Just heard her personal update. I also read online that Charles has pancreatic cance….if that’s even accurate? Wishing them all the best.

Lucille, what do you mean ’if true’? Do you think her personal appearance announcing it was fake?

The type of cancer was not specified, and of course like everyone, I wish her good health and wishes for healing. Early detection can be a game changer.

I have no idea about the type of cancer Charles has been diagnosed with. And I will not speculate.

Catherine, like many of the royals, does not typically talk about personal matters publicly. I can see that in her video, she seems to be a bit nervous and directing that nervousness to her fingers, as I myself do.

This news is just breaking, I do not know the details, but wish her the very best.

Oh, so very sad. What a time that family is going through - with Charles and now Kate. I'm not a "Royal watcher", but of course I don't wish this on anyone.

I was so sorry to hear this. So young. Hopefully treatable. This of course will just pour more fuel on the fire of all those royal conspiracy hawkers.

Well, I'm glad they've finally been more forthcoming. I think with that information, the press could leave them more in peace and give them the privacy they wish. And I suspect with hair loss, etc., she will be out of the public eye for some time to come. I have no idea, but given her age and their unwillingness to be specific, I suspect uterine/ovarian cancer, but who knows. Whatever it is I hope she has an easy go of it and heals completely. Not easy having 2 immediate family members dealing with cancer at the same time for sure.

I'm sorry for her and her family, though no more or less than I would be for anyone else. I wish her a speedy and complete recovery, again as for anyone else.

I wouldn't want to live in the public eye but that's what their reality is. The royal family's inconveniences are well compensated for, as with most whose lives are like that for whatever reason. She knew what she was getting into and did so by choice.

Conspiracy theorists and others mucking about do so in the absence of facts for matters people are interested in. Whether that interest is legit or not. Too many in the public eye are slow to realize that the way to stop rumor mongering and privacy intrusions is to be forthright and prompt with information people have a reasonable right to know about. Information voids are often filled with speculation that's usually worse than the truth.

"Too many in the public eye are slow to realize that the way to stop rumor mongering and privacy intrusions is to be forthright and prompt with information people have a reasonable right to know about. Information voids are often filled with speculation that's usually worse than the truth."

Mark your calendar Elmer! We agree!

This is sad news for this lovely woman. Since the queen died it's been one travail after another with Andrew's problems, Fergies cancers, King Charles, and now Kate. Even though it's speculation that Charles has pancreatic and Kate has ovarian, let's hope neither is the case. I wish them both well.

And let's don't speculate about what kind of cancer she has.

No one has the right to anyone's private health information until that person wishes to reveal it. I don't care who they are or what job or position they hold. If anyone wants to tell the world or even their family about a health situation, they should be allowed to do it on their own timeline. I am sick of the speculation, criticisms, and funny memes that are not funny at all. Leave them alone.

people have a reasonable right to know

why?

Why? Because they are public figures on the public dime -- or pence in this case -- who are figureheads for their country and serve as national and international ambassadors for the country and its causes.

So now you know. Are you satisfied? Do you need more?

Well there are two ways of handling this. One is to be withdrawn and beg for privacy...the other is to become an ambassador for people who suffer from the same disease, be forthcoming about it, and set an example of courage for those who may suffer the same.

I think about Katie Couric who lost her husband to colon cancer and became a voice for testing to save lives. She also was very open about her own breast cancer as well.

My employer fires people on the spot, no backsies, for looking up health information, even for famous people. Big boss said in speech, would want people looking at YOUR information? Private. Even if it's the President.

Well there are two ways of handling this. One is to be withdrawn and beg for privacy...the other is to become an ambassador for people who suffer from the same disease, be forthcoming about it, and set an example of courage for those who may suffer the same.

I think about Katie Couric who lost her husband to colon cancer and became a voice for testing to save lives. She also was very open about her own breast cancer as well.

Where's the empathy? There's plenty of time for her to become "an ambassador". She was diagnosed 2 months ago and is undergoing treatment. She has a young family. Your need to know isn't a factor as much as you'd like it to be.

Rob, do you not work at a medical-related facility in the US? Someone not treating a patient without a need to know who gains access to medical records probably causes a HIPAA violation. It's a US law and that would be a problem for the institution. Not relevant in any way to the Princess Katherine situation.

