Yes I believe if she or charles never specifically denied having cancer the rumor mill would have been quieter and their recovery life more peaceful and their privacy more respected. This is supported by that fact that although neither gave any details to the specifics of their cancer diagnosis nor prognosis and yet there is now little speculation or calls for more specifics because people respect they are ill.

They disclosed that she was having surgery. At that point people should have respected her need to recover and recuperate. It is not a right of the public to know anything more.

I absolutely understand why she would want to keep her diagnosis private, wrap her own head around the diagnosis and help her children understand what is happening without the interference of the world.

I remember the day the doctors told me I had cancer. I wasn't famous, but I didn't want the world to know until I had a chance to digest the news.

What is wrong with people that they don't understand why she wouldn't just run to tell the world that she was diagnosed with cancer. Just be open and honest and tell everyone your most private, incredibly emotional, terrifying business when you haven't even gotten chance to deal with it yourself.

I think those who have demanded information or criticized her for not being more forthcoming should be ashamed of themselves. Maybe if they ever hear the word "cancer" come out of their doctor's mouth they will change their tune.

Amen, Jennifer.

I had to immediately share my life threatening illness to my employer if i wanted to keep my job. Not all the details but proof of my ICU hospitalization as did my husband need to disclose his cancer diagnosis to his company to take FML.

No one demanded info here and as one who chose her lifestyle she knows very well that people’s curiosity about her is high.

If privacy is a must she and William could choose to become non working royals at anytime. The ruling royal’s health status is more comparable to a head of state’s public physical more than to you and I.

Amen, Jennifer. I can still remember taking a shower to mask the sound of my crying from my husband, just trying to wrap my own head around my cancer diagnosis, without the prism of anyone else's reaction, no matter how loving.

This, from The Times....

That the couple would have to disclose Catherine’s cancer was never in question, according to one of the people, who advised the palace in recent days and spoke on the condition of anonymity for privacy reasons. The question was when and how. The communications staff ran through several options, this person said, among them waiting until after Easter. The couple chose Friday because it was the day their children began their school holiday, which meant they would not have to face questions on the playground about their mother’s illness.

Were the false rumors, caused by secrecy, like the one that their father killed their mother not worse than the truth?

I saw no one demanding that she explain her surgery or diagnosis.

I saw people questioning if she was sicker then thought after the photoshopped photo was released by the Royal Family.

Because it was manipulated, people wondered why. And to what extent was the photo altered.

To those here still battling Cancer, stay strong. To those in remission, Hallelujah!

Kate specifically mentioned in her video message that they choose this time to disclose - while the children were on spring break. I can't imagine trying to explain her illness to her children; that breaks my heart.

I understand where you are coming from Jennifer. I have not had cancer myself, but as mentioned earlier, I had a hysterectomy last year. What I didn't share, was that I had a pre-cancerous condition. I had previously had a d&c (a few months prior to the surgery, and later a biopsy. But because the biopsy was only one spot, my dr. felt it best to go ahead and do the surgery. I agreed and I am so grateful that I had the choice. I realize that many don't. During the surgery, my uterus was scraped and the lining tissue was sent off to be tested. I was so thankful to find out that I had no cancerous or pre-cancerous cells. It took a week or so for the lab results. Not to speculate, but it's possible Kate had a similar situation and lab/biopsy results found some cancer cells and chemo was recommended. Just hearing the word cancer is enough to make your world spin. I have lost one parent to cancer and my husband lost his father and brother to the disease. It made me feel physically sick to hear the word as a possible diagnosis.

I've not followed this story closely, (at least to start with) and do not remember that Kate and Charles both DENIED having cancer? Is that true? If so, I don't agree with that. I do believe they should not have to disclose personal details of their illness. I can understand having to disclose info to an employer or insurance company, especially if leave is requested. I remember years ago having to fill out paperwork for FML when I had a previous surgery. I don't remember having to provide detailed info though. I do believe I had to have documentation from my physician. That I can understand.

Both public releases prior to their “scheduled” surgeries specifically said they were not for cancer. Then they both, one much quicker than the other, said the cancer was an incidental finding.

JMM, I thought the guy in his 70s might refer to the king.

