BBC EastEnders star breaks silence after on-screen soap exit
The actress' exit marks the final nail in the coffin for the Taylor family, who have now all left the show.
Breaking her silence on the exit, she said the role, which she first took on in 2017, was the "best" and that it "changed my life".
Bernie left on screen alongside her cousin, Felix Baker, after a theft storyline played out.
It was revealed Bernie had been stealing from the Panesars, and despite them trying to catch her in the act, she was already planning to leave to avoid facing any consequences.
After packing her bags, she and Felix left in a taxi to leave Walford.
Following the exit playing out on screen, Norris took to social media to post a heartfelt message and goodbye to EastEnders.
She said: "My last ep airs tonight and with that comes a flood of memories.
"EastEnders was my first audition, and my first job. Having come from college and having no experience in this industry, Julia, Wayne and Sean all took a chance on me to play Bernadette Taylor and for that, I can't be thankful enough.
"Eight years later and honestly, this job has changed my life.
A post shared by Clair Hayley Norris (@clair_norris)
"It's true what they all said at the beginning, EastEnders is one big family & I'm so lucky to have met and worked with some amazing people.
"I will always have an attachment to Bernie, she represents so many girls out there who wear their hearts of their sleeves and don't quite fit in…no offence to anyone who wears purple coats.
"I have adored playing her and she will forever hold a special place in my heart. This has been the best first role ever."
A number of EastEnders co-stars have wished the actress well after posting her farewell message on social media.
Lorraine Stanley, who played Bernie's mum Karen Taylor in the BBC soap from 2017 to 2024, said: "It was an honour to play your Mum. You're Amazing!!.
"Wishing you all the best! Love you lots."
Goodbye Clair and Bernie! Always bringing both the tears and the laughter, she's been a brilliant resident of Albert Square - we'll miss you dearly! ❤️ #EastEnders pic.twitter.com/UwJrWzqdeG
Balvinder Sopal, who plays Suki Panesar-Unwin, said: "An absolute honour to have shared the screen with you, Claire. You are phenomenal!!.
"Here's to you and all the brilliant things about to come your way."
Navin Chowdhry, who is Nish Panesar, said: "You've been brilliant Claire! What an exciting journey ahead!!"
Molly is not the only star to leave the show this year.
Bobby Brazier is leaving popular BBC soap EastEnders after four years.
Molly Rainford, known for playing Queen Vic barmaid Anna Knight on the BBC soap, will also be leaving.
One of the biggest departures of the year was Natalie Cassidy, who played Sonia Fowler in EastEnders, and left the show after 32 years.
Recommended reading:
Speaking about her exit, she said: 'It felt very final but also very good. It's a nice place to leave Sonia after so much has happened to her.
'Sonia feels like she's never going to live down what happened with Reiss, so the only thing to do is leave the Square.
'I'm never going to say goodbye to her because, after 32 years, Sonia is ingrained in me. So, while I'm saying goodbye on screen, for now, Sonia is always there, knocking about!'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
EastEnders' Heather Peace, 50, reveals both she and wife Ellie Dickinson are battling breast cancer in heartbreaking admission
EastEnders star Heather Peace has revealed she and her wife Ellie Dickinson have both been battling breast cancer in a heartbreaking admission. The 50-year-old, best known for her role as Eve Sopal-Unwin in the BBC soap, announced last month she'd undergone surgery and was going through chemotherapy following her diagnosis in October. Now, as she begins radiotherapy, Heather shared how Ellie received the same devastating diagnosis earlier this year. In a new interview with the Mirror, she said: 'Her breast cancer was a smaller, aggressive lump, so she had a lumpectomy and then radiotherapy. 'Of course then I come along with my 12 cm lump, absolutely ginormous, and mastectomy, chemotherapy, just about to go into radiotherapy. 'She's like "Even that you have to do bigger." It's like "Hold my beer."' The couple, parents to Annie, 10, and eight-year-old twins Jesse and Lola, admitted the news was overwhelming as there was 'no processing'. Heather was originally reluctant to see a doctor after noticing a change in her nipple due to her busy EastEnders filming schedule. However, Ellie encouraged her to get checked straight away, and the actress was diagnosed with the disease just three hours after her appointment. In May, Heather revealed her secret battle with breast cancer. She told her Instagram followers she has completed chemotherapy and feels 'very lucky' following months of treatment. Sharing the clip alongside a lengthy caption on Sunday, she wrote: 'This video is an important part of my recent journey, which I wanted to share with you. 'I've been on quite a road for many months now. I was diagnosed with breast cancer at the beginning of October. 