King Charles has cancer Part 2

So, can KC3 create William Regent or does it have to go through Parliament?

I’m regent bitches. You cunts better bow.

r1 I'm not sure Charles would legally be allowed to appoint his own regent since weirdly that would indicate he's still capable. But you wouldn't need an act anyway you'd just need this to happen "the Sovereign’s spouse, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, and Speaker of the House of Commons (as of February 2024, these are the Queen, Alex Chalk MP, Baroness (Sue) Carr, Sir Geoffrey Vos and Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP). Any declaration of incapacity needs to be signed by three or more of them. Declarations need to be supported by evidence including medical evidence."

Regency would have to be approved by Parliament.

It is unlikely C3 would make William regent unless things get much worse.

It’s CR not C3 or (shudder) KC3.

Please pray🙏 for our beloved monarch! He is bravely hanging on by his swollen fingertips!

[quote] Let's continue to discuss here!

Omigosh!

[quote] In five years William will likely be King William V.

But not in ten.

I just read an interesting, and from my experience accurate, quote:

"A narcissist wants the authority of a king while having the accountability of a toddler".

I think that also describes the Montecito menaces well.

I read it's bladder cancer

^ Believable he's such a piss poor King.

^boo

OP Get back to us when Charlie's a No Longer Surviving Angel.

I still do a double take when I hear Camilla referred to as the Queen. There was a headline on the BBC saying that the Queen says Charles is doing well, and I briefly wondered where they found a medium.

r5, get fucked, you knew who I was talking about, even if I called him Chuckie. Chuckie, son of Betty and Phil.

[quote] get fucked

Yes, please.

r9 Perfectly so. Their fantasies are extremely childish but they seem incapable of adjusting to the reality their fantasy won't come true.

Willy swaying like the angry drunk he is😮

Because a 76yo with cancer is immortal. Especially if he's "royalty. 😂

Willy swaying like a candle in the wind.

New Royal poll out today. Prince William remains the most popular royal, Catherine and then the King.

The whole lot of them are boozers. Willy,Kate,Camilla,Andrew,Charlie,Margaret,Queen Mum. Worthless pissed drunks all.

Whenever the monarchy is circling the drain the" Palace "commissions a new "Royal" poll and it always shows how "beloved and popular they are among the 200 pensioners that were polled. Remember when Willy was proclaimed the most "respected" leader in the Whole Wide World?. Of course royalass lap it up. Comedy gold.

R14 I had the same reaction because there was only one queen and she is no longer with us.

You Megstans are VILE ! It is well known the HRH Duke of Cambridge has an INNER EAR INBALACE. The poor man suffers with Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV).It is believed HRH contracted this when he heroically rescued a drowning man during his service as RAF Search and Rescue pilot. To imply that his swaying back and forth on a solid floor has anything to do with drinking is an INSULT to all veterans!!!

^

Where was I on that approval rating list?

My nephew was unbalanced because he is not used to walking in heels like me.

By existing law, William is automatically the regent if a regency is declared; Charles doesn't choose the Regent. The designation of someone else as regent would require the passage of a new law. I can imagine that happening when William is king, just in case anything should happen to him while George is still a minor: no one wants Harry, the next adult in line for the throne, to serve as regent, except perhaps his wife.

Is it cervical cancer?

I hope not. It can be deadly!

William was swaying because the royal yacht was in rough seas. DUMBO!

Apparently Kate too suffers from vertigo. It must be a "royal disease". Awful.

^ Was that why she was in the hospital for two weeks?

Wouldn't a regency only be called for if he was underage? I think that at 75 he's well beyond that

R34 has never heard of George IV's position before his ascent to the throne.

[quote]Where was I on that approval rating list?

They're afraid to ask, Your Royal Highness.

A regency can occur both when the monarch is under 18 and when the monarch is unable to perform the functions of the monarch. When George III finally lost touch with reality permanently, his son became regent. The son later inherited the throne as George IV.

The 25th amendment had what is the U.S. version of a regency.

[quote]"A narcissist wants the authority of a king while having the accountability of a toddler".

Nicely put, I'm gonna hire that writer for my campaign team!

R39 He's already on my team! Cheers!

R39 DJT? I don't know him.

🤝

Calling Camilla a cancer is a bit harsh. Butt ugly, yes.

[quote] I can imagine that happening when William is king, just in case anything should happen to him while George is still a minor

Not an issue, I assure you.

R42 Biden thought he was greeting George VI.

r43, true, as she is more like an incurable venereal disease like Genital Herpes.

You just can't get rid of the Herps, but you can marry it.

r23 Where is your evidence that the Palace commissioned a poll and then manipulated its results??

Kate is worried about William taking on too much work but is fine with Charles having cancer? What a fucking lazy insensitive cunt.

“Princess Kate Middleton? “ Really? It’s not that hard, people.

Charles and now OJ with his cancer diagnosis. Another thing linking them; two men who regretted marrying flighty blondes.

So the rumors are Charles has bladder cancer and Kate has ovarian cancer?

So the Queen dies and everything goes to hell. The family is crumbling the Muslims take over the city and the universities where the anti-semites breed like rabbits destroy everything with their DEI agenda.

Never heard the rumor about Kate and ovarian cancer. That would be incredibly devastating if true. That’s like pancreatic cancer, it’s usually caught too late.

R52,d I’d you take a wrong turn on your way to LieSocial? Damn the trolls are trying to infest DL, they’re like cockroaches. Nothing kills them.

^Did you…

R49 I do love how “Princess Kate Middleton” is worried about the “psychic” toll this is having on Prince William.

Gotta love Fox News!

Thank you R37, that was helpful (unlike the twat R35). When do counsellors of state come in then?

R54 Came from bacteria in a petri dish. He was found in a refrigerator in a high school biology class.

R35 is funny, as if anyone gives a shit or even remembers George IV.

Fuck you, r59

SEETH KLAN GRANIES . SEETH.

SUCK IT UP YOU DERANGED CUNTS😂

I wish.

R57, this is R37. Counsellors of State are appointed by the monarch to take over his or her constitutional duties while the monarch is temporarily incapacitated or out of the country, although there are restrictions to the Counsellors' authority (e.g., the Counsellors of State cannot dissolve parliament without the monarch's express instruction to do so). There are always two Counsellors functioning at one time. The Counsellors of State are the monarch's spouse and the first four adults in the line of succession. Right now, that's Queen Camilla, Prince William, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew, and Princess Beatrice. It's been established that potential Counsellors who are not working royals will not be called upon to serve (i.e., Prince Harry, Prince Andrew, and Princess Beatrice). Thus, a law was recently passed to include Prince Edward and Princess Anne among the individuals who can be called on to serve. I can recall seeing a notice hanging on the gate at Buckingham Palace in 1974 indicating that the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret, by instruction of Queen Elizabeth II, had dissolved Parliament. It was signed "Elizabeth R" and "Margaret."

I thought the Palace said Kate didn’t have cancer.

Cheating Pa's dying of cancer. Racist sis- in -law is on indefinite medical leave. Basher Bro is drunk in public and my bank account could be £3 million richer.

A Good Day in Montecito USA.

Was there a separate thread about what Kate has? I always just assumed that she ovarian cysts. Just a hunch. What's the consensus on DL?

[quote] So the Queen dies and everything goes to hell. The family is crumbling the Muslims take over the city and the universities where the anti-semites breed like rabbits destroy everything with their DEI agenda.

If only the Queen were still alive! She'd kick all those libs right in the ass.

OJ has cancer???

^ OMG another WOG ROYAL

[quote] ^ OMG another WOG ROYAL

Who is the other one? Edo?

R69: Yes

Who cares if people like me??? I'M going to the SuperBowl! Suck it peasants!!!!

I think I suspect I feel during the secret surgery in the December convoy that went near a hospital, they not only transplanted Kate's prostate but they took her cervix too and that's how Charles got cervical cancer. It makes sense given how lazy and wok shy Kate is.

R74 for fucks sake enough already with your boring posts, they are not funny.

What r75 said.

Honeys 90% of the posts of this thread lack any virtue of any description. Kiss my ass.

I don't see 74's post. Guess I blocked them a while ago for a reason.

I'm still thinking that the 'prostate exam' was a ruse. There is no prostate problem. He had cancer symptoms, and they made up a prostate problem that they could easily shelf should the cancer screening come out clean. When cancer was confirmed and absence from the public would be inevitable, a prostate problem didn't cut it anymore. So they came out with the next least revealing statement that was needed to explain future events, the absence from the public. Cannot really base it on anything; it's just a hunch. And then there are of course the missing standard statements, like "good prognosis for full recovery". If there was a silver lining, they would at least hint at it.

I hate that Cruella de Markle and her mother are probably grinning maniacally in Montecito believing they "manifested" these health problems for the RF.

Cue Markle's flying monkeys to swoop in and attack me for saying this. LOL.

How strange to live in a world where you think things are made up in situations where no making up is necessary. A very odd way to live a life.

R74, you probably blocked me because I called you on your nonsensical bullshit. That's my only crime on DL and many people can't take it.

At least a couple are blocked, r79.

R75 Klan Grannies are not noted for their sense of humor.

Maybe at some point maybe someone can explain to me what Klan Grannies are. I might be one without even knowing. It's really just a kill-all derogatory label to silence others, isn't it? Maybe it's not even important to know.

R84, it means you don't praise Meghan. And probably have a gross income in excess of $15,000 a year. And a high school diploma.

R84, see r79 for an example of a Klan Granny.

Why do you Klan Grans fanatically promote your circus yet demand we not laugh at your clowns?

FYI: a flying monkey is someone who does the dirty work of narcissist.

Cruella de Vil was mean to dogs. There are questions about Markle's treatment of her dogs and she was also mean to three-year-old Charlotte as corroborated by the Givenchy seamstress. Halfwit Harry was abusive to his polo horse (there are photos) and supposedly violent with hookers. I don't know what the cartoon character name for the male version of Cruella is but that's what Harry is.

"Hostilities flared up last week between Prince Harry and Queen Camilla. Or rather, the Duke of Sussex apparently launched an unprovoked volley in the direction of a 75-year-old woman. In an irony that will no doubt escape this self-proclaimed feminist and Lochinvar of the New World, Harry, I hear, preferred not to be in the same room with his stepmother when he spoke to the King about his cancer diagnosis, following the most precipitous and historic mercy mission to Blighty since Lend Lease. As olive branches go, it’s a massive opportunity missed by the Prince of Petulance – though it’s likely our laidback Queen wouldn’t have minded either way. "

Why does Camila need to be present for Harry to talk to his father?

R90 perhaps Harry’s father wanted a witness to the conversation, given Harry’s creative approach to the facts in the past.

Plus, she’s the wife of the King to whom she’s been married for nineteen years. Remember, Harry said that he loved Camilla to bits at that time. Another lie, presumably.

[quote]our laidback Queen

Frequently.

[quote] Why does Camila need to be present for Harry to talk to his father?

If Charles didn't want Camilla there, she wouldn't have been there.

I don't know what's is so hard to figure out here.

Charles did not want to be alone with his son because his son is an untrustworthy pussy-whipped mama's boy who acts out in pissy rages. Being paid to attend events is unfitting and sad, since he and his cunt wife are mere celebrities now in the way that the Gabors were (except perhaps partly for Eva), they parasitize the family ruthlessly, because it's all they have to sell.

