Princess Kate battling cancer

Feels to me like Kensington Palace are getting pelters across social media by a whole bunch of posters trying to excuse being nosey banana splits.

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:Eesh. Can't help but feel a bit of a banana split now for enjoying the speculation/rumours.

Hope the treatment works and she makes a full recovery.

+1, hard yikes from me, sorry luv

Imrahil wrote:

Robbo-92 wrote:Terrible news for them, Charles and now Kate having treatment for cancer, seriously just strawberry float cancer.

It’s been handheld poorly throughout though, just say she’s ill? Rather than let everyone dissect an image to the pixel and create rumours.

To be fair they had already told the public she'd had major abdominal surgery that would require a recovery period. It wasn't exactly a big mystery why she was away from the public eye initially.

The bizarre desire - especially from the press - for her to 'show herself' shortly after she came out of hospital may have even contributed to that rushed family photo in the first place. Yeah, it was poorly handled by them obviously, but I don't think the press and elements of social media can get away scott-free with any of this.

It goes both ways I think.

You are right, I'd forgotten that was already well known, the tweaked image really set this in motion though, they really shouldn't have put the image out in that state, just release an image of her looking a bit worse for wear (if they wanted to), then when people ask why she looks ill, just remind them she's had major surgery since Christmas and still recovering. They shouldn't have to put out an image at all to appease the press though.

This whole thing's been really odd with how people have been demanding to know what's happening with Kate (despite us knowing she was going to be out of the public eye for several months), coming up with increasingly bizarre conspiracy theories and rumours (why does everything have to be a conspiracy theory these days?) and generally making a huge fuss and weird interent drama out of nothing. I'm sure it's difficult enough having to deal with a cancer diagnosis, come to terms with it yourself, work out how to tell your children, and then actually tell them, without the general public spreading all kinds of rumours and theories. I imagine that's only added to the stress and probably forced their hand on dealing with things in their own time. A great example of what morons people can be.

Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy

Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed

False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy

Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed

Nail on head.

False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy

Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed

What untruths?
What misinformation?

I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.

still wrote:

False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy

Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed

What untruths?
What misinformation?

I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.

It's been more than 3 months of saying "everything is fine", topped off with a (very badly) photoshopped photo.

Moggy wrote:

still wrote:

False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy

Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed

What untruths?
What misinformation?

I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.

It's been more than 3 months of saying "everything is fine", topped off with a (very badly) photoshopped photo.

You’ll have to do a hell of a lot better than that to prove lies or misinformation I’m afraid.

still wrote:

Moggy wrote:

still wrote:

False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy

Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed

What untruths?
What misinformation?

I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.

It's been more than 3 months of saying "everything is fine", topped off with a (very badly) photoshopped photo.

You’ll have to do a hell of a lot better than that to prove lies or misinformation I’m afraid.

You don't think a photoshopped photo is misinformation?

Ok.

still wrote:

False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy

Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed

What untruths?
What misinformation?

I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.

What.

They've been lying about her health condition for 3 months. Understandably so, but it's indisputable that they haven't been telling the truth until now.

Moggy wrote:

still wrote:

Moggy wrote:

still wrote:

False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy

Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed

What untruths?
What misinformation?

I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.

It's been more than 3 months of saying "everything is fine", topped off with a (very badly) photoshopped photo.

You’ll have to do a hell of a lot better than that to prove lies or misinformation I’m afraid.

You don't think a photoshopped photo is misinformation?

Ok.

Hang on, everybody photoshops their photos and she has explained why. Clumsy but not criminal.

Tomous wrote:

still wrote:

False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy

Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed

What untruths?
What misinformation?

I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.

What.

They've been lying about her health condition for 3 months. Understandably so, but it's indisputable that they haven't been telling the truth until now.

Factually incorrect. As stated she went in for abdominal surgery with the presumption that it wasn’t cancerous. The diagnosis of cancer came as a result of the operation. Like I’ve said I am not remotely a monarchist but I would prefer it if we stuck to the facts.

still wrote:

Moggy wrote:

still wrote:

Moggy wrote:

still wrote:

False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy

Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed

What untruths?
What misinformation?

