Princess Kate battling cancer

DML wrote:Also William has still

Thought he was being overly defensive tbh.

DML wrote:Also William has still cheated on Kate.

And now given her cancer. The prick.

Bit of a double whammy. Why after Charles' admission they kept this quiet I've no idea. They know they're in the public eye (with some having a very unhealthy obsession) so why the subterfuge? Did they think people would panic now that the future Queen has cancer on top of the King?

If anything it would be a reminder to all that cancer can hit you at any age.

they released a statement on Charles to "avoid speculation", yet done everything in their power to hide this.

What was the end game? A full recovery for Kate with it never being disclosed?

i don't think you can be in the royal family and ever expect the same levels of privacy the average citizen can. kind of the reason harry and meghan pissed off (rightfully, imo)

I feel there is some serious entitlement going on with all this. I'm not sure why some people think they should have revealed the cancer diagnosis earlier than they did. They have 3 young children to think about and - with it being preventative chemo for hopefully very limited cancer signs - they may have even been considering shielding their kids (especially Louis) from the full extent of the treatment she was getting. Which does happen.

Or at the very least they may have wanted to wait until the worst of the treatment was over before delicately broaching the subject with them. I just can't imagine the concept of having any kind of say over a mother's process of dealing with a cancer diagnosis with her children. It seems her hand was forced in the end.

Kind of feels like they were between a rock and a hard place. But it's been pretty staggering seeing the level of ignorance about why King Charles would be open about it and Princess Kate might not be initially. Anyone with even a vague understanding of these things will know why.

Prototype wrote:i don't think you can be in the royal family and ever expect the same levels of privacy the average citizen can. kind of the reason harry and meghan pissed off (rightfully, imo)

I agree with this. I have a lot of sympathy for her, with what she is going through and how she has had to reveal it earlier than she would have wanted. However, this is the life they have chosen. And that life comes with a huge amount of benefit and luxury. But also a complete loss of privacy. I'm not saying it should be like that (well, the royal family shouldn't exist at all) but that's how it is.

Imrahil wrote:I feel there is some serious entitlement going on with all this. I'm not sure why some people think they should have revealed the cancer diagnosis earlier than they did.

With any other "celebrity", I'd agree with you. We have zero right to know anything about the private lives of actors and pop stars.

But when it comes to somebody who will be the Queen in a few years time, the right to total privacy disappears due to the the role they have.

The same would go for the Prime Minister. If you want to rule or reign over the country, then you don't get the right to keep that country in the dark over things like this.

Moggy wrote:

Imrahil wrote:I feel there is some serious entitlement going on with all this. I'm not sure why some people think they should have revealed the cancer diagnosis earlier than they did.

With any other "celebrity", I'd agree with you. We have zero right to know anything about the private lives of actors and pop stars.

But when it comes to somebody who will be the Queen in a few years time, the right to total privacy disappears due to the the role they have.

The same would go for the Prime Minister. If you want to rule or reign over the country, then you don't get the right to keep that country in the dark over things like this.

That seems like an arbitrary line in the sand to me, plus I don't agree it's the same as if it were a Prime Minister. The Royal Family don't run the country and have their finger on the nuclear button, they are representatives of a constitutional monarchy. Having some privacy when it comes to choosing the best time to reveal the extent of cancer treatment for their kids welfare doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Imrahil wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Imrahil wrote:I feel there is some serious entitlement going on with all this. I'm not sure why some people think they should have revealed the cancer diagnosis earlier than they did.

With any other "celebrity", I'd agree with you. We have zero right to know anything about the private lives of actors and pop stars.

But when it comes to somebody who will be the Queen in a few years time, the right to total privacy disappears due to the the role they have.

The same would go for the Prime Minister. If you want to rule or reign over the country, then you don't get the right to keep that country in the dark over things like this.

That seems like an arbitrary line in the sand to me, plus I don't agree it's the same as if it were a Prime Minister. The Royal Family don't run the country and have their finger on the nuclear button, they are representatives of a constitutional monarchy. Having some privacy when it comes to choosing the best time to reveal the extent of cancer treatment for their kids welfare doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

It's not arbitrary. They are the family that reigns over this (and other) country.

I would agree they don't have to reveal their health minutes after a diagnosis. But their position does mean it should be revealed relatively quickly and without dodgy photoshopped images pretending everything is fine.

Imrahil wrote:I feel there is some serious entitlement going on with all this...

Yep.

jawa_ wrote:Yep.

noun

the fact of having a right to something.

Yep, people do indeed have a right to know what's going on with the future Queen.

Moggy wrote:

Imrahil wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Imrahil wrote:I feel there is some serious entitlement going on with all this. I'm not sure why some people think they should have revealed the cancer diagnosis earlier than they did.

With any other "celebrity", I'd agree with you. We have zero right to know anything about the private lives of actors and pop stars.

But when it comes to somebody who will be the Queen in a few years time, the right to total privacy disappears due to the the role they have.

The same would go for the Prime Minister. If you want to rule or reign over the country, then you don't get the right to keep that country in the dark over things like this.

That seems like an arbitrary line in the sand to me, plus I don't agree it's the same as if it were a Prime Minister. The Royal Family don't run the country and have their finger on the nuclear button, they are representatives of a constitutional monarchy. Having some privacy when it comes to choosing the best time to reveal the extent of cancer treatment for their kids welfare doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

It's not arbitrary. They are the family that reigns over this (and other) country.