Camilla is the only appropriate person to be there with Charles as a completely discreet witness. And Harry insulted her gravely, and Camilla is not the type to stand down, but also is not the type to display a grudge against her husband's son. She's above it, and down to earth but still the fucking Queen of England. (No one called Elizabeth Sr. "Queen Consort.") William absolutely refuses to consider any contact with his disgusting brother, and no one - no one - wants to be anywhere near Sussex now. Charles is king and the family members know what he is due, according to the rules they all play by, for their duty and to their own benefit. Margaret's kids and grandchildren, the Kents, the Gloucesters, the Ogilvys, as well as Sussex's aunt and uncles and families, are united on the subject of the Nouveau Duke of Windsor and his maniacal American divorcee adventuress.

Thank you, R93.

That's exactly the truth.

Given the despicable comments about Camilla, Charles wife , which have come from Charles's younger son over the past months, having Camilla at this 12 minute meeting makes complete sense.

Harry seems incapable of "reading the room" in this regard. Would Harry really be so blind and have actually have expected that Camilla would be excluded from this meeting with his father because Harry insisted it be so? Really?

There are none so blind as those who cannot see.

The duration of this now notorious meeting is assessed as shorter by the day. 45, 30, 20, 12 minutes. And thus ever more provocative to the volatile Harry. He'll be longing to 'put the record straight', and might just be foolish enough to do so.

The closeness between Charles and Camilla is easily seen in photographs and videos of them together. Can anyone remember seeing the same between Charles and Diana? I can't.

Harry appears to be obsessed with his mother and it may be likely that he is just not able to set aside those feeling in the short time he had with his ill father in that meeting. His father, who, from what I've read, had just had the first round of treatment for his cancer and was probably eager to be on his way to Norfolk. But Charles's plans were spiked and delayed because Harry took it upon himself to show up in London. Camilla would have known this and would have been eager for them to be on their way so that Charles could recover from the treatment in peace. Rather than deal with Charles's troublesome second born.

Harry might well have had instructions from his wife too as to what information to pry out of his father and/or perhaps hit up the "Bank of Charles" for money, as he tried to do in the Queen's last days.

It has been pointed out that Charles treatment was immediate. Where the normal British citizen with the NHS can wait a long time. I'm sure Charles and Camilla don't give a fuck. It's the point of royalty.

[quote]the Nouveau Duke of Windsor and his maniacal American divorcee adventuress.

To be fair to the Duchess of Windsor, she was only a very limited adventuress, in that she wanted to social climb by sleeping with the future King, but she never intended to marry him and absolutely didn't want to be the centre of that scandal. She was quite happy married to Ernest Simpson, and wrote him affectionate letters all her life. Meghan, on the other hand, appears to have intended to use Harry as a stepping-stone to William, which is hilarious and sad all at once.

R98, "the normal British citizen with the NHS" doesn't have to pay for medical treatment. Everyone among the aristocratic classes will be using private health care, paying big bucks, and won't have to wait. Besides, NHS patients who need urgent cancer treatment (or any other kind of really urgent treatment) DO still get it. The seriousness of cancers varies depending on when they were caught and how aggressive they are.

[quote]Where the normal British citizen with the NHS can wait a long time.

Many Brits have private insurance through work, so it's not special treatment just for them. If you're ready to pay out of pocket, front of the line. Like the U.S. Generally, the public systems triage... after a serious diagnosis you move quickly. I'm not sure what the NHS cancer rates are like. I'm not going to argue it's one of the better public systems, I think it's likely it is not. But the general principle will hold: whatever fast looks like, it will be provided for the most seriously ill.

The longest duration mentioned - 45 minutes - is still quite obviously a snub when the person in question traveled from California to London to see you. Charles couldn't have been more clear what he thought of the sincerity of that mad dash, whether it was 12 minutes or 45.

Claws out from Camilla Tominey:

As we learn later, the wholesome mother-of-two went to an all-girls Catholic school “which she continues to support as an alumna”.

Oh, to be in on one of Meghan’s guest assemblies: “Kidnapped by the monarchy: How I spent a summer at Sir Elton John’s Nice mansion without access to my passport.”

Harry once accused William and Charles of being “trapped” in the monarchy but as sovereign and heir to the throne, that’s surely an occupational hazard. What’s Harry and Meghan’s excuse?

There is absolutely no reason for these non-working royals to carry on using their titles – not least with an entire website dedicated to telling the world that they are much, much more than mere royalty.

She is also apparently a “major advocate” for “family care”, which may come as a surprise to her estranged father and the rest of the Markle family she doesn’t appear to have cared much about in years.

Meghan’s description as “one of the most influential women in the world” is rather more lofty. The evidence for this claim appears to be that the author of the children’s picture book, The Bench, featured in Time magazine’s most influential people, the Financial Times’ 25 most influential women, Variety Power of Women, and British Vogue’s Vogue 25 - although not, curiously, the final issue by outgoing editor Edward Enninful, published last week, featuring 40 female “legends”. Ouch. The summary goes to great lengths (588 words to Harry’s 340) to remind everyone that she is a great deal more than just his wife.

Meghan’s podcast Archetypes is mentioned in its capacity as being Number One in 47 countries – not as a one-hit wonder that was axed after one season. Unsurprisingly, the word “grifter” which was used to describe the pair by Spotify mogul Bill Simmons doesn’t feature on the website at all.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the rebrand, however, is the tag line on the “Archewell Foundation” page: “Show up, Do good”. While an admirable rallying cry to the masses, visitors to sussex.com could arguably be forgiven for wondering when exactly, apart from the commendable Invictus Games, Harry and Meghan have shown up and done good since leaving the Royal family.

Meghan cites Smart Works, which supports women to enter the workforce and the Hubb Community Kitchen at Grenfell – but like Invictus, both initiatives happened when she was in “The Firm”.

Since “Megxit”, what have they done? They’ve shown up and done Oprah; shown up and done Netflix; shown up and gone Spare; shown up and sued The Sun, the Daily Mail and The Mirror.

They’ve shown up at awards ceremonies (but only the ones in which they are recipients) and shown up in “near catastrophic” car chases that the police say never actually happened.

They’ve shown up and self-promoted; shown up and complained about invasion of privacy, while invading their relatives’ privacy.

As a result of their behaviour, they’ve been shown up on South Park and Family Guy.

But with their popularity having tanked both here and in the US, none of it seems to have done them much good, let alone anyone else. It is a shame because these two actually do have the power to make a difference, if only they could get over themselves.

The perception of Harry and Meghan as a couple who do more harm than good has got to change if this rebrand is going to live up to its magisterial pretensions.

Camilla probably insisted on being there so Charles the marshmallow didn't waver in the grey rocking of the prodigal son.

[quote]They’ve shown up and...sued The Sun, the Daily Mail and The Mirror.

So not all bad, then.

Wow. The world is SO close to a Millennial King and Queen. For once, they'll get something over the Boomers with Charles having a very short reign and millennials a LOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG one.

^ Getting a little ahead of ourselves here, aren't we? At this point the man is still very alive and getting treatment with the rest being HIGHLY speculative. You are not getting his stuff just yet.

Please, R106, last week these crepers were planning Kate's funeral.

R106 King Charles is 75 and has cancer. He is not long for this world and the Baby Boomers' royal reign will be mercifully short, which is probably the first bit of bad luck they'd had in awhile.

How is he holding up?

Where is the King?

Waiting to be euthanized at Sandringam...

A Sunday church-walk and wave is the current public benchmark of The King's health. Any change in this weekly visual update will of course provoke widespread speculation.

The Queen, accompanied by members of the royal family, will attend a thanksgiving service for the life of King Constantine of the Hellenes at St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, on 27th February.

William will be king of the United Kingdom, r105, not of the world.

The Baby Boomers are going to have one of the shortest reigns in British Monarch history!

THANK YOU, QEII!

Didn't see any church-walk and wave pictures from this Sunday. As though in compensation, and variation, there was the short clip of The King greeting the PM before their weekly audience.

William will be lucky to be the King of England and Wales.

SNP official policy is to retain the monarchy, r117.

Charles reading some of the get-well-soon cards he received following his prognosis

William and Kate should just poison him already and take what's theirs.

Oh dear, what now?

William has pulled out of his godfather's memorial service over a "personal matter", although Kate is apparently fine.

[quote] Was there a separate thread about what Kate has? I always just assumed that she ovarian cysts. Just a hunch. What's the consensus on DL?

Sounds like a good guess - but two weeks seems a long time in hospital for that.

King Constantine of the Hellenes was not my King!

[quote]William and Kate should just poison him already and take what's theirs.

Vladimir Putin is currently such a hot influencer.

I think Kate is far from "fine."

The service would not even have involved travel. Camilla is standing in for him and her husband has cancer.

I think Kate is far more ill than they have acknowledged.

Either that or Louis has set fire to the house.

He was out at the BAFTAs, etc., so, something has changed.

His diagnosis, R119. The prognosis is whether you're going to be fine, or else how long you've probably got. We don't know what Charles's prognosis is.

The continued lack of leaks on Kate’s real condition is pretty amazing.

It also speaks to its seriousness. My guess is very few people even inside KP know what her ailment and progress are, and they have been told, We're serious about this one: you say one word and you're dead to us.

The service is right at Windsor, not far away. That he pulled out of it at the last minute seems quite concerning.

R130 It truly is. Makes me wonder if they offered Harry and Meg some kind of quid pro quo for their discretion. Or else that was the reason for limiting his strictly guarded time in any of the royal properties (and amongst the company of any potentially loose-lipped courtiers).

Wouldn't matter what was offered to the Putrid Pair. Haz and Megdusa would blab anything they knew for attention and money.

It can't be Charles-related, or Camilla would have pulled out as well.

I hope she will be ok, the kids are so little.

[quote]It also speaks to its seriousness.

Easter was the notional aim for some sort of resumption. That's another four weeks and more of recovery. Silence will likely endure. There must be a total press embargo on discussing the matter, and people meeting William briefed not to ask. Serious indeed.

Reddit says he pulled out because Pedo Uncle was going to be there.

I hope that’s the case.

So William is going to avoid his uncle even to the point of disrespecting the Hellenes? That’s going to be difficult to orchestrate.

Queen Camilla Joined by Royals at Thanksgiving Service For King Constantine.

That seems implausible as a reason to not attend. I think Kate's health is worse than disclosed or has taken a turn.

It's nice that that Fergie was there. And Camilla has really been stepping up. I also love the detail of the ermine-bordered, royal-but-not-the-sovereign standard on the state Bentley.

Someone on Twitter observed that Kate made an appearance hours after shitting out a baby, looking like a supermodel. She hasn't been seen in weeks. Something is really bad.

Fergie is back in the mix, honey.

It does seem odd that they haven't released even one photo of a smiling Kate in bed in her PJs (wearing full make-up, of course), captioned with a message of thanks for her well-wishers.

[quote]King Constantine of the Hellenes

Funny how Charles slimmed down the monarchy to an extreme anorexic tap root, yet reminds the world how royal the royals are.

When is the memorial service for Christian IX of Denmark?

Story is BS. They don’t celebrate Thanksgiving in UK

I hope you're joking, R148.

Lady Gabriella Windsor's husband has been found dead at 45. There's speculation that William pulled out of the event to comfort her, but given that they're distant cousins, this seems unlikely.

“So the rumors are Charles has bladder cancer and Kate has ovarian cancer?” — Jesus, what’s in the water over there?

