fawkes has released an unofficial "Prime Ministerial Line of Succession", which I think is based on the order of the 2020 Johnson's cabinet table on Wikipedia.
https://order-order.com/2020/04/08/p...ne-succession/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...nistry#Changes

I think the Foreign secretary is behind the Chancellor (in seniority of cabinet position), but in front of the Home Secretary.

I understand there could be panic on George "possibly becoming King" and the problem surrounding with Regency (Harry or Catherine), if Charles and William does not recover.
Reply With Quote
  #1333  
Old 11-02-2020, 08:19 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Prince William’s decision to LIE about contracting COVID-19 earlier - for whatever reason - is appalling. KP were are asked several times by the media whether Prince William had contracted the virus and were told categorically “no”. This has created a serious issue of trust.
I wonder when they were asked. Because not releasing the information at the time is one thing, flat-out lying about it is a totally different ballgame.
Reply With Quote
  #1334  
Old 11-02-2020, 08:36 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 210
As the law is right now, Harry would act as regent for George, if unavailable Andrew, if unavailable Beatrice. I do think that this was one of the main issues here and a public discussion that they didn't want to start.

When William was ill, they probably discussed his wishes for who should act as regent for his son as well, and if the worst had happened, they could have still changed the regency act. Personally, I think that Beatrice and Catherine would have been the realistic options.

However, in telling a now proven lie, they have opened up a whole range of other issues
Reply With Quote
  #1335  
Old 11-02-2020, 08:42 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria
Posts: 21
But the Queen and Charles were OK at the time. Why the regent issue?
Reply With Quote
  #1336  
Old 11-02-2020, 08:56 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanka View Post
But the Queen and Charles were OK at the time. Why the regent issue?
The queen is a very old lady and Chalres is over 70 and was also ill...
Reply With Quote
  #1337  
Old 11-02-2020, 09:50 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Someplace, United States
Posts: 72
I’m glad William didn’t announce it. He’s not an elected official, the Queen or Pow. He has the right to privacy! The RR are just upset that they didn’t get to break the story!
Reply With Quote
  #1338  
Old 11-02-2020, 10:06 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: many places, United States
Posts: 1,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
Like I said I my reply to your earlier post, the media complains that they have a right to know, so to me this is them making a big flap about nothing.

I donít get this idea that they lied to ďsave faceĒ.....we know why they lied, it was because William didnít want anyone to worry. Itís up for individuals to decide if they will/can trust KP after this, not the media, who has their own agenda
I agree. Plus it is up to the individual when he wants things known and at what time, otherwise every political human would be required to give an accounting of their medical position whenever asked by media. So that means that everyone in Parliament and House would be required to give their health status immediately when asked. After all they are the ones passing the laws of the land and running the citizen's lives......not the Royals. To people now saying "Oh he lied and we can never again believe" please, look into the mirror. To me this held back illness was nothing as it didn't harm anyone and he didn't go into public at that time or did his family. More than I can say about others. He didn't break any law, but certain other politicians did with their traveling, etc. and god knows how many people they infected doing so. This is all just political nonsense now and I admire William for coming out and saying that he was ill back 7 months ago. He certainly didn't have to admit and no one would have ever known. Gives the public hope that when they too come down with this crap that they know it is not a death card. Life does get back to normal. Just my personal opinion
__________________
Forgiveness is the fragrance the violet shed on the heel that crushed it - Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #1339  
Old 11-02-2020, 11:32 AM
Lady Daly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sherwood, United States
Posts: 677
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
IMO, it is difficult to conclude that contract tracing protocols were not complied with .
It's actually contact tracing not contract tracing and was most likely done. I am sorry to hear Prince William apparently had covid but he is well again and to our knowledge no one else in the Cambridge household contracted the disease. Moving on...
Reply With Quote
  #1340  
Old 11-02-2020, 12:10 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
The queen is a very old lady and Chalres is over 70 and was also ill...
Yes, but on 1 April Charles was out of isolation and with mild symptoms before, it was said. By the time of William's illness the POW was OK, as was the Queen. So no immediate danger to the throne.
__________________

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 asia asian baby names biography british british royal family camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese clarence house commonwealth countries crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex elizabeth ii family life family tree fashion and style genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor japan japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers monarchist movements monarchists mountbatten politics portugal prince harry princess eugenie queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan spanish royal family speech st edward suthida taiwan thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:54 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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