It’s Happening: Kate Announces She Has Cancer (part 3)

From what a physician told me, Catherine probably has ovarian cancer, which he said is very treatable. He said Charles's case is probably more serious and less of a chance of recovery.

Ovarian is a death sentence, sorry toots

Reply 593 on the other thread, yes I think that was it.

Isn’t ovarian cancer only a death sentence because it is generally asymptomatic and is only found after spreading here, there and everywhere? If it is found early incidentally I don’t think it’s that bad.

Camilla was out today in Shropshire and two little girls gave her hand drawn get well csrds for Kate. They were very cute.

R1, I'm curious how your doc would know whether Kate's cancer is in a treatable stage. Ovarian cancer is diagnosed at Stage 4 in something like 80% of cases. It's usually terminal.

Richard Eden in the Mail today: Prince Harry and his wife discovered that their sister-in-law Kate had cancer at the same time as the rest of the world – at 6pm on Friday, when Kensington Palace released her brave and moving video message. [italic]That, as it happens, was about one hour and 30 minutes later than the royal correspondents, who were given the details in confidence so that they could prepare their news reports. They were trusted, evidently.[/italic]

Drip, Drip, Drip

Man, that's gotta sting if you're the Sussexes.

The Sussexes may have separated themselves geographically, familially, socially and financially from Harry's immediate family but, the Wales' have struck the deeper blow here by not informing the Sussexes beforehand.

Not being told before the general public undermines your whole celebrity Royal adjacent schtick.

And William and Kate knew that it would come out that the Sussexes weren't informed before the general public.

I told you bitches that Catherine, Princess of Wales can cut a bitch with a slender, silent stiletto that nevertheless announces itself at top volume.

It's really simple and really true: the cannot be trusted. And love them or deplore them, they can't. It is an undeniable fact they sold hugely private information (the veracity notwithstanding.) Trust... you can unring a bell. As a couple, I don't know how you'd ever trust them again.

Correct, r8.

I'm sure that Harry and Meghan don't give a rat's ass about getting health updates from family members who have been twats to them. If William and Catherine want to be adults and apologize for all their bullshit, maybe Harry and Meghan will think about giving them a second chance.

Meanwhile, she's got cancer, she's getting treatment, it's time to move on from rehashing videos and conspiracies. Hopefully William and Kate have taken this opportunity to reflect on how to handle PR and image management moving forward and the next crisis will be handled in a more modern and transparent way.

Utter bullshit. What planet is R10 living on…

What do you even say to someone like R10? Delusional. Back to Celebedlam.

I thought we established it was colon cancer because of her Crohn’s disease?

I thought we established it was prostate cancer because of the emergency convoy spotted in late December?

R113 We don’t know for sure she has that. I posted in part 1 that I had dinner with a doctor friend and she said it is likely Crohn’s Disease, due to the two week hospital stay. But of course that was her guessing. That first thread was full of trolls so much stuff got lost because of their loony posts.

I suppose we will find out eventually,

I humbly submit the only thing we've established is we don't really know anything for a fact except she had abdominal surgery and cancer was subsequently found in testing.

Why is the world would William and Catherine tell Harry?

His people have been planting shit about her for ages. He’s not an “in their corner” type of guy.

I do not believe Charles has pancreatic cancer. THink about it. He went in to the hospital for his prostate. They found the cancer while he was there.If your focus is the prostate, then you look in that vicinity to speculate on what may have happened. Colon, rectal, bladder, etc.

You are wrong r1, sorry. Ovarian is the worst kind of female cancer. Very low survival rate, and likely why Kate isn't disclosing the type, along with Charles who likely also has a very serious form.

R19 where are you getting that? The five year survival rate is close to 90% for stage 1.

Why is it likely, R19? Isn't it as likely they want to prevent the internet from laying odds?

R20, it’s extremely rare for ovarian cancer to be caught at stage one. It’s usually caught in an advanced stage after having symptoms. Since Kate was having symptoms of something (hence the operation), I would imagine it would not be stage one. But I don’t think she has ovarian cancer, I think it was probably colon cancer.

What r22 said, r20. If you're actually a woman, I'm pretty surprised you don't know this. C'mon.

It’s quite possible she had a resection and it’s colon cancer. But she could have had endometriosis throughout her abdomen and it’s ovarian cancer. Endometriosis increases the risk.

A bad prognosis is more likely to be kept private, r21. Are you daft? I'm just theorizing here, calm your tits.

R23 I am a woman with Crohn’s who has had a resection and her timing fits for that. But I’m not ruling out everything else.

All of these issues with ladybits are 😵‍💫

We’ve got it easy. Just ignore your slightly enlarged prostate, and learn to piss early and often.

R1 Either you or your dr is full of shit. All of you people are crazy.

If it is ovarian cancer and they only found it accidentally during maybe a partial hysterectomy for endometriosis then I pray they found it very, very early. It doesn't sound like that to me either, though. I thought I'd read before that she was a very heavy smoker and coffee/tea drinker. She has royal Physicians why weren't they screening her for colon cancer?

It's too bad that they didn't tell harry & Meghan just before it was released because that means they are still holding a grudge which is Not conducive to healing.

Sorry, R25, my tits get really flustered over groundless stupid. Thanks for clarifying what you thought you were doing.

[quote]then I pray they found it very, very early.

Is it wrong that I don't understand these types of reactions to the medical diagnoses of people who I don't really know.

Any cancer diagnosis is serious. Regardless of which "stage." The thing is, once you're diagnosed they have no idea where the cancer is going to show up.Maybe it is colon cancer. And maybe it is no longer confined to the colon. Or if it is ovarian, it may have spread. Who knows.

[quote] If William and Catherine want to be adults and apologize for all their bullshit, maybe Harry and Meghan will think about giving them a second chance.