It’s true that I’m an American Camilla-hater (she’s SUCH a gauche, ugly cow) but I’m amused by the enduringly vicious Harry-and-Meghan hate. He was the spare anyway, and was depicted as a dim clown all his life, his wife scorned as a social-climbing mulatta — though Katie’s successful attempt at upward mobility through marriage is evidently okay. Is Harry hen-pecked? Does Meghan wear the pants in the family? Maybe, and who cares? That’s not unknown in history or in royal and unroyal circles.

So they throw in the towel and move to America and are treated even worse in the UK. Like it or not, Charles is still Harry’s father and he has a right to see him and try to maintain some contact with him, despite the many royals and their sycophants who are arrayed against him. H-and-M have effectively been sidelined, so let all the hate go you’ll feel better.

And none of the Harry haters have seriously challenged his accusations about the unholy alliance between the press and the royals, and the way royal intermediaries use it to manipulate those members of The Firm who are out of favor. That he took umbrage at that (as one of its prime victims) and fought back is not something this non-Royalist American holds against him.

Did someone curse the BRF at the beginning of the year?

Sorry, R151, I despise Prince Dimbulb and his cunty wife, and am very comfortable in viewing them as worthless manipulative parasites. Please don't worry about how I "feel."

R129 I stand corrected!

I’m not worried, R153, just scornful.

I'm checking back in on this thread as I haven't heard exactly WHAT type of cancer King Charles has. Does anyone know yet? I've only skimmed (and not very thoroughly) what has been posted since last I checked and didn't see it.

Anyone?

And I'm surmising from the skimming that I did we also (still) don't know what Kate Middleton was hospitalized for/recovering from.

I can't believe NO ONE has the scoop on either of these.

Absolutely not, R152. That's ridiculous. Where would you get such an idea?

I don't understand the PR strategy here at all. Charles discloses his prostate treatment, but not the type of cancer. If you do one, why not the other?

They don't close Kate's condition because, I think, they want to avoid a paparazzi death watch outside her hospital.

Gee, R151, remind us when Kate branded herself as a feminist, complained about performing her royal duties without "pay," made up being suicidal, mocked the queen, and spread vicious lies about her in-laws. We'll wait.

When will the royal curse set its sights on the most deserving target of all?

The Royals have had a horror run over the last few years.

I think the tie pin that Andrew is wearing with the George VI cypher in R160 is the same one that Charles was wearing during his accession privy council. People were saying that Charles had it made ahead of time lol.

[quote]Charles discloses his prostate treatment, but not the type of cancer. If you do one, why not the other?

I guess because he wants to avoid the explosion of medical information, opinion and advice which would follow any such announcement. The statistics, the timeline, the treatments, the prognosis. The public noise about his condition and treatment wouldn't be helpful. Whichever part of his anatomy is afflicted would be in the news every day. Privacy makes sense.

Word is Chuck has the pancreatic cancer.

That is not typically a good prognosis, R164.

What are the current thoughts re: Catherine?

R164 whose word is that?

R159: How much of that laundry list is even true?

And just for the sake of argument —let’s assume it’s all true — they’re stateside now and out of your hair, apart from the occasional Harry fly-by, so why worry your pretty head about them?

Ten years ago, we saw Queen Elizabeth as the face of the Royal Family. Now we have, Queen Camilla. Quite the change.

r168, Old Smokey Puss...

If Catherine dies, then that sapphire and diamond encrusted wedding ring she wears which used to belong to Diana is positively, absolutely CURSED!

r151 You think Harry and Meghan never gave the press the same off the record briefings?? Don't be naive Harry didn't throw the towel in they both asked for half in half out. I know that fact interferes with the Disney fairytale narrative of their life their life that they are trying to push but its a fact. Alas an inconvenient one. They never threw the towel in given they neither gave up their titles or renounced their place in the line of succession. They wanted all the glamorous bits to monetise their association and none of the hard boring work and had a massive tantrum and changed their story when denied. People who have thrown in the towel on royal life don't ask judges to address them by royal titles and don't introduce themselves to senators as the Duchess of Sussex.

Re: Kate- I hope to God she doesn't have Ovarian CA, because it is notoriously difficult to treat and even when a patient is "cured" of it, the Cancer comes back for a last and lethal time.

r170, Wills should return it to Harry.

I'm starting to get Shelly Miscavige vibes with Catherine. She literally has not been seen since Dec. 25th. Not a wave from a car, not a quick video update from bed, not even a photo. That's a full two months where the future queen of England has just completely dropped off the map. She could be in a coma for all anyone knows.

[quote]R152 Did someone curse the BRF at the beginning of the year?

What goes around, comes around.

R171, My larger point here is that you don’t seem able to let them go, or let go of your loathing. Here in the US they are simply celebrity names like scores of others, we can choose to read about them or not. To some of you here on Datalounge they are like a corrosive acid slow-dripping into open wounds.

Just get over them, already. “The Firm” suddenly has much bigger problems than Harry-n-Meghan or whether “The Crown” was accurate or not.

Camilla is the equivalent of Philip, r168, not of Elizabeth. Charles is the equivalent of Elizabeth.

I realise this is hard for you to understand, r174, but it's not necessary for public figures to be popping up every week or so, giving us updates from bed, or posting a selfie of their current mood. Unless Catherine is at a public event of some kind, there's no reason for us to see her.

She is not “the future Queen of England”, R175.

R176 I don't want to let go of my loathing for loathesome people. Move on bitch.

[QUOTE][R170], Wills should return it to Harry

When did it belong to Harry o that necessitates a "return?"

In that case, then, Harry should cough up Diana's Cartier watch for William. I've read the brothers had an agreement: the one who married first got the ring, the other got the watch. But that would require prying it from Meghan's cold, dead hands.

We’ll happily get over the Putrid Pair as soon as they stop putting themselves in the media. You know , like buying awards, making up deadly car chases, and being papped in a parking lot.

Harry's little intern spotted.

Imagine the speculation if either of them disclosed exactly what's wrong with them. As a matter of privacy and dignity, they didn't, and based on the macabre idiocy on the internet it seems a wise decision in both cases. In fact it was inadvertent kindness to many ghouls. Not knowing doesn't confine their morbid fantasies.

r181, I am positive that the DoS knows the value of the ring and would gladly revert the swap under Diana's original wishes.

But only if Catherine dies before becoming queen.

Can you imagine Meghan trying to auction the ring under the guise of raising money for 'good causes?'

Is it really true that William gave Catherine the same engagement ring Charles gave Diana? Why on earth would anyone want to repurpose a ring that symbolized one of the most famously loveless, toxic marriages in recent history? Creepy as hell...

Harry inherited the sapphire ring, but gave it (?) to William. Kate now has the ring.

Somehow, I remember seeing a photo of Meghan wearing a sapphire ring, too, though.

So - is Charles forced to step down because of cancer? God, he schemed and winged his whole life to take the throne and now, just over a year later - -

So, R189.

I'm really worried about Catherine now.

Unless she's on her deathbed, how can William not slip away for an hour or two? I don't get it.

Maybe she took a turn for the worse and he had to stay to see what's happening? May or may not be very serious but if it just happened, he couldn't be sure??

I really can't think of anything else - unless there's something wrong with him.

Perhaps her Ladyship Rosebush Chumley was in attendance and Kate got pouty about them being together outside of her watchful eye.

Might it have been in attendance to his father, the King, to travel to (or stay,as the case may be) at their respective Sandringham estates? His father's health still remains unknown save for Charles opening well-wishers' cards, as Dutchie posted prior.

[quote]Harry inherited the sapphire ring, but gave it (?) to William. Kate now has the ring.

Harry inherited the ring; William inherited the beloved Cartier watch. They swapped them when William wanted to propose to Kate (at that point, Harry did not have a clear prospect of getting engaged soon). Harry ultimately gave the Cartier watch to Meghan, who regularly wears it.

[quote]Somehow, I remember seeing a photo of Meghan wearing a sapphire ring, too, though.

Meghan's engagement ring is a clear colorless diamond Harry chose for her.

R193 I was watching some British news snippets about all this, and apparently Charles met with the family of King Contantine or whatever his name was, before the service but he didn't stay because he's not supposed to be around large groups of people.

And this 45 year old cousin of William's who just died, Thomas Kingston - another news clip said he was a good friend of William's and he had dated Pippa Middleton.

Oh and one commentator, just a youtuber I think, suggested he might have Covid, but I think they'd just announce it, if so.

Curiouser and curiouser.

There’s no doubt Will is dealing with at least some stress. Probably a lot. And I forgot he might’ve been worried about the fallout Gaza message (and Gaza itself if he cares) for the last few days. Aside from all the impersonal humor, and considering his expected role, I do honestly hope he’s alright.

The very same KGT who loves to label Markle's detractors as Klan Grannies, and who bemoaned her first mention in this thread as coming from a KG, posted this in the SNAP! thread:

Exactly why Asian store owners dislike Black customers and distrust them.

If William turns out to be ill as well, I think we really should look more closely at Charlotte's alibis.

Haha. He's not ill, Catherine did not turn for the worse, and the children are unhurt.

R189 is very confused.

Maybe William didn't like the old coot of Greece and didn't want to attend his memorial. Who cares? It was a private service and not part of Wm's public duty.

R201, as others mentioned here…it was his godfather.

But his name was already on the program or plan of service or whatever they call the things. If he just didn't want to attend, I don't think he'd leave it to the last minute to let them know.

Sudden emergency with sick wife? Mental breakdown? Drug overdose? Hangover?

This family is falling apart, what with Charles' cancer, the comical Harkles, and now all this mystery with the Waleses. smh

Catherine's brother and sister have both been on vacation recently. I doubt they would have left London if Catherine was in any kind of grave danger.

Why are people expecting photographic updates from Catherine? She's not tacky Chrissy Teigen blasting her miscarriage video on social media.

[quote]R204 Why are people expecting photographic updates from Catherine? She's not tacky Chrissy Teigen blasting her miscarriage video on social media.

The lady chose to be a public figure, and The People pay her bills.

You can’t be half in, half out.

It just seems so unusual. I can hardly think of any conditions that require two weeks in hospital post surgery.

And William suddenly ducked out of something important.

So of course you wonder what it could possibly be. It's like an Agatha Christie mystery, kind of. Especially being in a year when our interest is piqued by the scandals involving Harry, Meghan, and Andrew.

[QUOTE]This family is falling apart, what with Charles' cancer, the comical Harkles, and now all this mystery with the Waleses. smh

And... Tell us more

To be fair, R202, "Godfather" and "Godmother" are pretty much meaningless in royal circles. Queen Margrethe is the godmother of King Willem-Alexander, but I doubt she would have jumped had anything happened to his mother, Beatrix, when he was still a child.

I don't understand why all of a sudden everyone is up in arms about Catherine's absence. KP's statement early on clearly stated she would return to duties after Easter. It's not Easter yet, so why the drama? Once Easter has come and gone, if she hasn't made an appearance, then I'd say it's right to start speculating, but until then, everything is going as previously announced by KP.

Lol r205, you have no fucking clue. The public don't pay her bills. Moreover, being a public figure means playing a certain role. It does not mean posting selfies on Instagram or popping up in the tabloids just to be seen. Kate's role is that of a working royal, which means she engages in certain public events and activities. If she has a health issue which means she isn't going to be in the limelight for a few months, then so what? I can assure you, there is no clamour in the UK for a selfie from her just becoz we want our money's worth!

R208, William has six godparents, including Constantine. Constantine had nine godchildren.

Sure, William was scheduled to appear at the memorial service but he didn't. It's ok, we don't have to know every last detail of their lives.

Exactly, r209, r210 and r211.

