Princess Kate’s diet: GMA segment today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not saying it's impossible, but Kate has since publicly visited the hospital where she had cancer treatment. If she's lying, a bunch of people surely know. I get that healthcare professionals are bound by privacy laws, but that's still a big risk. I think she's definitely been too skinny at times, but i honestly believe the cancer thing. Lying about cancer would take the RF down fast- much faster than Andrew. Which really says something about our society, btw.

I agree, a lie about cancer would be extremely risky, and it would take the Waleses down faster than anything Andrew ever did, and that's definitely a condemnation of our society. Which is why there may be some truth to it--a questionable pap smear, precancerous cells, or maybe even full-blown cancer. But the fact that she visited Marsden just the once and doesn't support cancer charities is also why people will forever be questioning why she told the Marsden chemo patients to get lots of sunlight, or told the Marsden patients that she had a port but nobody can see the port scar when she wears lowcut necklines or sleeveless dresses. People will be forever digging around the edges of this.

That's exactly why they shouldn't share details. If they said she had a certain type of cancer, then people would be digging up reasons why she is lying because she couldn't possibly have that. We already saw this when people said preventive chemo is impossible.

Charles said "I have cancer" from the start, and his office kept everyone updated on his treatment that went on for two years and is merely scaled back now. Nobody is digging around to find out what cancer he has, because they are convinced he's being straight about having cancer, end of.

The real problem, actually, is that she keeps making cancer her persona, so people like this chat keep digging into it. So many things about her are explained in terms of cancer--why she needed to move to a huge new mansion last fall, her working less than the 91-year-old Duke of Kent who lost his wife last year. Just simply stop making vague allusions to your "diagnosis" several years after the fact, like when she mentioned her vague "diagnosis" at a brewpub yesterday, sparking this very discussion. (If you don't want to drink, for understandable reasons, then don't go to a brewpub and basically call their beer poison. It really is that simple.) Because making cancer your persona inevitably invites people to reopen all the questions.

Charles is the monarch. Kate is not the monarch.

Huh? If anything, people would have more concern about the monarch's health than about hers. Yet the actual monarch, who is still undergoing cancer treatment two years on, worked 535 engagements last year compared to her 68 a year after her treatment ended. https://people.com/king-charles-hardest-working-royal-2025-despite-cancer-treatment-11875495

Please explain.

PS, please don't let the explanation involve "she's a mother" because all three of her kids are now in school full-time.

I don't think this is a difficult question. She takes her kids to and from school and has openly stated she prioritizes her family and her health. They don't have a cook, so she makes dinner every night.

Could she do more? Sure. But she doesn't want to give up the things she does at home. Presumably when she is Queen, she will have to step it up considerably, and they may be taking this time while they can.

Now, can any of us sit there and verify that she is at every pickup and drop off and sports match and dance recital? And that she's cooking most nights and not ordering takeaway curries? Of course not. But that's the story we are being told.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think she doesn't eat anymore either

+1 she has to be restricting her food.

She's known to be a healthy eater and unusually active. Tennis, skiing, swimming, etc. If she's cleaned up her diet even further post-cancer, I'm not surprised she dropped weight.

Are you serious? She had no weight to drop. And she definitely thinned out a lot more when they got married. She wasn’t ever big to begin with!

Nobody has said she was ever big.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not saying it's impossible, but Kate has since publicly visited the hospital where she had cancer treatment. If she's lying, a bunch of people surely know. I get that healthcare professionals are bound by privacy laws, but that's still a big risk. I think she's definitely been too skinny at times, but i honestly believe the cancer thing. Lying about cancer would take the RF down fast- much faster than Andrew. Which really says something about our society, btw.

I agree, a lie about cancer would be extremely risky, and it would take the Waleses down faster than anything Andrew ever did, and that's definitely a condemnation of our society. Which is why there may be some truth to it--a questionable pap smear, precancerous cells, or maybe even full-blown cancer. But the fact that she visited Marsden just the once and doesn't support cancer charities is also why people will forever be questioning why she told the Marsden chemo patients to get lots of sunlight, or told the Marsden patients that she had a port but nobody can see the port scar when she wears lowcut necklines or sleeveless dresses. People will be forever digging around the edges of this.

That's exactly why they shouldn't share details. If they said she had a certain type of cancer, then people would be digging up reasons why she is lying because she couldn't possibly have that. We already saw this when people said preventive chemo is impossible.

Charles said "I have cancer" from the start, and his office kept everyone updated on his treatment that went on for two years and is merely scaled back now. Nobody is digging around to find out what cancer he has, because they are convinced he's being straight about having cancer, end of.

The real problem, actually, is that she keeps making cancer her persona, so people like this chat keep digging into it. So many things about her are explained in terms of cancer--why she needed to move to a huge new mansion last fall, her working less than the 91-year-old Duke of Kent who lost his wife last year. Just simply stop making vague allusions to your "diagnosis" several years after the fact, like when she mentioned her vague "diagnosis" at a brewpub yesterday, sparking this very discussion. (If you don't want to drink, for understandable reasons, then don't go to a brewpub and basically call their beer poison. It really is that simple.) Because making cancer your persona inevitably invites people to reopen all the questions.