Hey Meg, how’s the new website coming along? Cannot WAIT to buy your fake-royal branded birdseed. Literally counting the minutes.

I can't even imagine the emotional disorder and intellectual limits required to make a statement like the one quoted in R34. Christ.

I think R10 lives on planet Meghistan.

Planet Celebitch, more like. Those sows are mean and crazy.

R29 the only time I ever heard Kate was a heavy smoker was by the hysterical lunatic posting on this thread. He kept repeating that Kate was a lifelong heavy smoker, but despite repeated requests he provided nothing to back that up.

[quote]I can't even imagine the emotional disorder and intellectual limits required to make a statement like the one quoted in [R34].

Only speaking the truth, something William and Kate aren't familiar with as witnessed by all the dodging and lying in the last few weeks. Now she's not going to make an appearance at Easter. Another lie. They just can't stop lying and having the press cover for them at Kensington Palace. William and Kate have done the impossible, make Charles and Camilla seem fun, interesting, and truthful by comparison. Hope Charles sticks around for another 30 years.

The loopier and more insistent they are, the likelier it is she's one of our visiting anuses from Celebitchy. There's a pattern to their postings. Fixated on a specific negative is one. They believe their shit.

I'm astonished daily by the sheer number of Tory psychopaths on this board who have allowed the Harkles to live rent-free in their heads 24/7.

Seriously, seek professional help.

Lying? What was she lying about?

Other than confirming you have a predictably empty life, R41, what's the point of you scolding

R16 is completely right. We don't know anything. But why a gay gossip site so wants it to be a gynaecological cancer, when that doesn't fit the hospitalisation timeframe no matter how hard you push it, puzzles me.

r39 Arrr I see somebody's new strategy or memo is geared towards the aim of of weakening William and Kate. Protecting your medical privacy and childrens welfare is not dishonourable in the eyes of most reasonable folk outside a small but loud minority in parts of twitter.

r43 They are trying to create an unwarranted association between disliking and being critical of Harry and Meghan and being uber right wing ie Trump supporters or more extreme tories. They've been doing it a while. It's very childish, untrue and a way of trying to shut down debate or delegitimise the opinions of the Sussexes/Dumbartons critics. I know many tory haters , never mind left leaning folk who dislike the Sussexes so it's a myth they trying to promote that dislike of them is right wing.

R46 you’re dealing with Americans - who cares what they think?

R29 Catherine's "heavy smoking" is a lie promulgated by the jelly Celeybitches. There is a pic of her having a smoke and a beer in college, so....she an addict

[quote]I know many tory haters , never mind left leaning folk who dislike the Sussexes

That might just be one of the saddest things I've ever seen on these threads. Who talks about this shit in their real lives to know who like or dislikes anyone? It's one thing to discuss Harry and Meghan versus Willie the Horrible and Princess Doolittle on a silly gossip site, but if you are talking about this in your personal life, seek immediate help. That is just sad, low class, and low IQ.

I Think it probably was perfectly normal for the y ounger people in their social circles to smoke. A phase. But I think both William and Catherine would have stopped by the time they got married, especially once they were pregnant with the first kid. I was shocked to discover how accepted smoking is in Europe. And in parts of the MIddle East.

Who didn't smoke at university? Fat girls who grew up (and out and around) to be Celebitches.

I thought Americans were Luddites with smoking, but it seems to be making a comeback, especially in L.A..

I'm not sure that I understand what the problem would be if she did smoke in the past

Didn’t they confirm that Charles doesn’t have Prostate cancer? In which case, it’s something else worse then.

There was an article published a week ago that said Kate has had Crohn’s for years. She probably went in for a resection and they found cancer in her colon.

Link to the article please R54.

R55 “It has been reported in previous years that Middleton has Crohn’s disease, which is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease affecting the lining of the digestive tract. Inflammatory bowel disease greatly increases the risk for colon or bowel cancer.”

[quote] I thought Americans were Luddites with smoking, but it seems to be making a comeback, especially in L.A..

What?

[quote] I told you bitches that Catherine, Princess of Wales can cut a bitch with a slender, silent stiletto that nevertheless announces itself at top volume.

Yeah, right.

r49 You must have lead a very sheltered life if you consider thats one of the saddest things youve ever read on here - especially given the many tragedies that have been discussed on here as well as some of the bizarre anti gay threads that have been posted on here. Everything is a question of degree and extent .I am not claiming people stand around chatting about Meghan and Harry endlessly but from time to time, especially just after the Oprah interview and Netflix series people did pass comment and that is totally to be expected and frankly would be what the Dumbartons would have wanted .They certainly would not have wanted zero reaction. If people gossip on an internet forum why would you be surprised that people also gossip offline in real life? You think gossip about prominent didnt exist pre Datalounge? That I would suggest is the low IQ scenario here and the low class thing here is you throwing inflammatory comments like that at people . For what ? Mentioning that the strong connection between being very right wing and disliking these two is pretty much a non thing? I think selling your family out is one of the lowest class thing anyone can do.

Charles has ovarian cancer.

R49, what do you talk about with your coworkers when emptying the bedpans? Or the other "mothers" having a seat at Children's Services?

The family sold them out first. And I am sorry that it bothers you, but there is a clear correlation between people who don't like Harry and Meghan and right wing, conservative, and racist people. Does that mean that everyone who dislikes Harry and Meghan is a racist? No. Does it mean that they frequent in the same spaces as racists and right wingers and use similar language and talking points? Yes.