William gave a very good explanation in an interview years ago regarding how once the door to someone's private life has been opened, it cannot be closed again. Basically, drawing a line and keeping to it is better than attempting to manipulate the press and public by allowing them into the inner sanctum on some occasions, and whining about privacy on others. Along with Diana, Paula Yates also suffered from thinking the press and public's appetites could be teased and taunted. That both women were considered to have Borderline personalities says a lot.

He obviously learned something worthwhile from his mother's existence, and his brother should have listened to him, instead of marrying a famewhore who would visit the graves of massacre victims to get her photo taken.

[quote] This family is falling apart, what with Charles' cancer, the comical Harkles, and now all this mystery with the Waleses. smh

It’s called “opportunity.”

The public certainly does pay quite a lot of their bills.

Edit for my R208 comment:

[quote] but I doubt she would have jumped **IN** had anything happened to his mother

Actually, the public doesn't pay their bills. If the cost of the monarchy was paid for from general funds, which derive from income tax, then the public would pay their bills. The cost of monarchy is funded variously by agreements governing the proceeds from The Crown Estate and the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, all which existed centuries before the public ever started paying income tax. The annual expenditure of monarchy will amount to 126 million pounds next year, about a third of which is directed to the repairs and restoration of Buckingham Palace, HQ for the monarchy, and neglected for the better part of seventy years. By comparison, the NHS gets 181 billion pounds from general funds. The military costs about 70 billion. Foreign aid spending totals 11 billion.

The crown estates are public property. The status of the Royal Duchies is probably more complicated.

Does The Crown Estate belong to the King?

No. The Crown Estate is not the private property of the King. Our assets are hereditary possessions of the Sovereign held ‘in right of the Crown’. This means they belong to the Sovereign for the duration of their reign, but cannot be sold by them, nor do revenues from the assets belong to them.

The UK government does not own The Crown Estate either.

Established by an Act of Parliament in 1961 (see next answer) we are an independent, commercial business, managed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners).

This independence is critical to enable us to fulfil our core duties, act commercially and deliver our strategy to create environmental, social and financial value both now and for the long term.

[quote]Actually, the public doesn't pay their bills.

So why was Harry denied police protection and suing for it? Doesn’t the public pay indirectly (ie police protection)?

I think the royal family is entering a backlash phase. A couple of stories/columns in the Mail complaining about Prince Andrew at the head of the line at King Constantine's memorial, the King's discretion about exactly what kind of cancer he his being treated for, but more they're not happy with Prince William's "secrecy": about his wife's illness, about his sudden bolt from the service yesterday. If it seeps into the real newspapers, they're going to have to make a change.

Protection is paid for by government - for all kinds of people in public life. So the protection for the royal family is paid for from public finds. As protection for the President's family and Vice-President's family, etc., is paid for in the U.S. As protection would be paid for if the UK had a different model of head of state.

Harry wasn't "denied" police protection, r219 - he's simply not eligible for it. Only royals who perform public duties are given police protection. Yes, the public pays for that as taxpayers, but the public pays for the security of all public officials, who perform public duties The public pays for the police protection of politicians, for example. Moreover, the royal family do not get salaries or stipends for their personal expenditures. What Harry wanted was for police protection paid for by the taxpayer whenever he decided to come on holiday to the UK. Harry then lied and claimed he had always offered to pay for police protection himself, but the police are not for hire by private citizens in that way.

Hah! I love the card Charles chose to hold up at r119.

Tbere is no backlash, except for tabloids and internet assholes looking for clicks. Also, I see the Sussex Karens moaning about the "secrecy." OMG CRISIS!!! CRIIIIIISIS!!! Fuck off, phonies.

I think the term police protection is confusing. What Harry wants is our equivalent of secret service protection.

Right. He wants his goons to carry guns and get direct ongoing UK intelligence. He moaned because there were actual members of the public within his range while taking the train. The absolute horror of it all.

A friend in the media heard from colleagues that it's bladder cancer. They seem to think it's "pretty bad."

Sure, sure. The "media" connection makes me believe you..

When Charles dies, do you think Camilla will hide the fact so she can continue to be Queen Consort?

“Oh, William, your father just took his medication and he’s sleeping. Come back tomorrow.”

[quote]Protection is paid for by government

And they better be on fucking time.

[quote]Sure, sure. The "media" connection makes me believe you..

I'm certainly not going to reveal my friend's name and employer on this vile pit of trollery. I think most posters here would agree that would be a terrible idea.

I understand why you don't believe me. I was just passing along what I heard, it's my duty as a Datalounger.

R227, it's a logical explanation. They are more likely to have found bladder cancer during a prostate operation than pancreatic cancer. It is also likely to have been masked by typical prostate symptoms.

How bad it is will depend on how aggressive the particular form he has is, how well it responds to chemo and whether it had already spread to other organs.

I know people who have survived bladder cancer and some, younger, who did not. I wish him well.

No gossip about what ails Catherine?

[quote] No gossip about what ails Catherine?

Tell us you haven't read this or the first thread without telling us you haven't read this or the first thread.

I was watching on of the royal reporting youtube shows - maybe Palace Confidential - but anyway, they said that preparations had started for the king's death and transition to the new king.

They pointed out that these same preparations started many years for Elizabeth before she actually died (and every year they had a "rehearsal" for her death - egads, imagine being her)

Preparations for all sorts of public figures' deaths are underway all the time, r235, irrespective of age or health. Rishi Sunak is only 43 and looks to be in very good health, but no doubt there are preparations underway and an established protocol in the case of his death.

What Bridge is William?

Charles is Menai Bridge.

Does Her Majesty Smokey Puss have a Bridge?

R225 What Harry really wants his internationally protected person restored so that regardless of what country he is in, he and Meghan will have access to state funded security. That's what this has always been about. There have been reports that their annual security bill is $2 to $3 million a year.

R235 There were a couple reports about this in a couple of the UK papers last week I think. Basically it seems like the King's cancer promoted a pragmatic realization that despite Charles' parents longevity, he is in his 70s and plans should be put in place sooner rather than later. It's likely Charles' funeral will be a more low key funeral compared to Queen Elizabeth II's and previous monarchs but will still involve lying in state and likely a funeral at Westminster Abbey.

[quote]Charles is Menai Bridge.

Fascinating in a recent BBC documentary when The Archbishop related that he was going about paperwork one morning, when he picked up the phone to hear the phrase, 'London Bridge.' In other words, you have your work cut out now Your Grace, because the longest reign has drawn to its close.

[quote]R227 It’s bladder cancer. They seem to think it's "pretty bad." — poor Charlie. Seriously.

Eh. He’s a cold, selfish nepo baby. There are more worthwhile people in distress to worry about.

[quote]R231 It's likely Charles' funeral will be a more low key funeral compared to Queen Elizabeth II's

Well, I’d hope so. He’s been King Tampon all of, what… a year?

[quote]No gossip about what ails Catherine?

Sorry, but I wouldn't post it here if I knew it because there are a few completely unhinged sorts who love wishing the worst on Kate.

Gosh, R242 - the tampon joke is so cutting edge and funneee!

I don’t think you can really criticize the monarch for being a nepo baby. They can't all be William the Conqueror.

[quote]R244 Gosh, the tampon joke is so cutting edge and funneee!

Oh, like dangling tendrils?

R227 Seeing a urologist annually once you reach age 60 is good practice. Usually the problem is prostate issues, but bladder condition with abnormalities or significant wall thickening can at some point become cancerous. Annual check ups can spot a problem early and usually treated.

I haven’t seen dangling tendrils for years (the expression - she’s still rocking the Look). You must be a little behind, as you undoubtedly are in life, R246.

I'm sure there were a couple of "reports" about it, r239, and I'm sure they were not based on any actual news developments and their intention is simply to get a reaction. As I said at r235, preparations for the potential deaths of public figures, in particular state officials, are underway all the time, regardless of their age and health. Preparations for Charles' potential death have been taking place probably since he was born. It's not as though he reached a certain age and then had a cancer diagnosis and so the government thought "oh, we'd better think about what to do in case he pops it." I've no doubt there are plans in place for even if William dies suddenly.

[quote]I've no doubt there are plans in place for even if William dies suddenly.

William is 'Danny Collins', Kate is 'Daphne Clark.' The initials DC reflect their titles as Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

Um, please tell me there are no preparations in train for my death?

No official ones.

I doubt Kate has ovarian cancer. She's about 20 years too young for it. Gilda Radner excepted, ovarian cancer, unlike breast cancer, really is an older woman's cancer.

r245 William was the son of Robert I, Duke of Normandy, the most powerful French province at the time! A bastard, yes, but his lineage did help him get to where he eventually got.

I think a better example would be Justin the Thracian, who started out as a swineherd, took a long walk to Constantinople as a lad, and ended up becoming the emperor. Not that any of you bitches assembled here know who that is. It's likelier you'd recognise the lowly beginnings of the Empress Theodora, the whores akin to her that you are.

lol, r252

I adore you Charlotte-as-Usurper Troll.

R252 is a fraud. HRHs don’t refer to themselves as HRH.

R253 my sister in law died of ovarian cancer at age 41.

In retrospect, I think Pippa was sent on vacation to distract.

I hope the young mother of three young children is doing well and makes a full and speedy recovery.

The vultures on the duplicitous duos' payroll are despicable.

R257, I'm so sorry.

We should remember that Kensington Palace confirmed to the press that Kate's condition was NOT cancerous. With open abdominal surgery on average it takes 6 weeks (sometimes upwards of 8 to 12) for the incision to fully heal. It generally takes 12 weeks or more (Kate's estimated recovery time) to get about 75% of muscle control back within your abdomen. It can take months, sometimes more than a year from numbness in the region to fully abate. Kate's longer stay in hospital was probably down to the fact that she is the future Queen and will get better medical treatment than any of us plebs will ever get. Give much of her duties involve being on her feet and walking, they want to make sure she's fully recovered before she resumes any level of engagements. Whatever she had done is likely gynecological in nature.

[quote]much of her duties involve being on her feet and walking

Don't forget accepting bouquets from random girls.

Well, they are called walkabouts.

It must be her annual distraction, R258, given she was there in the same window last year.

And if you Google is in the Caribbean pretty much this time every year and has done for years.

But, yep, definitely deployed as a distraction. Well spotted, indeed.

R256, my long-time devoted subjects will know that I only began using the HRH in my correspondence when Uncle and Aunt Whatstheirname began whining about how their children had been deprived of it. It is intended as a tiny twist of the Royal knife.

Not that I own any knives.

I appreciate the effort, honey, but HRH is inherently a third-party reference. It makes no sense to refer to oneself as “Her Royal Highness”

It would be like Donald Trump referring to himself as Trump.

Oh, never mind.

Or Donald Trump referring to himself as The Donald?

Right.

R266 proving that he knows fuck all about how royal styles and titles work. It’s really not that complicated. For most people, I mean, honey.

And, R269?

And @ R269, at least the fountain pen worked...

And there was nary a sandwich tray or Dorito to be seen from the Sussex attendance and their quick, abashed in 'n out appearance and exit, film crew toting and all.

[quote] [R266] proving that he knows fuck all about how royal styles and titles work. It’s really not that complicated. For most people, I mean, honey

So you think HRHs DO refer to themselves as HRH? You shouldn’t be presenting yourself as a font of knowledge.

R270, the point is actual royalty don't use HRH or Prince or Princess. They just sign their given name. The sovereign signs with a R following: Charles R, Elizabeth R. George RI if you want to go back to the good old days.

Do the teachers of the Wales children have to curtsy and bow to the kids the first time they see them each day?

