Queen Elizabeth will not attend today's New Year's Day service

I think this goes beyond a "heavy cold" , I'm not convinced the Queen is at Sandringham.

Buckingham Palace has just said that Queen Elizabeth will not attend the traditional New Year's Day service , the Queen has not been seen for a couple of weeks now and while she and Philip were both said to be suffering from heavy colds Philip did make the Christmas day church visit and will doubtless be at today's service.
I have a feeling 2017 will start the way 2016 ended , I'm expecting the announcement in the coming days.

The Queen will not attend a New Year's Day church service at Sandringham because of a "lingering heavy cold", Buckingham Palace says. She also missed the Christmas Day service at her Norfolk estate because she was unwell. The Queen and Prince Philip began their Christmas break in Norfolk a day late, because they were both suffering from colds. A palace spokeswoman said the Queen was "still recuperating from a heavy cold"
www.bbc.co.uk...

Although I'm not a royalist I wish the Queen the best and sincerely hope I'm wrong.
God Save the Queen.

a reply to: gortex

I dont wish her bad Ijust wish other people good.

a reply to: gortex
Yes, at that age there is a very thin dividing line between "colds" and pneumonia.
My father spent Christmas 2002 treating a heavy cold by dosing it with "Extra-strength Lem-Sip". The climax was a fall downstairs (from loss of energy), and a hospital diagnosis of well-developed double pneumonia which kept him there for the last year of his life.
If one of them goes, the extra shock of bereavement would probably be the last straw for the other.

Not to say I'm happy she's sick, but I'll admit, I won't shed a tear either.

The way I see it, the scenario is exciting in an expectant kind of way.

How many of us have seen the throne change hands? None. None that will remember it anyway.

She's led a good life.

Perhaps the New Year will kick off with a new Monarch and maybe, just maybe something will change for the better.

I won't hold my breath, but the idea of change excites me more than any Royal has for my entire life... Except perhaps for Kate, obviously.

Get well soon, your Majesty.

She is 90 years old.

I think it is what it is, a 90+ year old couple who have caught this rotten cold that's been doing the rounds. I personally haven't caught it, but then, thankfully I tend not to get ill all that often. But I have seen people all over the country who have caught it and it doesn't seem pleasant.

I reckon if there was any more to it, we would have had some word come from official sources, they always seem quick to give the public information on Royal health.

a reply to: woogleuk
We would have been told if she had been taken to hospital, so it can't (yet) be serious enough for that.

Unelected head of state...369 million to give her home a facelift...hope she has man flu.

Time for the a new king, not that Charles is the best choice. Or perhaps he might let William take the crown

Time to look at another ' head' on my money and stamps lol

a reply to: gortex

I've been checking back all yesterday and last night, hoping there was an update. I think HM may be on her way out. I hope not, but it feels that way. Maybe she'll surprise everyone and pop up in a few days, good as new. She's a remarkable woman.

Bad feeling about this....

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Link to prove her home had a £369m facelift please? As far as I recall, it was Buckingham Palace that had work done on it, and even then that was funded by profits from the Crown Estate.

I think she's going to die or has already and they're waiting to announce it.
Is there anything to marking her death as 2017 instead of what might have been 2016?

To add a bit of controversy, I'd much rather see King Billy than King Charles.

Get well soon Queenie I don't think the nation is ready for Charles just yet.
Give us another 10 years of servitude please .

a reply to: violet
There is no obvious motive for delaying an announcement of death. It would not achieve anything special. Don't forget that everything the British government and legal system do is being done "in the monarch's name", and it would be legalistically necessary for them to be operating under the right name.

I still think that they wouldn't treat a serious illness at home. The first warning that things have got to that stage would probably be an announcement that she had been taken to hospital. At her age, keeping indoors is a sensible way of reducing the danger that something really serious will develop. Have you seen tomorrow's weather forecast? I'm not planning to go outside much, either.

a reply to: SprocketUK

King Billy?????? That certainly is controversial.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Shame on you!
Whichever of the palaces is going under renovations ( I read which and why but forgot the name) is a NATIONAL monument for the UK. It's not about HRM but your countries history!

In the UK y'all have outhouses older than most buildings here in the US. Beautiful amazing buildings with hundreds and hundreds of years history. Just be proud of what you have. It's amazing.
SMH

( Happy New Year to you! )

a reply to: beansidhe
There would also be controversy about which number to use. I suspect the Scots would object to "William V". If and when he gets the job, he might be well advised to select another of his Christian names instead.

originally posted by: beansidhe
a reply to: SprocketUK

King Billy?????? That certainly is controversial.

Yes, I was being lazy with his name. I forgot for a moment how it would sound to someone from Eire or the a six Counties.
I didn't mean it in that way, merely that I think Charles would be too much of a wet blanket and not provide any leadership for his governments.

Nothing at all to do with Orange Kings and such.