I have never once had a conversation about the BRF in my personal life. Who are you people who are having these discussions about such nonsense in your everyday conversations? Where you know what side of the fence someone is on in this silly British Press fueled feud?

r62 The family sold them out by denying them the right to have their cake and eat it in a half in half out arrangement?? I dont think so.The only example Harry could give of Camilla briefing the press was quickly disproven.If his claims hd substance he would have had many more to illustrate his point. Your seriously suggesting that anybody whoever passes comment on Harry and Meghan away from the internet is racist and keeps racist company?/ That does not make sense and is a very teenage logic type of argument.Everything you just posted is a MASSIVE reach and stretch .You cannot extrapolate that much about people based on such little information as they encountered somebody who is left wing who said something like Harry is terrible the way he treated his ill and dying grandparents and turn that into they are racists and really right wing. Are you British ?? Because it aint a surprise that a British person like me has on occasion heard other people make passing comment on the royal family without making a song and dance about it.

Sorry, I don't care for the Sussexes and have never voted for a Repub or right winger in my life. I don't frequent racist or non-progressive spaces or use their language. I don't like the way they've behaved or presented themselves, especially since leaving the UK and continuing a non-stop whining campaign of grievance. Against many factions: the UK press, the Palace mandarins, but also Harry's family. Who sold who out first? It was H & M who ran to Oprah, Netflix and the publishing houses to vent an endless stream of petty complaints. The BRF have been mostly silent.

And don't claim the BRF has the UK press in their pockets and have manipulated them against the Sussexes. Kate just underwent an endless cruel barrage of rumormongering and insinuation at their hands, for many weeks while she was struggling with serious health issues. That isn't someone in bed with the national press. Recent events should put that silly idea to rest, permanently.

r62 I bet you cant prove this clear connection between being right wing and disliking the ex royal grifters? You cannot just go on examples on the internet because they are a loud unrepresentative minority so youd have to give real world examples but you cant do that because such a snarky nasty poster like you would never be low class enough to speak to anyone in real life about this by your own admission.

A lot of Hollywoood seems rather stand offish with them and Hollywood aint known for being very right wing. Your arguments are strawmen.

There is no distinction of great significance to be made between people who discuss things online and people discussing things offline therefore you discussing it online makes you sad too if your argument holds water-which it doesnt because bullshit even gold star bullshit doesnt hold water.

r64 Excellent well argued post .That poster is relying on childish reductionism, generalisations and non sequitars to make a nonsense of an argument. It is foolish of and futile of them to get themselves into a line of argument that anyone who disagrees with them is evil /nasty/ racist etc.Very lazy cop out.

[quote] there is a clear correlation between people who don't like Harry and Meghan and right wing, conservative, and racist people.

No. No, there is not. You cannot make such a statement without backing it up and there’s no way in a month of Sundays you have a sliver of evidence to support that claim.

Harry used to be very well liked here in the UK, and people were generally fine with Meghan to begin with and many even liked her. They’ve since behaved despicably too many times to count and I genuinely don’t know a single person who likes them now, no matter their political/social views.

This “klan granny” bullshit the Sussex stans throw around is just that—bullshit. It’s a case of having to resort to mudslinging and attacking people because you know you will NEVER win the argument based on facts alone.

R56 that Yahoo article is so strange. I read that statement and thought “how did I miss that?” I mean as a person with Crohn’s I think I’d remember something like that. But then I did an internet search and only found this other Kate Middleton, I don’t think any relation, who was Crohn’s. So was my search defective? Or was someone at Yahoo confusing the two Kate Middleton? Or was that some major true medical news that was previously unknown reported as if it were known?

Somebody at Yahoo fucked up.

I wouldn't wish Crohn's on anyone, but coupled with cancer? Okay, Trump, Putin, etc.

[quote] Does it mean that they frequent in the same spaces as racists and right wingers and use similar language and talking points? Yes.

Bullshit

I didn't start-off disliking the Sussexes. Their own behaviors created the grounds for me to do so.

Harry finally jumped the shark with me when, after leaving and living in California, he gave that stupid interview about visiting Q E II, wanting to "check on" her and implying something negative about the "people around her."

Laughable. And then anybody questions why William and King Charles want their distance from Harry? He went on TV and made such ridiculous insinuations and, in the bargain, implicitly insulted them in the bargain?

Again, If you're a Sussex Stan, I don't care, good for you.

But this notion that anybody who points out that they've created their own grounds for people to look askance at them, or is bigoted, is just nonsense.

Oh, and let's remember. Sussex Stans rest their fandom on what the Sussexes have presented.

On the other hand, Harry's immediate blood family cannot and will not, at least overtly, give their side of the story, 'cuz that's not how they roll.

The whole world points and laughs upon seeing Bald Harry on a skiing vacation with Corey Gamble around the time the Diddy papers are filed.

You know, as I understand it, the "half in, half out" thing came up because of Edward and Sophie. It was an edict of Prince Phillip. He was adamant about it. But basically Edward and Sophie wanted to continue their business pursuits in documentary filmmaking, TV specials, and Public Relations, and also participate as working members of the Royal Family...because it would give them a cushion they'd live on their royal estate, get income for being a working Royal, and also benefit financially from their interests. Phillip said hell no! Edward and Sophie had to make a decision. They went for the purse.

But there is falsity in Philip's dictum. Because Prince Charles was benefitting from his interests by generating products from Highgrove to sell. And The Queen herself was breeding and selling horses privately. Right now, there's an article floating around that both Beatrice and Eugenie are very disappointed that Charles has not asked them to help out with duties. But neither of them is available for much because they both have...JOBS! Yes. They do, and they also have young children. So the half in half out policy has become a bit of a hindrance. Personally, I think they should be allowed to have private interests, income generating projects, etc and also be allowed to participate, in a limited way, in the work of the Royals...whatever it is. There's no reason why other members of the family should not be patrons of some charity and continue their private lives. I would allow it in a very limited way.