What about household staff? Nannies?

Do Charles and Camilla have staff bowing and curtsying all day to them or just the first time they see them each morning? Catherine and William?

What about when the Royal family goes to the doctor or dentist? Do medical professionals have to bow and curtsy?

Inquiring American minds want to know.

From what I've read everyone calls the children by their first names, maybe sometimes they use the Prince or Princess, but the formality kicks in after the 18th birthday.

Poor Charles is up at Sandringham receiving "cancer treatments" until they decide to give him the needle.

I find it foolish to wait until I'm 18.

Yes, R325 - everybody who sees the Wales family must curtsy constantly. It gets pretty tiring but the tradition must be upheld.

Pay no attention to the obvious and poorly educated imposter.

Weird, r279, because they are constantly meeting people who don't curtsy or bow to them.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

You’re a clever one aren’t you, R281!

"During her time as international development secretary, Ms Mordaunt supported Eden, a not-for-profit organisation that teaches jewellery-making skills to women in southeast Asia rescued from human traffickers.

“I sent one of the necklaces to Meghan Markle. It was quite early on, at the time she was having difficulties. I wanted to demonstrate to her the opportunity she had and what she could potentially do. She had a lot of support from parliamentarians, a lot of people wrote to her and wanted to support her.”

But when asked by the publication whether Ms Markle responded to her offer, Ms Mordaunt replied, “No, she didn’t”. And, laughing, added: “But it was worth a try.”

I sent that ungrateful peasant a banana!

I always loved how in “The Crown,” when any of the main royals were walking around the palace, any servants that happen to be there had to flatten themselves against the wall and duck their heads as the royals passed. That’s class (class system).

[QUOTE]But when asked by the publication whether Ms Markle responded to her offer, Ms Mordaunt replied, “No, she didn’t”. And, laughing, added: “But it was worth a try.”

Another perfect example of Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, failing to read the room and create opportunities for herself and the women she purports to support and serve. (Remember her "Service is Universal" siren call after ERII said "No" to half-in haf-out?)

This was a Golden opportunity to help Meghan establish a toehold as a new, young unknown. But she can't tolerate associating with women of higher status or achievement. It burns her worthless butt. And she keeps diminishing herself by acting as a special, fussy "Princess" when she has absolutely nothing to share, not even solidarity with formerly trafficked and horrifically abused women. The topic alone would be enough to take the DoS

She could have forged a nice little "alliance" with Mourdant vis a vis their common interest of empowering women.

Remember, she sad "service is universal"

That's fictional TV, r286.

It's funny how the twits who point to something they saw on The Crown to prove to us just how awful the royals apparently are don't realise just how much of a fool they're making of themselves.

Who are the gray men?

The anecdote at R284 shows that Meghan is less charitable than an actual Tory.

[quote] It's funny how the twits who point to something they saw on The Crown to prove to us just how awful the royals apparently are don't realise just how much of a fool they're making of themselves.

So how is real life different from the show? Do the servants interact freely with the royals? I suspect they get those kinds of details correct.

As much as I dislike Penny Mordaunt, I have to admit she looked freaking amazing at the coronation.

[quote] So how is real life different from the show? Do the servants interact freely with the royals? I suspect they get those kinds of details correct.

R291, I think it depends very much on the royal in question. The generation of the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret were accustomed to much more deference. And I’m sure most rich people who have masses of staff in heir house have times when they prefer not to see them, just as the staff don’t want to see their employers all the time.

In the younger generations, there is much less formality, I saw a report that Harry and William (when they shared a staff) had urged the staff not to use titles and not to stand up when they came into a room. However, the senior staff insisted on still standing up when a royal enters the room, because they felt it was part of their job to make Harry and William get used to the fact that people would always regard them as the centre of attention.

William and Kate are known to expect less formality from staff in their homes. They have banned staff from wearing ties, so that their children grow up in a relatively more normal environment.

I’m sure there is always some formality because there is a always a boss and an employee in the relationship, but even Prince Phillip and Queen Elizabeth (especially in later years) lived in a much more low-key way than previous generations of royals would have found tolerable. Phillip retreated to a farmhouse on the Sandringham estate with a handful of staff who were expected to adapt to the much less formal pace of life, and The Queen, although still on duty, was very close to her dresser, the daughter of a former miner, and would watch TV with her closest staff members.

Most of the royals prompt a great deal of loyalty from their staff, who tend to stay in their jobs for a long period of time. The big exception to this seems to be Harry and Meghan. Kate seems like a good egg, and took baby Louis round to Clarence House to introduce him to the staff.

I very much doubt that the "servants" prostrated themselves or backed up against the wall whenever the Queen or Princess Margaret passed them in the corridor.

Pancreatic cancer

The peasants who are fortunate enough to work for me and what's his name had best prostrate themselves on the floor in my presence if they know what's good for them!

When Prince Philip died, the servants lined up outside the building as his casket was brought out. Newscasters at the time remarked that Philip's staff had been with him for years.

Well, if it's pancreatic cancer, good to know ya Cholly.

Poor Charles had to receive the Chancellor today, as he (the Chancellor) announced his stupid new budget.

I hope it’s not pancreatic cancer because that is a miserable way to go. He waited so many years to be king and now this.

I doubt he was actively waiting to be King, r300. What do people even mean when they say things like that?

[quote] I doubt he was actively waiting to be King,

🤡

If William becomes king, will he wipe out Harry, Meghan, Camilla, and Virginia Giuffre like Michael Corleone at the end of The Godfather?

R302 is one of those many posters on DL who doesn't actually understand what it means to be the King.

Re: R303, it'll (metaphorically) happen a while later, like with Fredo.

No, r303. He'll simply ignore them, aside from Camilla.

That’s not very cinematic, r306

Unlike His Royal Highness King r304 the First, who’s been there and done that.

Meanwhile, back on planet Reality

I’m sorry, but Charles slipping off the throne to lie in a heap after being such a tiresome try-hard about gaining it decade after decade is fairly amusing.

Poor, singleminded nepo baby can’t do anything right.

Are you suggesting he was attempting to assassinate his mother, r309?

Modern members of the British Royal family would never visit violence upon each other. Those days are long gone. Put such silly ideas out of your head this instant. The very idea . . .

Charles knew his job as Prince of Wales.

He will not have enough time to grow into the position of King.

William is fucked.

[quote]William is fucked.

His Grandmother became the Monarch at age 25. William is 41. Mature enough to step up.

George V died in 1936, Elizabeth was 10. Her entire childhood was raised as Princess of York.

George V, Q Mary, her father and mother, TRH Duke and Duchess of York, raised Elizabeth as a proper Victorian/Edwardian royal.

Then, the years of 3 King and Elizabeth became the heiress presumptive until her father died "peacefully" at Sandringham (as did her grandfather) in 1952.

Wills has had no such training and has suffered through the effects of the BRF divorces, Great Aunt Margaret Rose, His father as The Prince of Wales, The Princess Royal, Prince Andrew, plus lesser royals. And history shows she was keenly aware of Philips dalliances.

Poor Wills. He has no foundation of being King.

Waiting for C3 to "peacefully" die in his sleep.

R299 how do you know the budget is stupid, it hasn’t been revealed yet.

"Her entire childhood was raised as Princess of York." - That would be a bit difficult, r314, considering there's no such title as Princess of York.

R316, it's a pre-election budget that - according to all reports - will try to entice us with a "tax cut", although this will be a national insurance rather than an income tax cut. In other words, it's resorting to old Tory election tricks of promises of "tax cuts" while not actually promising a real tax cut.

r317, really?

21 April 1926 – 11 December 1936: Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth of York. ⬅⬅⬅

11 December 1936 – 20 November 1947: Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth.

20 November 1947 – 6 February 1952: Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh.

No! We CAN’T lose another monarch!

There’s a difference between Princess Elizabeth of York and Princess of York.

I was there, too!

Indeed.

I still can't believe that old coot Harald traveled so far for a vacation. Travel is stressful on seniors and he'd already been in poor health. Elizabeth restricted her travel to short European trips in her mid 80s and stopped altogether at 88. Norway had to send a special medical flight, charged to the airforce.

Sorry guys, you got exactly what I meant.

We need some fun. Below a story in the Maul about all the hot equerries around the joint.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Exactly , r319, there is no such title as Princess of York, as you demonstrate with that list, in which the formulation "Princess of York" does not appear.

R322 also proves that there is no such title by reminding us that the daughters of the current Duke of York are never referred to as "Princess of York". For that matter, their mother was never known as the Princess of York.

LOL, you guys...pedantic much today?

Sorry, but you totally understood what I meant when you corrected me for the lack of an "a".

My statement was in comparison to Will's royal education before his father became king.

My conclusion was how to deal with all the royal divorces.

Actually cancer has King Charles

William spent significant amounts of time in training with his grandmother.

R329 Why are all those divorces a problem for William?

I have no inside or definitive knowledge but a good scan of the information and chatter /speculation about Charles cancer online suggests to me that the smart money is on it being bladder cancer.

It's the only thing his father had to navigate as PoW.

I hope Chuck opts for a Regency instead of a Sandringham needle.

Re: R326. The curtain-twitching pearl-clutching 'Mail' this morning comes across as a Datalounger on heat. Strap boxed headline with pics: "Where DO the royals find all these smoking HOT EQUERRIES!" A fair try at upbeat distraction from serious medical matters.

The tabloids often have articles on the equerries, r335, and they're still churning out the "health" stories, even though they're isn't much new to say there.

[quote]A fair try at upbeat distraction from serious medical matters.

I'm all in favor of distractions like this.

It heard what happened was Kate was picked up in a sting operation Re: an upper class call girl operation. I don’t know if it’s current, or has to do with her past.

Either way, it puts the palace in a very awkward position. William probably missed that funeral to explain her detainment and interrogation to the kiddos.

Expect to hear more about this.

Eww, a funeral that took place a whole year after the deceased had died.

I told you she’s a whore.

I just flashed this after reading the card reader guy, Ant. He is very interesting. Maybe Kate is in a relationship with one of the equerries! Can you imagine??

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Hi again, Meghan at R338.

Poor William. He wants time to support his family after his wife's serious illness but now his nose is out of joint because Camilla's getting the better gigs.

You ever think media makes things up as much as we do?

A lot of people on here seem to be certain William hates Camilla. What is the evidence for that? I haven't seen it demonstrated.

William knew what a problem Diana was and how little she cared for or gave to Charles. I don't know whether she really fancied herself in love with him when she was 19. I doubt it, I think she was in love with the idea of herself as a princess and projected that onto Charles, but by the time William was old enough to notice, Diana was showing contempt for Charles even on public engagements, when she was supposed to be acting professionally.

Even stuff like R342's link is about William and Charles, not about William's view of Camilla, who is just doing what Charles wants.

A lot of people on here are certain Kate donated her prostate during a hair extension transplant that went horribly wrong between Johns. It is infuriating in some way. Maybe they're just trolling but otherwise the amount certain stupid is infuriating. Just wow level.

Shit, I forgot the cavalcade through London that went near a hospital not involved in her treatment right after Christmas. Maybe the hospital is red herring. She was just travelling from hotel to hotel.

[quote] I don't know whether she really fancied herself in love with him when she was 19. I doubt it, I think she was in love with the idea of herself as a princess and projected that onto Charles

I think Paul Burrell said Diana told him Charles was the love of her life. Always seemed odd to me.