Charles is the monarch. Kate is not the monarch.

Neither is Camilla and yet she still manages to do more. Aren’t they supposed to be supporting the king like he did for his mom?

I have no idea how much any of them do nor do I care and that wasn’t my point. My only point in saying that was about why Charles was more open about his kind of cancer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The big takeaway is she said she doesn’t drink anymore since her cancer diagnosis.

She didn't use the word "cancer," she just said "my diagnosis." Which could refer to Crohn's or something else. The distinction is important because there's a whole debate in the UK about how she obviously went through something in 2024, but what was it.

On the one hand, the future of the British monarchy needs a couple like Will and Kate. Boring, predictable, dependable with a solid family. I really do think they are harmless and their boring, dependable family life is exactly what the British monarchy needs.

On the other hand...I hope she and the press cool it with her cancer thing.Just almost two years later, we saw what happened to another youngish lady with a loving family and small kids (Tatiana Schlossberg) who really had cancer. After watching (from very afar), Kate's "cancer" thing just seems so benign.

I’m sorry to say I agree. She said “cancer had been present” and that she was receiving preventive (adjuvant) therapy. Three months later she announced she was “cancer free!” and started telling chemo patients to maximize sunlight (very bad advice). Two years later, it’s starting to read like they’re trying to deflect from Andrew.

I would be thrilled if she didn't have cancer- but boy would that be messed up.

i’m the poster who started this side thread.

i do think she had cancer or pre-cancer. or something.

but cancers are different. thyroid cancer is so different from pancreatic cancer. after witnessing tatiana’s journey, i just don’t think kate had nearly as serious a form of cancer. it’s kinda like when my dh has a cold and he acts like he’s dying.

There was also a poster here a while ago who suggested it may be a more serious form (in terms of 5 year survival rates) and that's why the palace hasn't said more. Who knows. What happened to Tatiana was so tragic.

DP. "There was also a poster here a while ago who suggested" is doing a lot of work here. Meanwhile, Kate skis multiple times a year and, yes, reportedly works out for hours every day. The idea that she's doomed within another three years seems a stretch.

It’s called exercise bulimia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not saying it's impossible, but Kate has since publicly visited the hospital where she had cancer treatment. If she's lying, a bunch of people surely know. I get that healthcare professionals are bound by privacy laws, but that's still a big risk. I think she's definitely been too skinny at times, but i honestly believe the cancer thing. Lying about cancer would take the RF down fast- much faster than Andrew. Which really says something about our society, btw.

I agree, a lie about cancer would be extremely risky, and it would take the Waleses down faster than anything Andrew ever did, and that's definitely a condemnation of our society. Which is why there may be some truth to it--a questionable pap smear, precancerous cells, or maybe even full-blown cancer. But the fact that she visited Marsden just the once and doesn't support cancer charities is also why people will forever be questioning why she told the Marsden chemo patients to get lots of sunlight, or told the Marsden patients that she had a port but nobody can see the port scar when she wears lowcut necklines or sleeveless dresses. People will be forever digging around the edges of this.

That's exactly why they shouldn't share details. If they said she had a certain type of cancer, then people would be digging up reasons why she is lying because she couldn't possibly have that. We already saw this when people said preventive chemo is impossible.

Charles said "I have cancer" from the start, and his office kept everyone updated on his treatment that went on for two years and is merely scaled back now. Nobody is digging around to find out what cancer he has, because they are convinced he's being straight about having cancer, end of.

The real problem, actually, is that she keeps making cancer her persona, so people like this chat keep digging into it. So many things about her are explained in terms of cancer--why she needed to move to a huge new mansion last fall, her working less than the 91-year-old Duke of Kent who lost his wife last year. Just simply stop making vague allusions to your "diagnosis" several years after the fact, like when she mentioned her vague "diagnosis" at a brewpub yesterday, sparking this very discussion. (If you don't want to drink, for understandable reasons, then don't go to a brewpub and basically call their beer poison. It really is that simple.) Because making cancer your persona inevitably invites people to reopen all the questions.

Charles is a man, it's just not comparable. No one is going to speculate that this unidentified cancer is an eating disorder, anxiety, or domestic violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not saying it's impossible, but Kate has since publicly visited the hospital where she had cancer treatment. If she's lying, a bunch of people surely know. I get that healthcare professionals are bound by privacy laws, but that's still a big risk. I think she's definitely been too skinny at times, but i honestly believe the cancer thing. Lying about cancer would take the RF down fast- much faster than Andrew. Which really says something about our society, btw.

I agree, a lie about cancer would be extremely risky, and it would take the Waleses down faster than anything Andrew ever did, and that's definitely a condemnation of our society. Which is why there may be some truth to it--a questionable pap smear, precancerous cells, or maybe even full-blown cancer. But the fact that she visited Marsden just the once and doesn't support cancer charities is also why people will forever be questioning why she told the Marsden chemo patients to get lots of sunlight, or told the Marsden patients that she had a port but nobody can see the port scar when she wears lowcut necklines or sleeveless dresses. People will be forever digging around the edges of this.