I find it so hilarious how upset Kate and Will stans get when you point out the obvious to them. Deep down, they know it's true which is why they scream and cry and stomp their wittle feet. And yes, the BRF does control the British press to a degree, all of William and Kate's lies have been conveniently covered up and they've been protected because the other royals feed them lies about Harry and Meghan. Just this past week we saw how they tried to drag Harry into the Diddy mess, only to discover that the British Press cropped out William, who was in the same picture. And only a couple of weeks ago how they were called out over and over for trying to drag Harry and Meghan into Will and Kate's nest of lies by making false claims. And how it was revealed that the British Press worked with Kensington Palace to set up the whole farm shop visit.

Why are cancer rates so high?

Cell cycle apoptosis checks interrupted by lack of sleep?

[quote]I have never once had a conversation about the BRF in my personal life. Who are you people who are having these discussions about such nonsense in your everyday conversations?

Many of us are people for whom the King is our Head of State.

We listen to you lot bleating about Biden and Trump from morning till night, so clam up.

Sophie's PR disaster proved the royals couldn't do HIHO.

[quote]Many of us are people for whom the King is our Head of State.

Oh, and don't think we don't see the shit you all say about your Prime Minister.

Wrong, R78. Our Prime Minister is widely known as a nice guy, not to mention quite a good DJ. I'd be surprised if you'd ever seen anything we'd said about him.

But the King is still our head of state, as he is for most Commonwealth countries.

The problem is with half in half out is that you're vulnerable to the kind of people who want to do business with you. The Queen's breeding of racehorses... that's a fairly rarefied world where the players know each other and there were layers and layers of known and trusted people in between her and everybody else. Profits from the Highgrove Shop go to the King's Foundation, which is the merged body several charities he founded.

Where you can easily get into trouble is when half out meets the rest of the world and the purpose of the profit is to make money for yourself. There's loads of room for bad people to put on their Sunday best and company manners and woo. The minute the profit becomes personal, you're at risk, no matter how bright you are (and more so if you're not.) Plus, it gives you an unfair advantage over competition that can lead to bad headlines. Now, being a garden variety celebrity does too, but royalty is (stealing somebody else's line here:) is put apart for purpose. They are famous, yes, but not meant to be celebrities. And that's where you get into trouble, even as simple as the York girls' holidays with the Eastern European billionaire owners of yachts. The half that's in has to prevail over the half that's out and that's hard, so best avoided.

Look at Peter Philips, who has no title, and a gaggle of endorsement deals that look pretty tacky when the Daily Mail runs a story about them, but to his credit he's doing it on the other side of the earth, mostly Asia. He also runs the Festival of British Eventing at Gatcombe Park, his mother's estate. It benefits from the association, obviously, but it's a pretty familiar revenue model for old estates in the UK, up and down the country. Goodwood, Chatsworth, etc. They all stage similar. His sister has a bunch of brand deals, but they are consistent with her equestrian expertise, she does not have a title, she's selective and she's just adjacent to the royal family.

The Sussexes could have done this. Simply, gracefully, walked away, said from herein we're going to be known as Harry and Meghan Sussex. Their story was never going away. Their brand didn't rely on the painful, hamfisted insistence on clinging to the titles as if they were still in. But they're so something inside themselves they can't let it go. Mostly selfish and insecure? You can't deplore the monarchy and yet cling to the trappings. You can't walk away and claim you want to make change. It doesn't make any sense unless you're attached for your own benefit first.

Cancer rates are higher because the technology and testing has improved so much. They are catching things much sooner, which is a good thing.

R79 he may be a nice guy, but according to my UK friends, he is a piss poor Prime Minister.

R80, oh yes, the business of horse trading is so rarified and full of trustworthy characters. It reads like satire.

I’ll just add my two cents (worth probably a penny). The KG term, from what I remember, arose from posts that debated MM’s blackness and race. It wasn’t based on who supported whom. It was aimed at those people who brought race into the conversation, especially those who said she was trying to not be black or biracial. All those conversations got the dangling tendrils threads banned and removed.

It's hardly horse trading, idiot.

[quote] You can't deplore the monarchy and yet cling to the trappings.

I think it’s this undeniable hypocrisy that has rubbed almost everyone up the wrong way (except their little fan base, bless them). They’ve made utter fools of themselves and it only seems to be getting worse with time, not better. And I speak as somebody who initially quite liked them and gave them the benefit of the doubt. I find them repellent now.

This conversation is now going in circles. Either you feel that H&M were justified in their choices or you don't. Either you think the BRF family made no mistakes or you don't. Arguing the same points over and over again moves nothing forward.

[quote]And yes, the BRF does control the British press to a degree, all of William and Kate's lies have been conveniently covered up and they've been protected because the other royals feed them lies about Harry and Meghan.

Sure Jan. And the vicious lies and rumors Kate just had to endure the past few months, while privately ill, at the hands of the UK press were because she and William have such tight control over them.

Not a Meghan fan at all, but I've always been in the camp that she had to endure a lot of brutal coverage when she first joined the BRF, a lot of it unfair and biased. I was equally dismayed at how Kate has been handled recently. Neither side has much power over the UK tabloids or even mainstream press, not sure why anyone would believe this to be the case.

R88 I always thought that that Meghan got very positive coverage initially, by both the British public and the press. I am talking about initially, before the drama's and bullying of staff etc

Why doesn’t Kate come out publicly about her Crohn’s Disease, and give updates/tips about that? It could help a lot of people if she made awareness one of her causes.

She's a little busy now trying to save her life, etc.

Having a pet project can act as a healing distraction, tho.

She needs to come out and become the face of the Chrone’s Disease movement.

R90 When you’ve been newly diagnosed with cancer, the last thing you wanna do is announce it to the rest of the world, which unfortunately she had to do in some form. she's still trying to process the shock and focusing on treatment. when and I hope when she's cancer-free, she'll speak about it and advocate for others.

Generally with Crohn’s the fewer movements the better R92.

Can we just take a moment to recall it is not established fact she has Crohn's? And if we're really feeling wild, let's accept it. Back to regular programming.