'Since then I've undergone surgery and recovery over the Christmas period and today my chemotherapy journey ended. To conclude – I've just picked up my medal.' Heather was diagnosed with breast cancer in October 2023, and has continued working on EastEnders throughout parts of her treatment. In her video, which featured the actress being fitted with a wig, she thanked the production team and highlighted the support of those around her, while revealing she has needed a wig fitted during her health fight. 'There have been so many positives,' she said. 'Thank you to the whole EE team for going above and beyond. Particularly our amazing makeup team. 'And to Alex Rouss for the original wig and (stylist) Linda for the spot on cut. I've felt totally supported by you all.' Heather also expressed gratitude for her family, praising her wife Ellie and their three daughters – Annie, Jessie and Lola – for their love and encouragement. She said: 'There have been so many positives… Just trying to appreciate every moment of them.' Heather went on to extend heartfelt thanks to medical staff who cared for her. 'Thank you to the NHS. You are wonderful, skilled people. You treated me efficiently. You gave me dignity and showed me kindness. It's so appreciated,' she said. Heather concluded her post by reflecting on how her health fight had changed her, adding: 'Life feels very different now, but it's wonderful. 'I will continue to cherish and be grateful for all I am blessed with. I feel very lucky. With love, Heater.' Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world and affects more than two MILLION women a year Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world. Each year in the UK there are more than 55,000 new cases, and the disease claims the lives of 11,500 women. In the US, it strikes 266,000 each year and kills 40,000. But what causes it and how can it be treated? What is breast cancer? It comes from a cancerous cell which develops in the lining of a duct or lobule in one of the breasts. When the breast cancer has spread into surrounding tissue it is called 'invasive'. Some people are diagnosed with 'carcinoma in situ', where no cancer cells have grown beyond the duct or lobule. Most cases develop in those over the age of 50 but younger women are sometimes affected. Breast cancer can develop in men, though this is rare. Staging indicates how big the cancer is and whether it has spread. Stage 1 is the earliest stage and stage 4 means the cancer has spread to another part of the body. The cancerous cells are graded from low, which means a slow growth, to high, which is fast-growing. High-grade cancers are more likely to come back after they have first been treated. What causes breast cancer? A cancerous tumour starts from one abnormal cell. The exact reason why a cell becomes cancerous is unclear. It is thought that something damages or alters certain genes in the cell. This makes the cell abnormal and multiply 'out of control'. Although breast cancer can develop for no apparent reason, there are some risk factors that can increase the chance, such as genetics. What are the symptoms of breast cancer? The usual first symptom is a painless lump in the breast, although most are not cancerous and are fluid filled cysts, which are benign. The first place that breast cancer usually spreads to is the lymph nodes in the armpit. If this occurs you will develop a swelling or lump in an armpit. How is breast cancer diagnosed? Initial assessment: A doctor examines the breasts and armpits. They may do tests such as a mammography, a special x-ray of the breast tissue which can indicate the possibility of tumours. Biopsy: A biopsy is when a small sample of tissue is removed from a part of the body. The sample is then examined under a microscope to look for abnormal cells. The sample can confirm or rule out cancer. If you are confirmed to have breast cancer, further tests may be needed to assess if it has spread. For example, blood tests, an ultrasound scan of the liver or a chest X-ray. How is breast cancer treated? Treatment options which may be considered include surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and hormone treatment. Often a combination of two or more of these treatments are used. Surgery: Breast-conserving surgery or the removal of the affected breast depending on the size of the tumour. Radiotherapy: A treatment which uses high energy beams of radiation focused on cancerous tissue. This kills cancer cells, or stops them from multiplying. It is mainly used in addition to surgery. Chemotherapy: A treatment of cancer by using anti-cancer drugs which kill cancer cells, or stop them from multiplying. Hormone treatments: Some types of breast cancer are affected by the 'female' hormone oestrogen, which can stimulate the cancer cells to divide and multiply. Treatments which reduce the level of these hormones, or prevent them from working, are commonly used in people with breast cancer. How successful is treatment? The outlook is best in those who are diagnosed when the cancer is still small, and has not spread. Surgical removal of a tumour in an early stage may then give a good chance of cure. The routine mammography offered to women between the ages of 50 and 71 means more breast cancers are being diagnosed and treated at an early stage.