From Gone with the Wind: "I made a pretty suit of clothes and fell in love with it. And when Ashley came riding along, so handsome, so different, I put that suit on him and made him wear it whether it fitted him or not. And I wouldn't see what he really was. I kept on loving the pretty clothes—and not him at all."

William doesn’t have to like Camila but publicly he should show respect and I think he has done that well enough that we don’t know how he truly feels about her except for gossip here and there.

William will always love his mother and most likely side with her even if her behavior was not the best because it’s his mother and their bond was strong enough that she confided in him.

A mother’s confiding in her child about her marital problems is a form of child abuse, IMO.

From what I read he was appalled and upset that clueless mummy put him in that position.

It might be, R351, if it was done with wanton disregard for the child. But Diana, as we all know, had emotional difficulties that she often couldn't control. I don't excuse her but I don't think she did anything purposely either. She was just one massive set of feelings with poor controls, isolated and mistrustful. They both paid a price for what life handed them. They all did. I mean, there are no villains in the piece, really, (except for the children) because everybody seems to have behaved villainously at one time or another. It was a bad coupling that just got worse and worse. I don't think any of them were bad people though, just behaving badly. Life is complicated because we make bad choices.

Well said, r353.

Thanks, R354. I remember peak Diana. She was a remarkable figure in human history, just for the phenomenon of her. I have a bit of a soft spot for her memory. She was a fascinating figure who did amazing things and horrible things but I always had the impression at the root of her was always love: too much, too little, or thwarted.

[quote] I mean, there are no villains in the piece, really, (except for the children)

That's "well said"?

How's fuck off run ya, R356? Don't reply. Enjoy the block.

[quote] She was a fascinating figure who did amazing things and horrible things

She did horrible things? She was a tall pretty nob with a big nose and a flair for the dramatic. Whose eyeballs did she poke out? Which babies did she rape?

We can't choose our parents. Lots of people have crazy borderline mothers, beautiful or not. Coupled with an absent ostrich head burying father, William's relationship w his mum was reversed roles with him parenting her. No surprise he made a smart choice in stable, dependable Kate with her supportive, functional family.

I don't believe William hates Camilla (probably did when he was younger), rather, I think he accepts Camilla. Unlike Harry, I think marriage and becoming a father has matured William to the point he understand his mother's issues and her own imperfections and accepts that Camilla is the love of his father's life. If he wants to have a good relationship with his father, he recognizes he must have a civil relationship with Camilla.

He resents her like an osteoporosis knee that winces on occasion.

Well, R358, as observed she dragged her children into her marital breakdown. She banged any number of married men while objecting heartily to Camilla banging her husband. The Morton book. The Panorama interview. She was hell of wheels. And totally awesome.

I think William also recognizes that Camilla knows how to handle Charles, she keeps him on an even keel. I doubt they have screaming matches like William must have witnessed with Diana and he’s grateful for that.

[quote] Wills has had no such training

Untrue.

William visited his grandmother across the river at Windsor every weekend while he was at Eton to take lessons from her as to how to reign.

William benefitted from his close relationship not just with his grandmother but also his great-grandmother, who lived till he was about 20 and could talk to him all about monarchy in the early 20th century. Now he has seen how the transition to a new monarch can happen with his father. The personal difficulties of his mother and her tragic, early death have taught him about adversity but also the importance of stability and values and being strong in the face of tragedy. He will make a great king.

He will be the last King, r365.

No, he will be the last king of the UK, he will remain a king of England.

He will not be the last king of either England or the UK. Anyone who claims that knows absolutely nothing about England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

The BRF has no value to NI, or Scotland.

The BRF in not an impediment to the unification of Ireland or Scottish devolvement.

What is " Scottish devolvement"?

[quote] He will be the last King, [R365].

Don’t be silly. George will reign.

For a while.

R370, the concept that Queen Anne's ministers put together a union of independent states in 1707 to form the UK, by which the union could devolve back into independent states.

R372, you don't actually know what you're talking about, do you?

r374, talk to the Scottish.

He could be, but I doubt it. It goes on and on and on. And as noted above, the constitutional implications are so massive it would take a major earthquake to make dissolution of the monarchy seem worth the trouble.

Scotland couldn't give a fuck

The Scots would wonder who the fuck anyone who talks about their future "devolvement" is on about, r375.

New photo of Catherine and the kids

New photo of Catherine and the kids

Are the skinny jeans meant to indicate I don't have a bag, bitches? Because a colostomy bag in those skin tights... that's willpower, I'd reckon.

I'd say it's a beautiful picture. May she recover in peace. Proof of life for DL.

She's not wearing her rings! They will divorce before she dies! RIP!

It is a beautiful photo. She looks healthy, her face is a bit fuller. The kids look happy. Hoping the rest of her recovery goes well.

[quote] Well, [R358], as observed she dragged her children into her marital breakdown. She banged any number of married men while objecting heartily to Camilla banging her husband.

What utter nonsense. All of this was caused by her husband’s flagrant adultery and juvenile jealousy of her. Talk about blaming the victim.

R387 you have a curious sense of adulthood.

R387 is right. I think if Charles had really loved Diana like a mature adult does, they would still be married today. He just didn’t, and that’s what caused the domino to fall.

They were wildly incompatible and both of them had a hand in the failure of that disastrous marriage. I say this as someone who really liked Diana. But irrespective of who fired the first shot in the war of the Waleses, they shouldn't have married in the first place. They were a disaster for each other before either one of them started messing with the other one.

I always wonder if the people who are so outraged that Charles and Diana divorced have ever been in relationships and if they hate all people who've divorced or just Charles.

R389 sounds like an Opus Dei Catholic female who only has a community college education in Early Childhood Education, lives with her parents at the age of 35, and expects a good and prosperous marriage with at least a Traditional Catholic man. She's particularly eyeing the obits for potential suitors (widower with children in need) because divorced men are off limits.

Charles wants a strong controlling woman to put him in his place and tell him what to do. He sees that as being supportive. Diana was not that, so as long as he carried a torch for Camilla, he never gave his marriage to Diana a fair chance, and their marriage was doomed.

R393, you’re so wrong on EVERY characteristic you say I am. Sooo not Catholic (or religious). Not female. Went to an Ivy League school (go Quakers!). Have my own home plus a rental property. Retired and very comfortable. Never, ever wanted to get married or have kids, but many of my friends are married and have kids. A lot are happy. A lot are semi-happy. Marriage takes a ton of work (work I’m not willing to do). But the marriages that work started out on a strong foundation of mutual respect as well as love. Charles had neither for Diana.

I really don't give a shit about a stranger's personal relationship problems 40 years ago. Jesus.

Are you gay, r394?

I’m a single older man on DL, r 396. What do you t

Hah that post before I could fix the typos at r397. Meant to say; I’m a single older man on DL. What do you think?

[quote]She's not wearing her rings!

She got tired of them, and flung them out to the crowds. "Anyone want Diana's sapphire? HERE!"

Has this happened before?

I don’t know about that, photos are touched up all the time. Doesn’t mean some vast conspiracy is at work. Maybe one of the kids had a mustard stain.

Meant to add at r401, I’m thinking many press associations refuse to distribute manipulated photos on principle. But doesn’t mean anything nefarious is happening.

I don't even see any problems with those "problems". Anyhow, are any of us real?

To take the tinfoil hat off for a second - isn’t the most likely explanation that fidgety kids weren’t all looking the right way at the same time so multiple images were composited to make a good photo?

Pretty standard in family photography.

I saw a documentary about servants and Queen Elizabeth. IIRC, the first greeting of the day, they address her as "Your Majesty." Thereafter, they call her "Mum." (Or "Ma'am"? Maybe it was the accent.) Seriously. I was surprised.

I doubt they are bowing and curtseying multiple times per day. Maybe first thing in the morning.

Governesses and nannies, I think it would be a bad idea to have them bowing and curtseying to their charges (royal children).

OMG - they are German! Charlotte hand transplant von Frankenstein!

I'm sure photos are retouched but this is blowing up as a media story. If the intent was to tamp down speculation about Catherine, has done the opposite. Surely they have the ability to hire qualified people?

This blowup on media is evidence of how fucking crazy media is today and nothing else.

So very confused why the portrait is a problem. I just got back home after seeing it this morning. All of a sudden it's problematic?

I guess it's a reason to get hysterical. shrug

AI went to town. Love the cig. Don't know where the extra kid came from.

R405 "ma'am", not "mum" :-) And that is correct: The first time you meet the monarch (be it a singular meeting or simply the start of your workday at the palace), you address him as "Your Majesty", and after that - in KC3's case - as "sir". For QE2, that was "ma'am" (and NOT "madam"!).

Curtsies are reserved for the King and his wife the Queen. However, it would certainly not be unusual for someone to address William's daughter, Charlotte, as "Your Royal Highness", because that is what she is, no matter her age.

Personally I think this whole picture thing is going to backfire on the media (as all the reporting on the SM conspiracies last week). It just looks like bullying Catherine while she recovers. It will also likely mean that William and Kate will become even stricter with photos of their children which the press will then complain about.

IS HE DEAD YET?????!!!!!!!

No Kingly church-walk pics from yesterday. But Kate's mistaken Mother's Day gift to the world will distract, and hold attention for quite a while.

I support William and Kate but I sometimes wonder if William won't be the one to wreck the monarchy, with his view on how it should be done. The strength of the monarchy is that it doesn't change a great deal, it provides continuity, consistency and familiarity. I think, with all good intentions, there's a risk given his desire to focus in key areas, that he leaves too much behind or excludes too much and the monarchy becomes too niche and possibly too political.

I think this Kate thing has been unhelpful, but I take the view maybe it won't matter once she's back on the road. She is entitled to her privacy. She is not head of state and never will be. Yet... these days... you know the dilemma.

I think one of the challenges for them is that they are still very top down and insular... they are telling the world they will change but also how. There's no engagement, no consultation (that we know of.) Why not strike a process to solicit ideas about how the monarchy can best support modern Britain? Maybe nobody ever wanted a slimmed down royal family. Maybe they like a larger group fanning out and supporting and attending widely. Who knows? This is just Charles' vision, and while the logic is obvious, here we are with a weakened bench. Maybe people aren't aligned with William's environmental/homelessness focus. Or maybe he should be free to pursue that emphasis supported by a wider royal family who can pick up the slack and provide the attentive continuity that is best exemplified by Princess Anne. I mean, I get the Garter ceremony but it looks bonkers in 2024. So you don't have to ditch it but you may need to update it.

The point is when you don't consult, you're seeing it all through your own bias, and at risk of getting it wrong. I think Charles could adapt to being a private citizen. He's got a lot of private interests and would probably thrive as a country gentleman, organicking the hell out of his gardens. William seems rather like his mother, more attuned to making change. But he could fuck it up.

You raise some valid points, R417. I think the idea of consulting "the people" on what their monarchy should be like goes against the concept of stability and continuity. The whole idea is that things keep going on as they have for hundreds of years, with only small updates, no matter what state the country (or the world) is in.

They need good advisors, not staunch courtiers, who understand the pulse of today's society and who can foresee where the trends are heading. And then they need to listen.

The BRF has one luxury that no other "brand" has: TIME. They are there, enshrined in Britain's history and "constitution", and they aren't going anywhere. That makes the rush job of Kate's recent picture all the more questionable: It was done in a panic. They should have stayed the course, with Kate resurfacing after Easter, as they so clearly communicated.

Reliability, trustworthiness, and seeing things through always wins the race.