Tina, when the doctor signing the forms is an oncologist it screams cancer.

And that could be true.

Both public releases prior to their “scheduled” surgeries specifically said they were not for cancer.

How would they now what they were going to find?

The length of kate’s hospital stay seemed too long to not have had inklings that an underlying neoplasm was possible. Who ever goes into a surgery specifically citing ” its not for cancer”? It seemed odd to say that.

The firm is use to being able to mold their own public narratives by hiding or manipulating truths. Those days are likely over now. Rightly or wrongly they are over.

" JMM, I thought the guy in his 70s might refer to the king. "

In an earlier comment, Maddie refers to H20 gate so I assumed the guy in the 70s was Nixon. Very inapposite comparison in my view.

@roarah

“JMM, I thought the guy in his 70s might refer to the king”

I was not referring to a king when I compared the 70s guy’s (US official, rhymes with dixon) lack of truthful forthcoming with the Palace’s PR people releasing a photoshopped pic.

Being truthful matters.

@jm1837

“Very inapposite comparison in my view.”

The comparison was about what happens when one is not truthful.

You still don't get it.

“Never complain, never explain“only worked when the Royals were trusted and prior to social media. They will need to come to terms and up to speed with this if they are to succeed. Almost half of the UK population even want to continue the monarchy so image and trust are very important. They will need to proffer transparency in order to avoid conspiracy rumors and speculation. It is sad and unfortunate but it is how it works in today’s world .

"The comparison was about what happens when one is not truthful. "

I'm sorry, but in my world, lying to cover up an actual crime is in a completely different ballpark than minor editing of a family photo. Nixon committed a crime, Kate didn't.

Seems like alot of speculation going on still. I’m of the mind that they did not need to give specific medical detail.

Judi, a biopsy is done for prostate surgery (is that what he had???). CT or PET scans can be done to look at organs. My dad first had a CT which showed a small tumor, then a PET scan to see if it had spread.

“Nixon committed a crime“

Nope. Nixon was never charged with committing a crime.

I think the court ruled that Ford offering and Nixon accepting a pardon represented a imputation and acceptance of guilt on their parts.

Judi, a biopsy is done for prostate surgery (is that what he had???). CT or PET scans can be done to look at organs. My dad first had a CT which showed a small tumor, then a PET scan to see if it had spread.

I was addressing this comment:

Both public releases prior to their “scheduled” surgeries specifically said they were not for cancer.

True, but there is more to that story. I don't know if you were, but I was in my 20s during that time. Here is a brief summary: Documents released by the National Archives include a draft presentment from a federal Grand Jury. Dated February 1, 1974, the draft presentment states that the president “unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly” conspired to “commit offenses against the United States.

The six page document also shows the Grand Jury planned to charge Nixon with bribery, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and obstruction of a criminal investigation.

But as Congress prepared to impeach him, Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974.

A month later, President Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, protecting him from criminal prosecution.

So, we can verify that while a draft report shows a federal Grand Jury was willing to indict President Richard Nixon, he was never officially charged with any crimes.

He resigned to avoid being charged and impeached. 48 people were convicted.

I am afraid we do not do a very good job of teaching our own history.

When my colleague had her surgery, they were anticipating that it was cancer because of the size of the mass, so that was different. But another colleague had ovarian cancer found during treatment for something else. Hers was caught early, and she is still here over 20 years later.

Kate could have had an ovarian cyst that turned out to be a tumor or what they thought were fibroids that turned out to be tumors.

The length of hospital stay and a planned leave of over three months do seem to point to something serious being suspected all along though. Full hysterectomies have a hospital stay of up to a week and back to work time line of 1 to 4 weeks depending on the type of job. colon resection with colostomy is up to a week stay and a similar forecasted recovery schedule of 2 to 4 weeks works before work. Honestly didn’t everyone suspect cancer when the firm spoke about her surgery in January and the length of time she was taking off?

I don’t think i heard the original press release, but once i did hear the news, no, i didnt think of cancer. When people started speculating and i thought a bit more about it, i just thought a member of the royal family might have a nice long recovery period. Especially one with 3 young children who also has, i would think, a demanding schedule. I honestly dont understand why there is still so much speculation.