What does Crohn's do? Do you fart a lot or shit a lot or something?

With Meghan, my recollection is that the press was intrusive but neutral (aside from the stupid Compton headline); it was the comments sections that were negative.

It wasn't her fault they became a cat and mouse media game while dating. But then there was the Vogue cover and the engagement interview and she started coming across as more than just a really lucky lady who'd found love. It just kept getting worse from there. Now - this is who she is and always was. You gotta be a moron to back her as a victim. It's a helluva ride but can we now abandon the poor little mixed race girl bullshit? This is what she sought. This is how it would have turned out no matter what. It's obvious.

[quote]Camilla was out today in Shropshire and two little girls gave her hand drawn get well csrds for Kate.

Yeah, I tossed them in the bin.

When Meghan wore that mega-expensive dress in her engagement photo, I started wondering…

I actually decided to do a DL deep dive last night and read through the official Meghan and Harry wedding threads to see for myself if it's true that she was near-universally hated right from the jump.

I am quite happy to report that, at least here on the DL, that was not at all the case. Thread after thread was filled with much wedding MARYment and happiness for the newlyweds, with a particular fondness for Doria. There was the usual amount of harmless snarking (mostly about her awful hairstyle), and maybe one or two desperately obvious racist trolls (this is the DL after all), but they were quickly told off. All in all, the majority of us had our tiaras on that day, dabbing our eyes in-between jokes about Camilla's alcoholism and Oprah's flatulence.

So no, it is not true that (at least here) Meg and Harry were despised for no good reason right out of the gate, and the evidence is right there in the DL archives for anyone who wishes to see for themselves.

On an adjacent topic, I was looking at the photo of Catherine lifted from her recent video announcement. And her hair was full and very long. And it occurred to me, that she reminded me of my cousin who grew her hair out for some project where women gave away their locks. So I being the shallow Gay that I am, surmised that perhaps Cathering will wear a wig and/or extensions, but whatever she "wears" will be her own. Yes, her wigs will be especially made for her of her own hair. Same with any extensions. Betcha.

I bet Elizabeth II wore a wig now and then,too, just for special occasions. She was getting a bit bald towards the end.

I don't know, I thought it was a wig from far away as well, but in the closeups we've seen, it VERY much looks like her natural hair, at least on the top. It's extremely unlikely she would have lost her hair that quickly from just one short chemo round. And if she had, she wouldn't still have those thick eyebrows and a full set of natural lashes. You don't only lose hair off the top of your head from chemo.

My mother had to stop coloring her hair when she started chemo. R104, they can compensate for the losses with fake eyelashes...permanent ones, and even her eye brows. She will have access to the best aestheticians and artists available. What's important is that basically she is fit and healthy. It seems contradictory, but when a person is diagnosed with any kind of cancer it helps if they were basically a fit person to begin with.

She's only had one round near as we can tell. Your hair doesn't fall out on the trip home from the hospital.

Often it doesn’t fall out at all.

Can one have Crohn's Disease without knowing?

For R96

R108 yes, hope your fiend feels better

R109 Oof! Thanks!

Yes R17, William, Kate & Camilla have been planting things about Harry & Meghan for the past 7 years. They do it in exchange for good press about them.

william and Kate even had to hire extra employees to help with planting, leaking and just plain, lying about Harry and Meghan.

^ Sure, Jan.

R111 is a nutcase

Crohn’s made sense because of the timing of Kate’s hospital stay and recovery, her slimness and likely hair loss (she may not have hair loss, but she’s been wearing extensions for ages and last year seemed to have upgraded to wigs) and her relatively light schedule. Crohn’s didn’t make sense only because she doesn’t seem to cancel public appearances.

But Kate’s seclusion in the aftermath of her surgery WAS strange. Sure, she’s on medical leave until ant least April, but if she’s recovering as expected total radio silence is odd. Just because someone is on leave and doesn’t want to get into the details doesn’t mean they can’t post an instagram snap or whatever about something unrelated. So it made sense that maybe there had been some complication in the aftermath of a serious surgery. She’s already thin, so anything that impairs her ability to absorb nutrition would hit her hard. But cancer that was previously unknown does not make sense.

If Crohn’s or some other bowel condition was a long term health problem, wouldn’t colon cancer have been caught at the very earliest stage? This isn’t being treated like colon cancer caught early. Both my parents had colon cancer at older ages and were probably in generally poorer health and while the surgery itself was a concern and there was some anxiety in the years immediately afterwards, it just wasn’t that big of a deal. Granted, their kids were grown, but still.

So colon cancer of recent origin doesn’t make sense. And if it’s not colon cancer, why would testing in the aftermath of colon surgery have revealed it? Maybe another cancer could have been spotted visually during surgery, but that’s not the story. And they aren’t going to randomly biopsy everything in her abdomen during colon surgery. She could still have Crohn’s and that could have been what the surgery was for, but I think the cancer was not discovered recently or even at the time of the surgery. She’s had it for a while and it’s bad. The press has known and has been cooperating (pretending the obvious wig last fall was a new hairstyle), but the seriousness was only made known at the time the video was released. It was probably hoped that treatment would be successful, but now that seems less likely. So it could be anything. Even colon cancer, but colon cancer she’s been fighting for a while.

I took the response to her video to be an implicit acknowledgement that things are very bad, so not only are we going to continue to go along with the story, but we won’t ask any questions or point out any inconsistencies.

Jeeze, the Harkles thought David and Victoria Beckham were selling stories about precious Meghan.

A couple with a brand worth hundreds of millions of dollars were making time in their schedules to tip off the paps about the doings of a 6th tier cable TV show actress married to a prince with an amoeba for a brain? I'm not a fan of the Beckhams, but COME ON.

R114 still peddling conspiracies. innuendo and outright lies. Bye.

Another meeting of Wig Watchers. Shed pounds, not hair, Celebitters. You need to feel better about you to break the cycle.