Other than my previous comment, I have no other views about her and no need to know at all. But weeks ago I became fatigued with the frequent pieces of media speculation about what was going on with her health or her marriage or all the other things that were speculated about. I know the institution of the Monarch has staff who concern themselves with various aspects of the family's public image. After seeing this as a repeating and out of control pattern, the time was overdue to say more, to douse the smoldering flames of curiosity and speculation. But they didn't. A public image management failure.

i've just never understood the "need to know" when it comes to someone i don't know being diagnosed with cancer or any other terrible disease, never will know them, they aren't family.

for the love of God, give the woman and her family the privacy she needs and deserves to deal with the unthinkable. if she decides to become an ambassador, more power to her but she owes the rest of us NOTHING.

Privacy laws exist for a reason. Not just in the US.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_in_English_law

I could point out that the royal family is not actually "on the public dime" George lll exchanged control of royal property owned by the royal family in 1760 for a percentage of the income. So while the government controls management of the very valuable properties in some complicated way that I dont get it is still more or less royal. In exchange for the income they receive I don't see any reason for them to have to tell you if they have cancer and what sort. Thinking everyone has the right to know what they have for breakfast is why I always swear I do not see any privilege in their lives. You live in a fish bowl and some jerk is always banging on the bowl with their finger.

Very sad. Just horrible all the "news" articles and on-line stuff harrassing them about where she was and what she was doing these past few weeks.

"Where's the empathy?"

Hard to have empathy for someone if you don't know what they're going through. I'm not suggesting every blood count be revealed, but rather a simple, honest explanation for her long absence from the public eye is beneficial to both the royals and the public.

I actually don't have a "need to know". But if you're a public figure, and especially a well-liked one like as she is, you need to accept the reality that you're of high public interest and need to manage the message, hopefully in a way that maintains public trust. The way they handled it was poor, leading to much speculation, rumor and outright nutty conspiracies. By being more forthcoming, not only have they explained her absence over the past months, but also for months to come which puts them in a better position publicly and makes room for the privacy they desire. I'm sure this latest announcement will put millions of prayers out there for her which couldn't hurt.

I'd also try to put this in perspective. There are millions of people facing cancer diagnoses, many of them mothers of young children, who don't have health insurance, paid time off, access to the best dr's and levels of nursing and other care, essentially endless funds, nanny's and private schools and a guaranteed roof over their heads with staff to take care of everything from meals to laundry to transportation. Yes I'm sorry she's ill with a terrible disease. I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone. But I also recognize that she has the benefit of facing a cancer diagnosis without all those financial and other stressors on her that so many others have to cope with on a daily basis.

" Privacy laws exist for a reason. Not just in the US."

Yet again someone has demonstrated the ability to do an internet search without reading and understanding what the finding said or relating it to the conversation.

Among other things, it says the right to privacy in law is relatively recent. And is not absolute. But the context of what's offered is missing.

People who live in the public eye do not have and should not expect the same privacy as ordinary citizens like you and I who live in relative anonymity as far as the general public is concerned. The royal family lives in a fishbowl as the embodiment of the nation. That's partly how they justify their national roles. Their lives are the epitome of a public existence - here's the King going here, this Prince just did this, and on and on. Oh, she won't be leaving the house or having any "public engagements" for the next few months? Why's that? The interest behind such questions spreads in a flash and can't be ignored.

"I could point out that the royal family is not actually "on the public dime" "

There's plenty of room to disagree with this. Many of their personal expenses are paid by the public treasury (stipends, allowances, coverage of home and household expenses, and more). Personal security and transportation.

They're exempt from income tax, gift tax and inheritance tax laws.

There's more detail, easy enough to find.

If you believe in Royalty they are not on the public dime because they are who they are because God would have it so. The royal purse back in the day funded Parliament and governmental entities and the military. All power and prosperity came from the monarchy who could take it away if the monarch of the time decided. Charles I sort of lost out on that one. Fast forward to the Georges. When George III came to the throne in 1760 he negotiated with Parliament, who were not going to take a back seat to some king, and put an enormous part of the royal properties into the control and management but not actual ownership of "the government" in exchange for a percentage of the take. It has been refined over and over as to how it works specifically. Everyone pretty much refers to the Civil list as public money but it technically sort of is not. Of course it DeFacto is. Still I think the British get good value for their money. It is a tremendous tourist draw. I am sure that actual British people have differing opinions about what I just said and I certainly dont get all the details of how this works but I do know the financial basis of the money the family gets is the Royal Grant that started in 1760 with the newly minted King George III first of the Hanoverians to be born in England.