And yet you too are still participating in this thread, Hu-163897337……

Yes i have participated. It is an interesting thread (in more ways than one). Its possible to discuss without speculating.

Whether one is speculating or simply commenting on the facts, disputing the facts or berating others for doing any of the above, the shared motivations are many … concern for a beloved public figure, idle curiosity, boredom, contrariness …. there are no villians and no saints on this thread, Hu-163897337.

That looks photoshopped to me ;)

Kswl, you have your thoughts and I have mine. And thats just fine. 😊

I thought this was a new thread - probably wouldn't have opened it otherwise.

Roorah, the times you or I might be afforded for a hospital stay have more to do with what insurance will cover that what is best for a patient. Speculating what a royal might be afforded or why their recuperation might be preferred in the hospital or at home (a palace is not entirely private either, and there was a concern for the children) is just that -- speculation, and really none of our business. I do think the not cancer statements were meant to be reassuring to the public (and the family), not to mislead. Anyone who has had anything they fear COULD be cancerous has surely had ALL the worries for the future and how to cope. I'm sure the cruel irony on both counts has made it even harder for the family to deal with when positive tests were returned.

I'm sure we all know or know of someone who had one procedure or even an accident or injury that led to imaging and a fortunate discovery of something more serious brewing. Likely more than one. I don't know why it has to leap to conspiracy level in so many minds when it happens to a royal -- or even two of them. I just hope they are both soon back to optimum health.

The royals, as a tax supported family, should support the NHS hospital stay guidelines and the king’s stay was indeed within those recommendations. I do not deny they have a right to ask for privacy but they should not expect their public to accept it without speculation and rumor ensuing. Their bread is buttered by public interest.

link to recovery time recommendations in the NHS for procedures. The only ones that recommend 12 or more weeks are for cancer resection or transplants. https://gpcpd.heiw.wales/non-clinical/return-to-work/recovery-from-common-surgical-procedures/

roarah -I have explained elsewhere why referring to the Royal Family as "taxpayer funded" is somewhat misleading. Parliament decides how much money it will give the King to perform his duties as head of state, but the money actually comes from the revenues of the Crown Estate. Parliament takes the revenue, gives a slice back to the King, and keeps the rest. Effectively, the Sovereign Grant is recycled from the the King's revenue and not from taxpayers.

Second, health guidelines are simply that - norms, not iron clad rules. There will always be exceptions for medical and psychological complications. And if a member of the Royal family, treated in the private rather than the public health care sector, chooses to stay off work a bit longer, well, they can afford to do so.

Personally, I think the information originally provided should have been sufficient. The public doesn't need to know details.

I am married to an Englishman and have lived in the uk and paid taxes. Where do you think parliament gets its funding! Yup from taxes! Each head of household contributes just under 2 pounds to a TAX PAYER funded settlement known as the Sovereign Grant. So with 56.4 million people in 2019 that Soviegn grant collection is quite substantial. Their protection is not paid for out of this and is a further tax burden on the commoners . Many, possibly rightly, believe the royal family costs far more than they are worth.

The Sovereign Grant may amount to The £ 2 per person, but that money doesn't come from the taxpayer.

"The King surrenders the revenue from The Crown Estate to the government. Over the last ten years, the revenue paid to the Exchequer is £3 billion and is used for public spending.The Sovereign Grant for 2022-23 is £86.3 million, the same as in 2021-22. "

So over the last 10 years, Parliament took £ 3 billion and handed back about £700 million, leaving the exchequer (and the taxpayer) better off by £2.7 billion.

Basically instead of paying the property tax like my husband and I have to on our property the monarchy pays that tax ( the crown estate) to themselves instead of to parliament and then to recover those monies parliament needs to charge each British person more in taxes to cover governing costs and social programs. It is a tax funded settlement by its own definition. without transparency it is not actually known how much the people support the monarchy. Some estimates are as high as 350million per year. This year their estate posted losses!

Why is a man worth 1.9billion sterling even getting anything from the people!