I would agree they don't have to reveal their health minutes after a diagnosis. But their position does mean it should be revealed relatively quickly and without dodgy photoshopped images pretending everything is fine.

Well, I think it is. I don't feel their position denies those basic rights in certain unique situations such as this when kids are involved.

I just think any situation where people are claiming any kind of right (or placing demands) over a woman's personal decision making when it comes to their children's welfare and a cancer diagnosis seems pretty backwards and non-progressive to me. It trumps any personal views on constitutional monarchy VS republic, etc.

aayl1 wrote:

DML wrote:Also William has still

Thought he was being overly defensive tbh.

At least he’s finally been allowed to go to bed.

What I don't understand is why God would choose these people to reign over us as our divine superiors, only to start dishing out cancer at them... what's up with that?

Imrahil wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Imrahil wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Imrahil wrote:I feel there is some serious entitlement going on with all this. I'm not sure why some people think they should have revealed the cancer diagnosis earlier than they did.

With any other "celebrity", I'd agree with you. We have zero right to know anything about the private lives of actors and pop stars.

But when it comes to somebody who will be the Queen in a few years time, the right to total privacy disappears due to the the role they have.

The same would go for the Prime Minister. If you want to rule or reign over the country, then you don't get the right to keep that country in the dark over things like this.

That seems like an arbitrary line in the sand to me, plus I don't agree it's the same as if it were a Prime Minister. The Royal Family don't run the country and have their finger on the nuclear button, they are representatives of a constitutional monarchy. Having some privacy when it comes to choosing the best time to reveal the extent of cancer treatment for their kids welfare doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

It's not arbitrary. They are the family that reigns over this (and other) country.

I would agree they don't have to reveal their health minutes after a diagnosis. But their position does mean it should be revealed relatively quickly and without dodgy photoshopped images pretending everything is fine.

Well, I think it is. I don't feel their position denies those basic rights in certain unique situations such as this when kids are involved.

I just think any situation where people are claiming any kind of right (or placing demands) over a woman's personal decision making when it comes to their children's welfare and a cancer diagnosis seems pretty backwards and non-progressive to me. It trumps any personal views on constitutional monarchy VS republic, etc.

You are really going with a "think of the children!" with added "she's a woman! Be progressive!" argument here?

It's got nothing to do with her being a woman. I'd have the same opinion about Charles, William or Rishi Sunak. The role they have in the country (and the privilege that comes with it) means they forgo any right to privacy for serious health issues.

Moggy wrote:

Imrahil wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Imrahil wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Imrahil wrote:I feel there is some serious entitlement going on with all this. I'm not sure why some people think they should have revealed the cancer diagnosis earlier than they did.

With any other "celebrity", I'd agree with you. We have zero right to know anything about the private lives of actors and pop stars.

But when it comes to somebody who will be the Queen in a few years time, the right to total privacy disappears due to the the role they have.

The same would go for the Prime Minister. If you want to rule or reign over the country, then you don't get the right to keep that country in the dark over things like this.

That seems like an arbitrary line in the sand to me, plus I don't agree it's the same as if it were a Prime Minister. The Royal Family don't run the country and have their finger on the nuclear button, they are representatives of a constitutional monarchy. Having some privacy when it comes to choosing the best time to reveal the extent of cancer treatment for their kids welfare doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

It's not arbitrary. They are the family that reigns over this (and other) country.

I would agree they don't have to reveal their health minutes after a diagnosis. But their position does mean it should be revealed relatively quickly and without dodgy photoshopped images pretending everything is fine.

Well, I think it is. I don't feel their position denies those basic rights in certain unique situations such as this when kids are involved.

I just think any situation where people are claiming any kind of right (or placing demands) over a woman's personal decision making when it comes to their children's welfare and a cancer diagnosis seems pretty backwards and non-progressive to me. It trumps any personal views on constitutional monarchy VS republic, etc.

You are really going with a "think of the children!" with added "she's a woman! Be progressive!" argument here?

It's got nothing to do with her being a woman. I'd have the same opinion about Charles, William or Rishi Sunak. The role they have in the country (and the privilege that comes with it) means they forgo any right to privacy for serious health issues.

And you're really going with the 'forgoing any right to privacy' argument? Did Louis have any say in being a Royal? Because this directly affects him too.

I don't care how rich, famous, royal, powerful someone is - the concept of having any power or say over a woman doing what's best for her children is the antithesis of how I operate.

The diagnosis is sad for her and her friends/family, like with anyone. Fortunately for her she'll have the best medical treatment money can afford in the best hospitals, and won't struggle to access care, or survive financially, or have to juggle family and treatment, etc etc. So that's nice.

The weird relationship between the royal family and the media/masses is one they have to tolerate - they know they need those wackos to be able to maintain their position of obscene, unimaginable privilege built on the blood of others. Disclosure should be done whenever she chooses, but the wild speculation and intense scrutiny is to be expected. You reap what you sow.

It's also worth remembering that Kate wasn't born into that particular freak show; she chose to join it voluntarily.

Not entirely fair. She’s seemingly been groomed all her life to be a suitable broodmare for the royal seed.

Van Foster wrote:It's also worth remembering that Kate wasn't born into that particular freak show; she chose to join it voluntarily.

They also chose to bring up their kids in that environment. William could have given up the throne and they could have chosen to live a more private life under less scrutiny

Entitlement works both ways.

For example, I don't assume Kate is subject to the same waiting times my dad was/is when dealing with his cancer.