Spectator
4 hours ago
- Spectator
And now let's bomb Glastonbury
A small yield nuclear weapon, such as the American W89, dropped on Glastonbury in late June would immediately remove from our country almost everybody who is hugely annoying. You would see a marked reduction in the keffiyeh klan, for a start, and all those middle-class Extinction Rebellion protestors would find, in a nanosecond, that their rebellion was pointless, because extinction had arrived even more summarily than they expected. Go on, glue yourselves to that, Poppy and Oliver. Street drummers, liberal politicians, provo vegans, radical rappers, spiritual healers, Billy Bragg, that bloke who owns Forest Green Rovers, druggies, tattooed blue-haired hags, almost the entirety of middle-class London – all evaporated. I am not saying that we should do this, of course – it would be a horrible, psychopathic thing to do. I am merely hypothesising, in a slightly wistful kinda way. One on Glasto, one on Brighton, and the UK would soon begin its recovery, with only a few chunks of gently glowing cobalt 60 left to remind us of what we are missing. One on Glasto, one on Brighton, and the UK would soon begin its recovery The BBC would cease to exist, too. It identifies Glastonbury as an expression of the UK 'coming together', which shows you how much it understands about the country. It has poured millions of pounds of licence-payers' money into its coverage, and 400 staff were there last weekend, including the director-general, Tim Davie. Or at least 400 staff were actually working there – I'll bet another 400 or so were there in their little tents, desperate to surf the vibe or whatever the phrase is. All those people, then, and they still couldn't get it right. Nor should we take seriously their claims that pulling the ridiculous Bob Vylan from air would not be anywhere near as simple as flicking a switch. It is every bit as simple as flicking a switch, in that all they had to do was flick a switch. They had rafts of presenters who could have filled the time, plus cameras at every other stage in the festival site. All it needed was someone with the merest vestige of sentience to make the decision – but, then, this is the BBC we are talking about. Whoever was in charge of output at that moment – almost certainly someone called 'Johnny' or 'Ayesha' – probably just thought the stuff about the IDF was 'top bants'. In truth, I am not much worked up about the Bob Vylan (or Kneecap) stuff, per se. They were only doing what an endless list of hip young musicians have done at every summer festival going all the way back to Country Joe McDonald and 'one-two-three-four what are we fighting for?' – i.e., channelling infantile far-left agitprop devoid of nuance and context to an audience of gullible drongos. The difference is that the BBC decided to cover it, thinking – as it unquestionably does – that the majority of the country would be cheerfully humming along with Bob Vylan's tuneful music and are entirely down with the sentiments expressed. That is the BBC's real crime. It is worth a brief digression here on the nature of protest songs, of rock musicians playing politics and whether they have an effect or not. The BBC would argue that they do have an effect, that they tap into a perhaps previously unexpressed sentiment among the wider public and hence herald great change. Au contraire. In the mid- to late-1960s, the more protest songs and festival chants there were, the further to the right swung the rest of the electorate. As evidence, I would point you in the direction of Richard Nixon's comprehensive victory in 1968 and then, after Country Joe had done his stuff at Woodstock, a landslide in 1972. They all seriously believed McGovern was going to win that one, so wrapped up inside their radical bubble were they all (including the broadcasters). All those youthful protests of the 1960s resulted in surprise victories for the right at the polls a few years later – in the UK with Ted Heath in 1970, in France with an unexpected win for Pompidou in 1969, and of course the USA. The more fervently they insist that they are right, the more likely it is that the rest of the country will tell them to get stuffed. I suppose it is possible that Bob Vylan will do for Tim Davie, the DG – although he is the least of the corporation's problems, frankly. He knows he has a workforce which, in its arrogance, subscribes to a set of political beliefs unshared by the people who pay for its existence. And it is so endemic that there is nothing he can do about it. One little thing I noticed: the BBC News dutifully covered the Bob Vylan debacle and did so even handedly. But on every single occasion, on radio and TV, the story was immediately followed by a report of Israeli 'atrocities' in Gaza. Every single time. Do you think that is an accident? There was a programme on BBC Radio 4 on Monday, as part of the 'Currently' series, about Louise Lancaster, an environmental protestor who was finally (on her fifth conviction) handed down a four-year sentence (later reduced to three years) for organising a protest which seriously inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of people. You would be hard-pressed to find a more egregiously biased example of broadcasting. Lancaster – a middle-class teacher from Grantchester – was portrayed as a kind of saint, suffering state persecution for her entirely valid beliefs. The Sun and Daily Mail were mentioned disparagingly and every action taken by Lancaster lauded. The BBC decided first to commission this rubbish and then put it out. Can you imagine it doing a similar piece about Lucy Connolly? Not a chance. That is the real problem with the BBC. It is utterly incapable of recognising the bias it displays every day on an hourly basis, no matter how often that bias is pointed out. Bob Vylan, frankly, is the least of it.
Spectator
4 hours ago
- Spectator
Truly awful: Roblox's Grow a Garden reviewed
Grade: D– There's some scholarly research to be done, I fancy, on the strange psychological appeal of boringness in videogames. These gaudy things could be non-stop excitement, and yet many of the most successful are mega boring. 'Grinding' – repetitive tasks undertaken for incremental rewards – is a matter of pride and pleasure for serious gamers; and some games – I'm looking at you, interior-decorating Sims – really do offer a digital equivalent to watching paint dry. Remember FarmVille, for instance? Here was a truly mind-numbing Facebook game where you managed a virtual plot of land and grew corn and tomatoes and whatnot, traded them for imaginary currency, bought seed to grow more crops, and so ad infinitum. It is what sometimes gets called a 'Skinner box'. It was awful. Everyone loved it. Your mum loved it. It was Facebook's most popular game by miles. Anyway, the kids have now discovered FarmVille in a new form. It's called Grow a Garden, and it's on the Roblox platform, whose audience is pre-teen or tween, and the BBC reports that 16 million people are playing it. God help us. You buy some carrot seed, dump it in your blobby vegetable patch (the visuals are Minecraft meets Lego), harvest, sell, rinse, repeat. Your plants grow while you're offline, so even while you're at school your blocky virtual blueberries are growing. I found the best place to play Grow a Garden was in my allotment, where the time I spent attending to my virtual crops was time I wasn't acquiring blood-blisters digging out couch grass and horsetails and bitterly lamenting the sin of Adam. I felt bad. There's probably a lesson in there somewhere.