Nope. The Crown Estate is a business, not just a property, and 100% of its revenues go to Parliament, not the monarch, which then hands back a portion for the King to perform head of state duties. Parliament and the taxpayer get a significant net benefit, since the money they take from the Crown Estates far exceeds the amount that goes back in the form of the Sovereign Grant. You could argue that Parliament could take a bigger chunk of the revenues, and hand back less to the King, but you cannot argue that it is taking money out of the taxpayer's pocket. Effectively, Parliament gets between 75 and 85% of the Crown Estate revenue, which is a pretty high tax rate in my book.

Perfectly said @lascatx!

No, only 85 percent of profit goes to parliment the rest stays with the monarchy and for restoration. The property management firm grosses usually 312 million per year. The crown estate owns most of England’s seabeds. Again the real government costs associated for supporting the royal family is estimated to be 350m per year. They get more than they give.

Here's a succinct article that explains, in part, the financing of the RF.

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/5/2/how-much-does-the-british-royal-family-cost-its-complicated

Of note: "The Sovereign Grant does not include the cost of security for the royal family and some critics argue that official figures vastly underestimate the true burden on the taxpayer."

The crown estate property portfolio is worth 15.6bn. Just a small three percent property tax on that worth would be 468m per year. property tax in England are between 2 and 12 percent contingent upon tier. They would be in the 12 percent tier! They would owe parliament 1.87bn per year! Let them keep their yearly profits and tax them! Again why is a man worth almost 2 billion getting a tax payer fund?

The monarchy is a zero sum game…. they have all that money precisely because the rest of the people don’t. They don’t have any of the land or the wealth it produced, never had the opportunity to buy it and profit off it. The RF owns it because their ancestors grabbed it all before anyone else did. Many countries have had land reform schemes that have redistributed the land that creates the wealth now represented by that heritage ownership. King Charles has no more ”right” to that land and wealth than the average Briton.

"No, only 85 percent of profit goes to parliment the rest stays with the monarchy and for restoration. The property management firm grosses usually 312 million per year."

Umm, that's what I said. The Exchequer keeps most of the money and the taxpayers benefit from that.

I might add that Parliament would still have to pay the expenses of whoever is the head of state (security, travel, entertaining foreign dignitaries, maintaining the official residence ) regardless of whether the head of state is a monarch or a President. In the absence of the revenue from the Crown Estates, that burden would fall entirely on the taxpayer.

The monarchy made a deal to avoid paying 1.8billion per year in taxes by paying 85 % of 312 million profits or 265 million per year Than they take between soft and hard costs 350 million in tax paid services and grants. The monarchy ends up with 2 billion profit every year and they give us nothing! And again, please answer why you think a taxpayer should have any burden in sponsoring a man worth 1.9billion or an institution worth over 20 billion. England pays their prime minister and their king I advocate for not paying for the king!

"The RF owns it because their ancestors grabbed it all before anyone else did."

True. The same can be said of most inherited property and wealth. And we could get into the issue of North and South Americans and Australians profiting today from their ancestors having seized indigenous land.

Untangling history is a complex process. The UK has made progress: the Sovereign Grant itself is an example of the state benefiting from the King's income, as is the fact that the King now pays personal income tax, property tax and VAT. Inheritance tax should be the next cab off the rank. And of course, while the King owns (sort of) the Crown Estate, 100% of the revenue goes to Parliament, with a relatively small proportion dedicated to the Head of State role, and the rest going to public services. So, it's not a "winner keeps all" situation at all. It's more nuanced than that.

"The monarchy ends up with 2 billion profit every year and they give us nothing!"

No, it doesn't. The profit from the Crown Estate goes to Parliament and the Exchequer, not to the King. The King pays income tax on the revenue from his other holdings at 45%.

The king and QE opted to pay personal income tax but does not own the Crown Estate, The monarchy does. The monarchy is tax exempt so no taxes are paid on those or other holdings at all. The profits are far less than the yearly taxes would be. the taxes on the Crown estate would by in the billions not millions. William and kate are tax exempt and although william will likely follow in his dad’s foot steps they have never paid any taxes on income nor property btw.

There was an interesting series ran last year in the guardian. It was long but very well researched. It is worth reading. The monarchy lacks transparency in more than its health but also in its wealth and practices. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/cost-of-the-crown

https://twitter.com/TheView/status/1772282929881739396?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Mea culpa from The View hosts.