I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.

It's been more than 3 months of saying "everything is fine", topped off with a (very badly) photoshopped photo.

You’ll have to do a hell of a lot better than that to prove lies or misinformation I’m afraid.

You don't think a photoshopped photo is misinformation?

Ok.

Hang on, everybody photoshops their photos and she has explained why. Clumsy but not criminal.

News agencies pulled the use of the photo on the grounds of its manipulation, which is what kicked this from the speculation of weirdos into an actual PR nightmare.

And you actually believe she photoshopped herself ?

still wrote:

Tomous wrote:

still wrote:

False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy

Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed

What untruths?
What misinformation?

I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.

What.

They've been lying about her health condition for 3 months. Understandably so, but it's indisputable that they haven't been telling the truth until now.

Factually incorrect. As stated she went in for abdominal surgery with the presumption that it wasn’t cancerous. The diagnosis of cancer came as a result of the operation. Like I’ve said I am not remotely a monarchist but I would prefer it if we stuck to the facts.

Do you think she just got the result back today or something?

They've known for 3 months and she started chemotherapy at the end of February but the whole time they've said she was at home recovering from the surgery only.

As people expected, they weren't telling the whole story and there was more going on.

still wrote:

Moggy wrote:

still wrote:

Moggy wrote:

still wrote:

False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy

Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed

What untruths?
What misinformation?

I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.

It's been more than 3 months of saying "everything is fine", topped off with a (very badly) photoshopped photo.

You’ll have to do a hell of a lot better than that to prove lies or misinformation I’m afraid.

You don't think a photoshopped photo is misinformation?

Ok.

Hang on, everybody photoshops their photos and she has explained why. Clumsy but not criminal.

No, a lot of people do not photoshop their photos.

And even if they did, they are not the future Queen who released a photo to prove all is well.

And nobody has said it was criminal.

Hexx wrote:And you actually believe she photoshopped herself ?

And exactly where did I say this?! Of course I don’t. Your point is?

Tomous wrote:

still wrote:

Tomous wrote:

still wrote:

False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy

Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed

What untruths?
What misinformation?

I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.

What.


They've been lying about her health condition for 3 months. Understandably so, but it's indisputable that they haven't been telling the truth until now.

Factually incorrect. As stated she went in for abdominal surgery with the presumption that it wasn’t cancerous. The diagnosis of cancer came as a result of the operation. Like I’ve said I am not remotely a monarchist but I would prefer it if we stuck to the facts.

Do you think she just got the result back today or something?

They've known for 3 months and she started chemotherapy at the end of February but the whole time they've said she was at home recovering from the surgery only.

As people expected, they weren't telling the whole story and there was more going on.

Prove ‘they’ve known this for three months’ please. They have not said she was only recovering from surgery just recovering. Keeping information back is not yet, as far as I know it, in this country a criminal offence.

still wrote:

Tomous wrote:

still wrote:

Tomous wrote:

still wrote:

False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy

Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed

What untruths?
What misinformation?

I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.

What.


They've been lying about her health condition for 3 months. Understandably so, but it's indisputable that they haven't been telling the truth until now.

Factually incorrect. As stated she went in for abdominal surgery with the presumption that it wasn’t cancerous. The diagnosis of cancer came as a result of the operation. Like I’ve said I am not remotely a monarchist but I would prefer it if we stuck to the facts.

Do you think she just got the result back today or something?

They've known for 3 months and she started chemotherapy at the end of February but the whole time they've said she was at home recovering from the surgery only.

As people expected, they weren't telling the whole story and there was more going on.

Prove ‘they’ve known this for three months’ please. They have not said she was only recovering from surgery just recovering. Keeping information back is not yet, as far as I know it, in this country a criminal offence.

No one is saying they committed a criminal offence, why are you arguing this