R114 the hospital absolutely did fullpathology of the portion of my colon they removed since Crohn’s increases the risk of colon cancer. It just took a while because they didn’t see anything visually so it wasn’t a priority. And in the immediate aftermath of a resection you need to stay close to a bathroom, more so even then you need to with the Crohn’s except for the most extreme flares. And the chemo after removal risk benefit analysis is highly dependent on the age of the person so I respectfully disagree with you on the arguments against.

I really don’t want to get in to the wig discussion, but I’ll just add that biotin is absorbed in the terminal ileum, which is the most common impacted area in Crohn’s.

R114, counter argument and a very simple one: they set their own rules. They are not celebrities with Instas. They're different. So she had major surgery, sought quiet time in part for the benefit of her children, and the nosy world went into meltdown. Occam's razor usually applies.

Since they're not talking but you're here, let me ask what really interests me about posters like you: why are you so grim, at length?

[quote]sought quiet time in part for the benefit of her children

I'm thinking that's bullshit. Children is a convenient out. She's got cancer, it's a bad cancer, and like most people who find out they have cancer, she went into meltdown mode. William started spiraling and didn't want anyone to know anything and locked everything down.

And for the record, they are celebrities. They just want to pick and choose when they want to be celebrities. Sort of half in/half out.

R90, royalty works through perceived closeness at a distance and mystery. It is not about her or her ailments, it is about the monarchy and what it represents. I had an English Literature professor, a Jewish guy from Brooklyn, who I think was a monarchist. He taught 18th century literature and said on more than one occasion, "nowadays everyone rolls around in the gutter burping in each other's face."

R119, but they ARE celebrities with Instagram. Nevertheless, I never faulted Kate, and still don’t, for wanting to keep the diagnosis quiet. I don’t blame anyone with notoriety for wanting to keep medical stuff private. Unless you’re running a government or doing something like flying a plane, I don’t have any right to your private medical info. My only point—and it has to do with human nature and social media—is that you can’t stop people from talking about it and speculating. We have free speech. We can tell people to MYOB, but since when has anyone ever done that?

ElderLez (R118), as you've coped with it, is Crohn's disease the kind of condition you could have in a role like Kate's.... heavily scheduled and planned, distance travel, receptions, significant inability to cancel or slip out without being noticed?

It's kind of sad all of the special treatment Kate will get. As a matter of fact all of the royals. Thousands are diagnosed with cancer everyday and very very few of them will receive the treatment that the Royals will get. They are no better and or worse than anyone else. They have done nothing special to benefit all of mankind. Do I begrudge her? No, just think it is sad that we aren't all treated the way those that are deemed special are treated. I had cancer a long time ago and my Dr. was so incompetent that he ruined parts of my body. Then I got cancer a few years ago and it took 3 years to get it taken care of because of misdiagnosis to a gay Dr. who was married to a woman and had kids who insisted I didn't need any anesthesia to have the cancer removed because he was just that good. He is not the Dr. I had remove it. It is hard eno0ugh having cancer never mind adding all these extra stressers to it. It would have been nice to know that I was getting the best care possible.

R124, I wish you well.

[quote]I really don’t want to get in to the wig discussion, but I’ll just add that biotin is absorbed in the terminal ileum, which is the most common impacted area in Crohn’s.

It was cryptic statements like this during COVID that so often made me wish I could punch you in the face, ElderLez. What lay person can interpret that? Jesus. If you're gonna be part of a conversation, try plain English.

So since you're so desperate to be asked, I'll do it: great expert, what does that statement mean?

Not Elderlez, but I'm here to assist you with your critical thinking skills. You may not know that a lot of hair care products contain biotin or that it's sold as a nutritional supplement for hair and nails. But if you didn't, and thought of why a person needs a wig and coupled "hair" with "biotin" in a Google search, you'd find out. So if there's poor biotin absorption in the ileum, the area most commonly impacted by Crohn's, what's the logical conclusion?

I'm not ElderLez but to address R123's questions, there are touring musicians, professional athletes, politicians and busy people from all walks of life with Crohn's and ulcerative colitis. Even during flares, most patients still work.

Sometimes things get bad enough that you have to be hospitalized and/or have surgery, which can keep you out of commission for months, but you learn how to live with it. There are many more treatment options now than in the past and you might experience years of stability at a time. It's entirely possible that this isn't what Kate's dealing with anyway, but you could juggle royal commitments with IBD.

R120, I'm guessing you are a Remote Viewer to have all these insights about what happened.

r122 I think you are confusing public figures with celebrity. The vast majority of people who have Instagram are not celebrities so it does not translate automatically that having an Instagram account makes you a celebrity. It seems very immature or unsophisticated to argue any well known person, even a politician or Pope etc can have an Instagram account but must accept they agree to be regarded as celebrities. My local mp has an Instagram account- are they a celebrity? No.

Yes, there is not doubt Catherine is a public figure, but IMO, everyone has a right to privacy.

Well, they said she would be convalescent until Easter, which is tomorrow, so we should see her up and about in public on Monday!

Who ever said that Kate doesn't have a right to privacy. People wanted to know she was okay, not the dirty down details of her medical diagnosis. Her people failed her. Her staff failed her. Her husband failed her.

R130, a celebrity is simply a famous person. That is the simplest definition, and Kate is a celebrity by that definition, whether she likes it or not. But that has nothing to do with anything. Unless she’s flying a plane or running a government, she has a right to privacy re her medical condition—just like any celebrity. You’re focusing on the wrong issue.

R127, that you're a boring, snide prig who would in all likelihood be the worst possible person to be sat next at dinner?

r134 I have continually argued on this forum for the best part of two weeks that everyone has a right to privacy no matter who they are so I am not focused on the wrong issue. I was simply replying to the claim that she is a celebrity which she isn't anymore than politicians or scientists are celebrities. Some people are determined to class her as a celebrity because to them that justifies the intrusion and not respecting of boundaries. That's what I am pushing against.