I agree, R420, and I get the reluctance on consultation. I wasn't quite sure I meant the general population, but definitely people close to the ground. You can poll and focus group the general population under the radar and without raising expectations. You are especially right about good advisors. I feel like William runs the risk of going it alone, too headstrong. Not as bad as, erm, other members of the family, but still feels like it's there. The whole missing the memorial for personal business and that's all you get thing recently. Then again, maybe he holds the line, and people accept and respect it. In the end, Twitter is not to be taken seriously because most people aren't on it and most who are, are nuts.

They should employ us, R421 — We'd know how to steady the buffs and keep calm.

"Headstrong" because he wants to ensure his wife is safe and protected and able to recover comfortably after major surgery? Again, the actual general public have no issue with any of this. It is the crazed media that desperately wants constant access that is creating the fake furore.

By the way, some klutzy photo editing and then an apology simply make the royals, especially William and Kate in this instance, seem more like an ordinary family trying to raise young kids and endear them even more to the public. A dad trying to take a Mother's Day photo with all 3 kids smiling and looking at the camera at the same time, mum trying to fix the photo afterwards because the kids kept shifting about. After all the media and online bullying, especially while Kate is still recovering from surgery, it simply makes the public more sympathetic to them.

Love those 80 million views!

r417, there has been strings of loser Monarchs in the UK, but in the internet era, the Windsors cannot manage a string of dubious Kings as George V and Silly Billy, before another Victoria.

If I were Prince Georgie, I would watch my back...

He does look very ill.

Definitely lost weight and hair.

Uh yeah, chemo does that.

He looks a little worse for wear, but not alarmingly, IMO.

And for picky people, I meant G IV

r427

The royal family no longer bow and curtsy to each other, except to the king and queen (and any living queens dowager).

Usually after the first "Your Majesty" and bow (or curtsy), for the rest of the day servants just quickly dip their head when they run into the king or queen.

The King is looking also a bit blue here. Perhaps an edit of the photo non?

Lots of churn in social media that Buckingham Palace has BBC on alert for a very big story. I have a feeling it’s about Charles.

r435 All the deaths of other elderly royals, Princess Alexandra, The Duke of Kent, The Duchess of Kent , Prince or Princess Michael of Kent? Could even be an announcement the Sussexes are being stripped of their titles or that Beatrice and or Eugenie are too become working royals? Lots of possibilities.

[quote]Could even be an announcement the Sussexes are being stripped of their titles

Klan Grannies never give up.

No way it’s about the Sussexes or Beatrice or Eugenie. For one, I don’t think they would make any move on the Sussexes right now (bigger fish to fry).. Might be about one of the elder royals. I have no idea, just sharing rumors I’ve seen on Twitter and TikTok.

If Chuck Kicks the bucket and Wills is William V, there is no way they are going to potentially cut back the BRF working or not.

r437 Sugars never do logic. It would be a very timely and rational response to the launch of Meghans company as its royal branding directly goes against the terms of the Sandringham agreement.I am suggesting it as random or arbitary at all.

r438 I get why you think the Sussexes wont be the announcement but I dont think its mad to think it is about Beatrice and Eugenie-especially if one of the elderly royals is stepping back from duties for health reasons. Princess Alexandra uses a wheelchair a lot of the time now.

r440 I am not suggesting it as random or arbitary

So what’s the announcement?

Could it be colon cancer?

My bet is pancreatic cancer. Less than 6 months left.

I'm sure social media has it right and a big announcement is coming that put the BBC on stand by but nobody else. And the Palace would definitely choose a Sunday announcement because the last Sunday news cycle it got caught up in worked out so well.

So much for the announcement today LOL

All just bullshit, R447.

Rumour is that CIII has bladder cancer, which was (naturally!) detected as they were checking up his nether regions. Bladder cancer is considered very "treatable", especially when caught early.

Charles looks a bit worn down in recent pictures, the chemo therapy most likely messed up his immune system, and that's why his bottom lip is showing signs of canker sores and irritation. King or not, he is a man in his mid-70s, so the treatment alone would be quite a burden. But since he is still taking appointments and posing for pictures, I think (and hope) he will be fine.

R448, we’re not sure if chemo is being used actually. I saw someone post something about radiotherapy, which I understand is very tough as well.

How crazy is it that the literal monarch has cancer and it's practically a blip on the royal news landscape?

R449 You are right. I spoke out of turn; I think I somehow digested the assumptions about possible chemotherapy as official communiqué.

R451, I assumed it too, I only thought twice when I saw a rumor he was getting radiotherapy. Any DL doctors know why he would get that instead of chemo?

Radiotherapy is generally used at the earlier stages, depending on the cancer. It targets the specific area and is often used to shrink any tumor prior to surgery.

Chemo is aimed at potential cancer cells anywhere in the body.

My experience was that radio hurts like hell in the targeted area while chemo made me feel fatigued and nauseated. Although I was prepared for it I didn’t lose my hair.

R453, I wish the best for your recovery.

Thanks, r453 I wish you well too. If Charles is receiving radiotherapy, maybe they were right that it was caught early.

From the photographs, Charles looks a little thinner, but his hair is still hanging on.

I would think that even if your cancer was advanced, they first do radiation to shrink the tumor and then surgery to remove it. Chemo might could shrink it too (?) Then chemo after surgery to "mop up" any cancer lurking around, that they couldn't see.

But if there were tumors in multiple organs, that would mean it's traveled through the lymph or blood system, and there might not be any point in doing surgery because it would be a cure and you'd need to hurry up with the best chemo or immunotherapy you had to treat all the tumors at the same time, instead of wasting time on removing just one.

So maybe it's good news if he has surgery after this radiotherapy.

Thanks R454 and R455.

* because surgery WOULDN'T be a cure (if the cancer is in multiple organs/lymph nodes)

Has social media said yet when the new announcement time will be?

There is no new announcement, Svetlana.

Harkles removed from the royal website as working royals. Quite right, of course, as they are not working royals and never will be again.

That's good news!

Yes, should have happened years ago, r463. Meghan really messed up when she tried to merch her royal title.

Are you saying that all the insane online attacks on the royals coming from accounts that claim to be Sussex fans are really posted by Russian trolls, r461?

r462, even the Pedophile has a link on the page.

Sex with a legal adult isn't pedophilia, r466. But, yes, the fact that Andrew hasn't been removed but they have shows that they stepped way out of line. No doubt they were told not to merch a royal title, and who knows what else was going on behind the scenes. This suggests to me that Meghan was told not to use her title to sell stuff yet she went ahead and did it. And all still with no actual products or content, so there was no need for her to rush out these placeholders - unless she had some other motive.

If W5 ends up a widower, I see Georgie cutting ribbons in the aisles of Waitrose, before puberty.

Lol, they're back. Their photo was just changed to some hippy thing, with the point being made that they are no longer working royals.

[quote]As announced in January 2020, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have stepped back as working members of The Royal Family. The couple married in St George's Chapel, Windsor on 19 May 2018 and have two children: Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lilibet of Sussex.

Aw, this bit is so cute:

[quote]Prior to her marriage to The Duke of Sussex in 2018, The Duchess worked as an actress, appearing in film and television. She most notably played the role of Rachel Zane on the series Suits for seven seasons, completing over 100 episodes. Alongside her successful career as an actress, The Duchess also wrote and edited a lifestyle website called The Tig.

Accompanied by a pic of her in Suits.

R465 at worst yes. at best useful idiots. Is it any surprise that Russia and China are endeavoring to destabilize democratic countries via sm, particularly Britain and the US and their heads of state?

Harry's profile on the royal website no longer says that he is fifth in line to the throne anymore. He's still there on the official line of succession page (that will not change, unless Charles, William and all William's kids die and we are confronted with the prospect of King Harry and so will get Queen Beatrice instead), but no longer in the line of succession in any meaningful way.

Harry and Meghan used to have separate profiles on the Royal website, now they have just one combined profile. Slimming down.

Harry and Meghan Downgraded On The Royal Website

I must say that it’s very quiet here today. What can have happened to all the experts who were predicting Charles’s death yesterday? Is Twitter still aflame?

r474 Those rumours were largely propogated by dumb people, the same dumb people who keep ignoring the known established fact that Harry and Meghan asked for half in half out deal with the monarchy and didnt flee the evil monarchy in terror but later disnified their story into a fairytale. All done in plain sight publicly and they still rationalize the story as if it didnt happen. So yeah no surprise despite the lack of evidence many of the same types fell for twitter BS.

Huh. The "Buckingham palace announcement" saga was actually Russia.

r476 and propagated and repeated by idiot sugars all over twitter and it wasn just King Charles death as the non existent announcement they speculated they also speculated , Kate death, divorce etc was the announcement. Many even insisting it was a divorce announcement.

Seeing if this works.

Do you think it could be something in the Royal palaces causing cancer?

Honestly, I think it's food additives. There's this measurable rise in colon cancers in young people. It doesn't make any sense.

R479, in Britain we're told that one in two people will get cancer. You can have cancer for years and decades without ever realising it. Unfortunately, when you do start to see the symptoms it's often too late. Let's hope in both Catherine's and Charles' cases the cancer was caught at an early stage.

UK health care doesn't test enough.

Cheaper to just give palliative care before hospice.

They're starting to improve, r482, but unless every organ of the body is regularly scanned not every type of cancer will be caught in time.

Poor Charles, he can't even get cancer without being upstaged by a younger, beautiful woman.

So, I'm reading from places like People and InTouch Weekly that KC3 has pancreatic cancer and has 2 years to live. One characterized it as an "open secret" among courtiers. Any intel, DL?

Apologies if this has been discussed upthread as I'm still catching up.

No intel, but that’s the rumor. I didn’t see People, but In Touch wrote an article. I don’t know if I buy it.

Thanks r486. I misspoke, I did not see it in People, only ITW.

It could be true but I doubt it. Mainly because if Charles was actually dying they'd have kept the cancer secret for far longer while they rush to prepare William and get the succession details ready.

Honest Question: Has Charles contributed anything? What will his legacy be?

Oh yes, "In Touch Weekly", the crap that not even a couple of weeks ago was informing us that William was having an affair and implying perhaps that's why Catherine had "disappeared".

Charles currently contributes through performing his role as head of state, r489, which he's keeping up with through cancer treatment. As Prince of Wales he was one of the first, over 50 years ago before it was hip to talk about the need to protect the environment and put that into practice in the Duchy of Cornwall, which created an ongoing successful range of organic products. The Prince's Trust has helped thousands of young people over the decades. One of his biggest legacies will be William.

What exactly are you expecting? The monarch isn't meant to pass legislation.

[quote]R491 What exactly are you expecting? The monarch isn't meant to pass legislation.

Well, but they are expected to contribute, as people with power, advantage, time, and vast resources.

I mean, I would HOPE.

If it is in fact pancreatic cancer it is 98% fatal within 5 years. Most die 3 months - 2 years. And Charles was never a smoker, which is believed to be the primary case for this cancer, followed by ongoing inhalant exposure to certain toxic chemicals, excessive drinking, diabetes, obesity, genetics and certain bacteria. That would be a cruel twist of fate that Charles had to wait over 50 years as an adult to be crowned king, only to be soon diagnosed with a terminal cancer.

My uncle who never smoked in his life but in his occupation was exposed to toxins from glues, dyes, and soldering fumes was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer at age 80, given an approximate 4-6 months to live, and died just 5 weeks later from respiratory arrest.

And, R492, R491 has provided some detail of just a little that the King, especially as Prince of Wales, has achieved. You could check out the link below but there are lots of words so it may be too much for you.

Tl;dr? The Prince’s Trust has provided support to over 1,000,000 11-30 year olds over the past 50 years.