Now Elmer you are going to assume that I went to Google to look all this stuff up but I have long taken an interest in such trivia. I can name all the monarchs of Britain back to William I but am very shaky on the ones before. I am useless on Scots kings.

Cool story but completely off-point.

Public coffers support the institution of the monarchy and the family in ways that are costly to the public and very material to the personal fortunes and lives of the royal family. What the spending of public money gets or doesn't get in return isn't the conversation.

How about just wishing her a speedy recovery.

Elmer, you should do the research for yourself since you didnt read what I wrote.

I for one am always amazed at the sacrifices the family make in support of their country. I dont actually believe in royalness but I can see the charm in the whole thing. Could live your life doing useless things like getting plaques and bunches of flowers, smiling and greeting endless streams of people for no reason that I can see. Tedious would be a mild word. Then they also want to know what you eat for breakfast and what sized shoes you wear.

As a person who has had cancer I am here to tell you that the intrusive questions and comments people can ask and make can be astonishingly hurtful. I didnt have to deal with even a tiny fraction of the people who expect to know everything about what is going on with this woman. I sincerely wish her and her father-in-law the best possible outcomes.

I listened to a segment from NPR about the latest news yesterday. There was zero conjecture or judgement, which I always appreciate from that source.

I think it my be inferred that this is a cancer that's located in the abdomen, since it was found after abdominal surgery, and that should be sufficient for now. I'm sure all will be revealed in time.

People just seem to go for the wildest BS these days, which I think is likely a result of some folks fishing for online clicks.

We have a right to privacy in the US for a reason. Regardless of of the link I posted. And it's not necessary to go into all the reasons why we have a right to privacy, it's a commonly held belief that Americans treasure a right to privacy. If you really want to start go back to Griswold versus Connecticut. That's the beginning of privacy. What happens in the bedroom is a private right. All I said was there was a reason for the right to privacy.

The link was just to show you that the UK also has a right to privacy. Their's is actually codified.

As usual, you have come to the wrong conclusion for what the link was for.

My point was about privacy, and nothing more. You keep extending it to healthcare, but I think we have a right to privacy in many different ways including healthcare, not solely healthcare. That's your conclusion--not mine

Someone's been living under a rock. Any right or expectation of privacy went out the window with America's obsession with social media. From Facebook posts of meals eaten to Tik Toks where people act like complete idiots--privacy is not something that's valued anymore. The Royal family is BEGGING for theirs and here ya all are 33 posts deep in speculation and nosey. Privacy isn't respected either it seems.

First, the Royal Family is not "costly to the public" in the way some seem to think. The arrangement is that the Monarch hands over the revenues of his/her estates (which are the private property of the King or Queen, btw) and from that sum Parliament returns about 15% as the "Sovereign Grant," which covers the costs associated with the Monarch's role as head of state - his official residence/s, staff, travel costs for official engagements, etc. A portion of the grant goes to working Royals who act on behalf of the sovereign on official business. They don't get paid if they're not "on the clock," (which is why things went awry with Harry and Meghan, who expected to get the financial and other benefits, such as security, without undertaking the official duties.) The Royal Household submits annual reports of its expenditures to Parliament for scrutiny and audit.

Effectively, while Parliament controls the amount of money provided in the Grant, and how it is used, the money actually originates with the Royal Family, not the taxpayer. And the taxpayer gets the benefit of the income not returned via the Sovereign Grant.

Further, the ruling Monarch and the Prince of Wales both pay taxes on the income derived from their estates and their investments and have done so for over 30 years.

Second, the Royal family's desire for personal privacy is nothing new. Since the death of Diana, they have worked hard with the press and paparazzi to establish boundaries to protect their privacy. In the UK the younger members are not stalked by the media, and photo ops are managed to ensure they are protected. As to health issues, I'd point out that no one knew the late Queen had bone marrow cancer until she actually died. It was obvious she was getting quite frail, but the public neither had, nor needed, a right to know her prognosis. And the world went on without that knowledge.

The reality is that the King reigns, but does not rule, so his health is not the matter of concern that the health of an American President or British Prime Minister is, because it is not really relevant to the functioning of the government. And the health of the wife of the heir is of even less concern. Sure, we want to know what's going on, but if the Family doesn't want to provide details, that's their choice and right. The public has no right to expect details of the diagnosis or prognosis for Charles, never mind for his daughter in law.