My MP is a local celebrity.

R136, agreed, 100%. It doesn't take much intelligence to distinguish between Kate and a Kardashian. She is famous, she is not a celebrity. To see it through that prism explains a lot of the incorrect views on the last few weeks. I know in 2024 everything thinks they are entitled to their point of view, and they are, but they seem to be missing the part that says your view, precious as it is to you, can still be entirely wrong.

Working members of the royal family are people doing a job. They are not celebrities.

But they are, r136. They are celebrities. And no one is arguing about privacy. No one is saying celebrities don’t have a right to not disclose their medical issues But people who are famous are celebrities by the very definition of the word. You’re thinking a celebrity is a Kardashian, but that’s not true. Dr. Fauci is a celebrity. Joe Biden is a celebrity. Neil deGrasse Tyson is a celebrity.

Merriam-Webster: : a famous or celebrated person.

The thing is—people by their very nature are interested in celebrities. That’s why they’re celebrities. But again, no one is saying they don’t have a right to privacy.

Thank you for acknowledging I'm correct, r135.

Smooches,

R127

I imagine you're used to making things up, R141, just as you're used to the eye rolls.

[quote]Working members of the royal family are people doing a job. They are not celebrities.

They're people doing a unique job for which they are celebrated by many. On big Royal occasions The Mall is clotted with crowds of well-wishers. The area beyond Buckingham Palace is a sea of joyous celebrants who roar with approval when the Royals appear on the Balcony. Pictures of such events festoon the next day's front pages. If that isn't celebrity, I don't know what is. I don't imagine the Royals would prefer that nobody showed up.

A person can be working and also be a celebrity. They are not mutually exclusive.

r139 I have looked up a number of definitions of celebrity and there is no standard definition or agreement. So I'm sorry but I stick to my opinions that there is a difference between famous people and celebrities. Actually on previous threads there were people who said being a member of the royal family means you have given up your right to privacy. It's all there to read on previous threads I'm not imaginng it.

Why have all three of these threads been dominated by a Crohn's sufferer who wants to whine about his health issues? Kate does not have Crohn's. Could the trolls make their own thread to discuss their shit bags?

Thanks R127. One of the things I love about DL is that there are posters from all sorts of backgrounds that will post about things that I am unaware of, but aren’t particularly technical. Then, if I am interested in the topic, I can read more about it and be thankful for the introduction. (And if I’m not interested I can just move on.) I can’t imagine getting mad at a poster, or someone in real life for that matter, just because they know a bit of general knowledge that I don’t. But it takes all kinds to make the world go round.

R145, “Celebrity” has a particular meaning in pop culture: a celebrity is someone who monetizes her (real or apparent) private life. That’s why celebrities live online. Kim Kardashian is perfect celebrity; her talent is not just “being famous” but drawing people into the whole drama of her life, her plastic surgeries, her family, her divorces—and then selling them products. Who is she really? I have no idea. But she’s an industry and ultimately will be a whole field of study, if she isn’t now.

The Royals are somewhere else on the fame spectrum. They’re there to be remote yet relatable figureheads. It’s an awkward balancing act, but it’s not identical to what the Kardashians do.

Jill Biden is not the President, but she has an active and present public role. If she went missing for three months, people would want to know what was going on and if she's okay. Michele Obama has a public role, but no longer an active one. People see her when they see her. If she is not in the public eye for a long period of time, which she isn't, no one is all that concerned.

Kate has a current and active public role, she popular. Because it's reported that she's lazy, she doesn't do daily events, but she's someone who can't just go missing for 3 months and expect that to be okay with her public.

She does not have to give anyone an explanation of her health, but she does have to explain when she's missing for a length of time. People knew she had surgery. All she had to do was do a weekly message on social media or shoot out a snap from time to time.

It's not about her health records, it's about her being a beloved figure. It's not complicated people.

Buckingham Palace explained in early January that she had undergone major abdominal surgery in a London hospital, that she would remain in hospital for up to two weeks and would then recuperate at home until Easter, which is exactly what has happened.

What more were you expecting, R149? A personal update from Kate?

I wasn't expecting anything R150, because I really didn't care all that much about her. I don't dislike her, but I didn't ever find her a compelling figure until the last few weeks. I'm more fascinated by the story and people's reactions and how Kate's husband and staff just completely fucked a sick woman over. The conspiracy theories were just so off the chart weird, that it was easy to get wrapped up in it. But I can't believe you so called Kate fans, are just okay with the numerous buses she was thrown under. I didn't need a personal update, but the people who have made her a beloved public figure, should have gotten, at the very least, an unphotoshopped Insta post.

I see, R151, so you’ve just doubled back on “she does have to explain when she’s missing for a length of time”.

As for a weekly update on social media? Don’t be ridiculous.

R152, she does not owe anyone an accounting of her personal health details. But, as an active public figure, she does owe her public, her fans, whatever you want to call them some kind of explanation when she's off the grid for a while.

What a limited imagination you have, Elderlez. But admire your passive aggressive scolding, even if it was aimed at me. Some skill there.

Most celebrities are famous for 15 minutes for something shallow and they come and go depending on the pop cultures determiners. This is not true of royalty.

An explanation was given in January, R153 - see R150 for detail - but this wasn’t enough for you, apparently.

I am just now recovering from a sigmoid colectomy two weeks ago today, as a consequence of having a bad bout of diverticulitis in November. I was pretty horrified at the mistaken (and often purposefully nasty) comments on DL in January about the possibility of Kate having had a colectomy--both on the one extreme that she would almost definitely have a colostomy bag after the surgery, and also at the other extreme that she should have been back on her feet just a few days after the surgery.