The Prince's Trust was one of the charitable groups that truly made a difference to so many young people lives over the decades.

R492, the monarch is meant to be apolitical and the one thing he or she is absolutely not expected or permitted to do is try to influence the passage of legislation with people with power, advantage, time, and vast resources.

I just asked what he contributed to the world… not what legislature he created.

Will they even bother to put his image on the currency?

It's already on the stamps and some currency in Canada.

R498 , new banknotes released on June 5

He's the king of the United Kingdom, r497, why does he have to contribute to the whole world?

No one said he had to contribute to the whole world. Obviously it’s about what he’s contributed as a royal.

Oh, wait - someone did say that.

Sorry.

And you got your answers, R497. To add: Charles made climate change a talking point DECADES ago, well before it was on people's radar.

I hope it isn't pancreatic -I doubt it is- and I wish him a speedy recovery and many more years.

You kind of get the wisdom of not dislcosing the type of cancer, in retrospect. Suppose it cannot be cured. Imagine what's coming for William and Kate under normal circumstances. There's a lot to consider and plan for, done best in private, in fairness to all involved.

I saw a screengrab of Chas' Easter soeech, and he looks good, nice suit.

R492, you should do just a little research. He has headed numerous ecological and heritage projects, the latter always concerned with providing jobs for the disadvantaged youth of the area. The restoration of Dumfries House by the Prince's Trust, in which Charles was very much the arbiter of what should occur, they built outbuildings for young artists, a catering school and a school where tradesmen whose skills were needed for the restoration, but were in danger of dying out, could train young people to carry them forward. Most people who graduated from the schools could find work in Dumfries House or one of the other Royal residences, if they were not offered work on the open market.

He has changed many lives for the better, done very little grandstanding about it, and has done very little harm beyond the occasional tantrum. (I don't count Diana, because nobody could have handled her well unless Anne was allowed to slap her on the regular.)

King at Easter, The Times ^

The Telegraph below.

Looks well.

The King and Queen Attend Easter Sunday Church Service.

Likely his last Easter?

I don't think so, r511. He could live a good few years. His cancer seems to have been caught early, and he seems to be responding to treatment ok.

Or maybe yours.

Where was Kate?

His bottom teeth are appalling. Wow!

He looks a hell of a lot better than Cams. I wonder if something is going on with her as well?

R512 If it's pancreatic, then very unlikely he'll see next Easter.

R516, I think something has been going on with Camilla for many years. Whatever it is, they've got it mostly managed, but she's definitely got something going.

R518 Queen Camilla is almost 78, I'm sure she's got a number of medical issues. The most prominent rumour, however, is that she has bad arthritis and reoccurring back problems.

The fact that Charles was out and about today and meeting people in the crowd suggests to me that things aren't as dire as the rumour mill is suggesting.

I think Charles looks well. Hopefully the rumours that the cancer is pancreatic are untrue.

I thought he looked a bit peaked and tired, but otherwise very good. In fine form, actually. Looking forward to seeing him hopefully at Trooping the Colour and other events this spring.

So 75 year old Charles stricken with cancer can muster up the energy to show up for Easter service but Kate couldn’t? Lazy bitch.

R522 Which led to believe that Kate’s cancer is more serious.

[quote]Do you think it could be something in the Royal palaces causing cancer?

Charlotte is poisoning them.

Or her chemo is more recent, so her risk of infection is higher.

Or she and the family are spending the Easter break at their house in Norfolk, as already announced.

R522 is incredibly stupid.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg lived for 11 years after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, and the diagnosis itself surely came a fair while after the cancer had started to develop.

The only reason garbage fiction like In Touch Weekly is saying it's pancreatic cancer is because they know that will create more of a stir, as evidenced from some of the gullible here.

Are they bots or the stupid class?

RBG's cancer was caught in early stage and was the rare and much more treatable type. Guitarist Wilco Johnson was also diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, given 6 months, but another specialist found he had the rarer kind that was treatable, he loved another 10 years. But the treatable type will longer survival rates is like 2%.

So, to be clear, we've now decided as accepted fact that Charles has pancreatic cancer and Kate has ovarian cancer? I just don't want to derail the conversation going forward. TIA!

We are basically assuming the article's claim that King Charles has pancreatic cancer is accurate.

And can I ask why we're making that assumption?

What article - In Touch Weekly or Glamour?

None of us have any idea WTF type of cancer either Charles or Kate has. All we know is about Charles's is that it was discovered during treatment for an enlarged prostate, and that according to the prime minister, it was caught early. All we know about Kate's is that it was discovered during tests after abdominal surgery. No credible source has confirmed anything other than that.

I keep thinking it's bladder cancer.

We really don't need to know, in either case. The Queen Mother had bowel cancer about halfway through her life, and it was kinda known but barely remarked on, back in those gentler times. We did not know what QEII was dying of until well after she went, and it was none of our business. We could see she was weakening, and we seemed to be content with that.

Charles and Kate are undergoing chemo, which is rough on most people, especially post-operatively, so of course they feel sick. Once that's over, if they're back doing their duties that's all that matters. Thanks to the marvels of the internet and the 24-hour news cycle, we will know if one of them starts to fail by using our eyes. We don't need to know what odds they've got: even for DL that's a graceless expectation.

Typically when a urologist is doing scanning for prostate they tend to include the entire abdominal region, since prostate disease can also impact other organs . If any irregularities or obvious signs of tumors are evidenced in the imaging, that can be included in the test results. This would include the bladder, the kidneys, the liver, and pancreas and gallbladder.

The handbag is so-so, but I really like the rest of Anne's outfit from yesterday

Just saw the dress matches the coat, very nice. She has kept her figure very well.

I don’t like the boots, she should have worn smart brown suede pumps.

R537 Charles undergoing chemo is conjecture which has been picked up and run with on the internet. He could well be going through radiotherapy.

No pumps for the Princess Royal, R541,. One never know when one might need to commandeer a mighty steed.

R538, it's very hard to see the pancreas on screening, unless you do an MRI. Unlikely you'd spot a problem on an ordinary ultrasound, or even a CT without contrast, if you were just doing a sweep of the area.

That's a key reason why pancreatic cancer is so often not picked up early. There's no easy way to have a look.

Anne fucking rules, and I wish she could.

Kate does look pretty bad. Chuck...not so bad, especially considering he's not a spring chicken. That said, who the fuck knows? A lucky break here, a not so lucky break there, it's really something of a crapshoot.

An aside: Am I the only one who feels odd when they hear/read "Queen Camilla"? I'm not even that invested in the BaRF, but it just feels like a parallel universe or something. Why YES, I would LOVE another G&T!

Is Charles being treated in London? Why the helicopter trips for treatment?

The helicopter trips are because he is reportedly staying at his house in Norfolk.

You mean Sandringham, where British Kings go to be euthanized,?

No, R548, I meant Norfolk, which is the English county in which the Sandringham estate including Sandringham House is located.

Just a tip - it’s always wise to get one’s facts straight before attempting to correct someone else.

Idiot.

Damn, people are really touchy in this thread.

Not at all R550, but if someone corrects me - incorrectly - then I am happy to correct them.

r549, your cuntiness has been noted.

R548, me asked a question?

But as you are being so obtuse, where in Norfolk did Chuck go if not Sandringham?

"Anne fucking rules, and I wish she could." - What do you wish she could "rule", r545.

No, it's not at all odd to hear/read "Queen Camilla". Succession is a system that's existed for a 1000 years, it's entirely normal for there to be a new king and queen when the old ones die.

R553 Settle down, Beavis.

Sky News.- King Charles could attend more engagements soon in what could be positive cancer signal.

The phrase "Queen Camilla" doesn't really throw me, but hearing Camilla referred to as THE Queen still feels a bit strange. I'm guessing people had the same reaction when Queen Victoria died and Alexandra became Queen.

I think Charles looks pretty healthy in the recent footage we've seen of him, including R555's video of him with the stamps. Obviously you can't necessarily gauge someone's health just by looking at them, but at least there are no red flags. Hopefully he's responding well to treatment.

He has pasty cancer look to this visage IMO. Seen it many times. Charles' complexion used to be quite ruddy. He might be wearing makeup or it's cancer pallor.

At R539, Anne's gloves, bag, and boots all look awful, IMO.

Her hat has a black puff ball and black feathers, so she should have stuck with black gloves, bag, and footwear.

The boots with the fringe look like something from the '70s.

The bag looks deflated and like something you see at a thrift store.

But yes, her figure looks great and the coat dress is nice.

I thought Charles look a bit tired, but actually very good otherwise in recent appearances. He's definitely lost a little weight, but that's not a bad thing. He looked trim in a good way, lost his small paunch and his fingers looked a bit better -? Not as puffy.

He's always seemed hale and hearty and unless they're covering up negative details, he should be back on normal schedule by years end. This monarchy seems high on transparency, so I don't think they're hiding anything from the public.

I saw a press photo of Charles looking at his new banknotes, and thought his right hand looked even more prosthesis-like. The puffiness and redness contrasted yet more with his new pallor and weight loss.

It's admirable though that Charles is making sure to be seen as an active presence. I hope he continues steadily to make a full recovery.

[quote] I hope he continues steadily to make a full recovery.

He will be the first sovereign since G3 that hasn't been sent off direct to the knackers.

Kudos (I guess) to the Palace for keeping a lid on rumors about what’s really going on with his health.

They're always doing that.

He drove to church four days ago.

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

^ He met the Governor of the Bank of England at Buckingham Palace on the 9th.

Isn't the Beast Team Harkle?

Isn't that the guy who handles the BRF's PRIVATE TRANSACTIONS?

I hope Charles recovers but I have no respect for him and lost respect for the late Queen due to their failure to stop a malevolent grifter from infiltrating their family and by extension saturate the media and be in all of our faces daily.

It was obvious from outer space she was trouble and they had MI5/6 reports to confirm their suspicions, suspicions born of her actions they all witnessed. It never should have gone any further than her trying to photograph sleeping Charlotte or Charlotte's bedroom. That's sick.

So what if they refused halfwit Harry permissions to marry her and she cried racism. They could have defended themselves at that point, before a marriage. Alluded to her background check, inappropriate behaviors to include children, etc. They could have exposed her because she wasn't "family" yet. Whatever the case, it would have blown over eventually as she was just a girlfriend. Now they can't defend themselves and spill the dirt on her because she's a "wife and mother" and TITLED.

My little 4'10" Italian aunt chased away a malignant woman looking to marry my cousin who had already begun to make huge, evil trouble and concoct horrendous lies as just a girlfriend. Maybe Charles should have hired a little Italian woman biting her hand, cussing in Italian and waving a wooden spoon to get rid of Meghan.

Mal Occhio!

R567, you waste a lot of words exposing yourself as a Klan Grannie.

R567, on the scale of human garbage, I think Markle is a 1 out of 10, but within the group of ones, a definite 10 out of 10.

So having established my bona fides, I think you're way overstating who knew what when. There has never been any more proof of her taking photographs than of any of the garbage her bathwater drinkers throw around about William and Kate. She has shown herself to be so awful her story doesn't need gilding.

I would imagine Charles' pallor and weight loss is to be expected and this will reverse when he's on the other side of it. I don't have any personal family experience with cancer as everyone in my family, on both sides, dies of heart attacks.

Prince Edward on the other hand is looking healthier and has put on some weight. He was looking gaunt for a while. Attributed to him grieving his parents but I suspect it was more than that and he is just now recovering from whatever it was.