I don't think human nature has changed very much over the generations, it's just the means of communication that's changed and made a lot more human craziness visible to strangers, on a much bigger scale.

Elizabeth II had multiple myeloma????? Mercy. I did not know that but of course it was none of my business. I just looked up JMM's reference to bone marrow cancer by the way. And thanks to JMM for stating in detail my understanding of the funding of the Royals. Confirmation from a subject is a good thing. Me, I am just a person interested in Social History.

arcy, I don't think anyone's living under a rock. Well, maybe the younger versions of us. Information is given up far too easily, and I don't understand why other people do?! You walk into a store to buy something, and they want to know your phone number. I say it's "unlisted". The cashiers look at me like I have no idea what the heck you just said. They don't know what unlisted means. The current generation is giving up their privacy far too easily.

can't be ignored

i have no problem muting the tv or changing channels. i've become quite adept at ignoring.

" You keep extending it to healthcare,"

No, rob. You did to begin with , when you said:

" My employer fires people on the spot, no backsies, for looking up health information, "

And then I extended it. But you can't seem to. Things change, get over it

I think floraluk had a contribution that seems to have disappeared. She agreed with my comment about income tax exemption and mentioned that certain royals pay a gratuitous contribution to the treasury in an amount in lieu of income tax. It doesn't cover all that would have been due absent the exemption.

Additionally, my understanding is that there were no inheritance taxes levied nor paid in lieu on the bequests of Queen Eilizabeth nor, if relevant, of Prince Philip. Those amounts would have been substantially more than many years worth of exempted income tax.

My very meager budgeted time to think about or consider the status of Britain's monarchy has been greatly exceeded and for many years to come. Enough is enough. I would just say to conclude that the monarchies and royal families of several other European countries set a far better example for the general public and for their fellow citizens of the right way to conduct themselves as symbols of their nations.

From @jmm1837 : "The arrangement is that the Monarch hands over the revenues of his/her estates (which are the private property of the King or Queen, btw) and from that sum Parliament returns about 15% as the "Sovereign Grant," . So the royal family actually pays their own way and gives the government 85% of their revenue. I think that's a pretty good deal for the UK government.

And with a couple of glaring exceptions, which many of the European monarchies also have, I think the British royal family does set as good an example as any of the others, and certainly a better example than some US presidents I could name.

For someone who has often claimed that non-US citizens have no business to comment on the politics of the US, Elmer, you certainly have a lot to say about the British royals.

Don't misunderstand. I wasn't criticizing the financial arrangements, simply informing those unaware of them part of how the system works. When people were carping about why so many people were interested in Catherine's health, the essence of my comment was that they're financially supported to be symbols of their nation. That's an inherently public-facing endeavor they choose to do and a loss of personal privacy is one of the costs of accepting the deal. Any or all of them could demur if they found the arrangements not consistent with how they want to live their lives. As Diana partially did. As Harry did. As King Edward VIII did.

Edit to add:

Comparing the conduct of a royal family to the conduct of US presidents is hardly useful. Unless you want to be really snarky about the Adams family, the Bush family, etc, the US presidency is not a birthright.

"... the essence of my comment was that they're financially supported to be symbols of their nation" . And the essence of jmm's comment, which I repeated, is that they are not. They have a small portion of the revenue from their own property returned to them; the government keeps the rest. Would you be happy with that? Since demonstrably few of the ultra-wealthy in the US pay even their fair share of taxes I think the British royals go above and beyond in this regard.

And it could also be argued that since being a royal is a birthright as you put it, there is no incentive to behave well. And yet, for the most part, they do. On the other hand, one would think that a prerequisite for being elected would be to conduct oneself with decorum, and yet there are US presidents who clearly feel no such constraint.

This goes nowhere and as regards the British royal family, there's much for them to learn from their counterparts in other countries. As I said before.

Please name a country where politicians don't take personal and private advantage of their positions during and after their terms of office? And who don't act as members of a select group high above others with special entitlements for life?

The royals have tin ears regarding PR. Best to get ahead of speculation by releasing full information at the start, while you have a chance of framing the story. Answer the inevitable questions at the get-go. The worst thing you can do is dribble it out, inviting more speculation with each drip. It ALL comes out anyway.