Very few colectomies (i.e. bowel resectionings) actually result in a need for a stoma, or a colostomy bag (mine certainly did not need one). but a colectomy is very serious surgery--your guts have been cut up and rearranged, and it takes weeks and weeks to get over it. I am pretty sharp now but I am also exhausted most of the time, and my colon also thinks almost every half-hour or so it's time to go to the bathroom. When you're in this condition you are in no shape to stand for an entire afternoon christening battleships or unveiling plaques.

It may not even have been that Kate had a colectomy at all. Many have suggested she instead might have had a surgery for endometriosis, which might well have happened given all her difficulties with giving birth all three times.

[quote] [R145], “Celebrity” has a particular meaning in pop culture: a celebrity is someone who monetizes her (real or apparent) private life.

A celebrity just means someone who is celebrated, or who is famous. You're inventing that other meaning.

[quote]An explanation was given in January, [R153] - see [R150] for detail - but this wasn’t enough for you, apparently.

It was more than enough for me, but clearly not enough for everyone else, given the shitstorm this started.

r159 Started by a loud unrepresentative minority on social media and arrogant newspapers not the general public on the whole. Sorry not a fan of mob rule .

R157, I hope you're recovering well.

Seconding well wishes R157. Those first few weeks are really rough.

What r156 said.

I keep up closely with the BRF and am a Kate Stan.

I didn't need, require, or desire any more than what they released in January.

The mob wants to ride the internet drug. Mass addictive behavior takes hold where only another hit of disclosure by the principal will stop the Jonesin'.

That still doesn't entitle them to demand that any person divulge their private medical info. Well, they can demand it, but fuck'em.

Boy, has this thread gotten boring. Hope we hear interesting news soon. All this back and forth is just filler.

You do know that Prince William doesn't really have to appear in public all the time all by himself. you do know that. Yes Mummy is ill, but getting better, but there is no reason whatsoever for Papa to stand there alone.

[QUOTE]What a limited imagination you have,

This begs the question why you had such expansive expectations from Elderlez, a person who has repeatedly shared her knowledge and personal experience with Crohn's that you cannot or simply refuse to grasp?

Even when processed, pre-chewed especially presented for you in the form you requested, you seem resentful about receiving the information. Why? WTF is wrong with you? You insult someone without providing a basis and you expect excellent, A+ responsive groveling from the person you insulted? Jesus, are you for real?

Despite derisively and insultingly asking for clarification from Elderlez, you managed to receive clearly delineated information, yet you still insult despite *your professed ignorance?* Lordy Jesus, save us all from you and yours.

Tomorrow Kate better be out parading in an Easter bonnet and a pretty pink coat dress or there’s gonna be HELL TO PAY!!

R167 they already announced that Catherine and William will not be attending services with the RF. Of course neither will Zara. She is going to be in a horse competition.

Thanks for the kind wishes, r161 and r162. I appreciate them.

[quote]Many have suggested she instead might have had a surgery for endometriosis, which might well have happened given all her difficulties with giving birth all three times.

As far as we are aware, she had no difficulty either falling pregnant or giving birth. She had problems with continual vomiting while carrying the babies. Nothing to do with endometriosis.

[quote]Prof Neil Johnson: There is no known association between endometriosis and hyperemesis gravidarum, so as far as we know, this can’t be considered a ‘heads up’ symptom of endometriosis. The hormonal cause – probably a combination of beta hCG and progesterone.

Falling pregnant--never heard that term but as a childless ho, I kind of like its suggestion of the disease aspect of the procreative process

Nicely done, R170! 🙏

It's a brit term. They say all the time.

She didn’t attend Easter service but Charles was able to. What now?

She may have started to lose her hair from the treatments or lose more weight and didn't want to be seen on camera. William and the Kids couldn't go without her, because people would have talked about that.

It was announced last week they were going to Norfolk over Easter. There is no now. Sorry to disappoint, Celefattie.

The statement wasn't that Kate would return to public duties at Easter. It was that she wouldn't return until after Easter. There's an enormous difference. "After Easter" could be anytime.

If Kate doesn’t appear before Whitsun she’s a dead Princess walking.

The after Easter timing was before the cancer diagnosis. This is established.

She said after Easter and I expect her to abide by that. She had better be out and about tomorrow or I'll be sorely disappointed in her!

r173 She's likely in a different stage of her chemotherapy cycle is the probable explanation

Was just watching an oncologist on tv - said he'd spoken to colleagues and they tend to think it's either ovarian (and the abdominal surgery was for endometriosis) or it's colon cancer (and the surgery was due to IBS issues.)

I don't think the former would require 2 weeks in hospital, which they said she'd need even before the cancer diagnosis, apparently) but the latter - a colon resection - could very well be more complicated with a difficult recovery.

So there, Watson, it's colon cancer.

[quote]R146 Kate does not have Crohn's.

Why doesn’t she come out and say that?

Well, the latest, as predicted here, is that someone was going to leak her condition, so she made the broadcast. I assume one of those people who stole her records was going to talk.

Why is it important to you, R182, for the Princess of Wales to announce details of her medical condition(s)?

So her prostate got Crohn’s in it?

A comforting thought is she might be ecstatic about the 10+ lbs. of colon and cancer they removed?

It's important to R182 to be an asshole. It's an identity thing.

R185, I think in women prostate enlargement is called Crone's. But if fairness I'm not even sure we've decided on how Kate identifies.

I don't know what Kate has, but would it be awful if she had Crohn's? Is she too good to have Crohn's?

R189, it's just I'm not sure that's serious enough to satisfy DL. If she's not dying of multi-organ metastatic cancer, ideally only moderately responsive to pain meds, there's going to be an enormous amount of disappointment.

It’s unseemly. And cuts into working hours.

They should henceforth check for Crohn’s as well as virginity in the official bridal examinations. Even if Kate already has brought it into the family.