That's exactly why they shouldn't share details. If they said she had a certain type of cancer, then people would be digging up reasons why she is lying because she couldn't possibly have that. We already saw this when people said preventive chemo is impossible.

Charles said "I have cancer" from the start, and his office kept everyone updated on his treatment that went on for two years and is merely scaled back now. Nobody is digging around to find out what cancer he has, because they are convinced he's being straight about having cancer, end of.

The real problem, actually, is that she keeps making cancer her persona, so people like this chat keep digging into it. So many things about her are explained in terms of cancer--why she needed to move to a huge new mansion last fall, her working less than the 91-year-old Duke of Kent who lost his wife last year. Just simply stop making vague allusions to your "diagnosis" several years after the fact, like when she mentioned her vague "diagnosis" at a brewpub yesterday, sparking this very discussion. (If you don't want to drink, for understandable reasons, then don't go to a brewpub and basically call their beer poison. It really is that simple.) Because making cancer your persona inevitably invites people to reopen all the questions.

Charles is the monarch. Kate is not the monarch.

Huh? If anything, people would have more concern about the monarch's health than about hers. Yet the actual monarch, who is still undergoing cancer treatment two years on, worked 535 engagements last year compared to her 68 a year after her treatment ended. https://people.com/king-charles-hardest-working-royal-2025-despite-cancer-treatment-11875495

Please explain.

PS, please don't let the explanation involve "she's a mother" because all three of her kids are now in school full-time.

I don't think this is a difficult question. She takes her kids to and from school and has openly stated she prioritizes her family and her health. They don't have a cook, so she makes dinner every night.

Could she do more? Sure. But she doesn't want to give up the things she does at home. Presumably when she is Queen, she will have to step it up considerably, and they may be taking this time while they can.

Now, can any of us sit there and verify that she is at every pickup and drop off and sports match and dance recital? And that she's cooking most nights and not ordering takeaway curries? Of course not. But that's the story we are being told.

Kate can’t cook. There was that event where she was taught to make pancakes and really messed them up. Where are you getting that she doesn’t have a cook?

She spends months on vacation every year, often in foreign countries or skiing—this is well documented. It’s also well documented that she works out for long periods every day. You’ve swallowed the pr.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not saying it's impossible, but Kate has since publicly visited the hospital where she had cancer treatment. If she's lying, a bunch of people surely know. I get that healthcare professionals are bound by privacy laws, but that's still a big risk. I think she's definitely been too skinny at times, but i honestly believe the cancer thing. Lying about cancer would take the RF down fast- much faster than Andrew. Which really says something about our society, btw.

I agree, a lie about cancer would be extremely risky, and it would take the Waleses down faster than anything Andrew ever did, and that's definitely a condemnation of our society. Which is why there may be some truth to it--a questionable pap smear, precancerous cells, or maybe even full-blown cancer. But the fact that she visited Marsden just the once and doesn't support cancer charities is also why people will forever be questioning why she told the Marsden chemo patients to get lots of sunlight, or told the Marsden patients that she had a port but nobody can see the port scar when she wears lowcut necklines or sleeveless dresses. People will be forever digging around the edges of this.

That's exactly why they shouldn't share details. If they said she had a certain type of cancer, then people would be digging up reasons why she is lying because she couldn't possibly have that. We already saw this when people said preventive chemo is impossible.

Charles said "I have cancer" from the start, and his office kept everyone updated on his treatment that went on for two years and is merely scaled back now. Nobody is digging around to find out what cancer he has, because they are convinced he's being straight about having cancer, end of.

The real problem, actually, is that she keeps making cancer her persona, so people like this chat keep digging into it. So many things about her are explained in terms of cancer--why she needed to move to a huge new mansion last fall, her working less than the 91-year-old Duke of Kent who lost his wife last year. Just simply stop making vague allusions to your "diagnosis" several years after the fact, like when she mentioned her vague "diagnosis" at a brewpub yesterday, sparking this very discussion. (If you don't want to drink, for understandable reasons, then don't go to a brewpub and basically call their beer poison. It really is that simple.) Because making cancer your persona inevitably invites people to reopen all the questions.

Charles is a man, it's just not comparable. No one is going to speculate that this unidentified cancer is an eating disorder, anxiety, or domestic violence.

Please. Charles hasn’t dropped to near-skeletal size. That’s why nobody speculates about him having an ED. Camilla, love her or hate her, isn’t known for physical violence and her own staff doesn’t constantly brief about how she’s “incandescent” about this or that—unlike William, which is where the DV rumors started. Not I believe he’s physically violent, but there’s certainly some evidence that he doesn’t treat Kate well, including this caffeinated coffee episode.

Why you keep making excuses for these people, and Kate’s size, is baffling. Open your eyes.

[Anonymous]

People speculate about Kate because they were weird about it from the start. The weird doctored photo, then the cancer reveal, but then talking about it like it wasn't exactly cancer, then announcing her treatment was complete and she was better, but then continuing to bring it up as though she has a chronic illness, though not specifying an actual chronic illness.

I want to believe that this is just PR mismanagement, and they aren't actually lying about anything, and Kate is just being private while also feeling she must disclose something, and they are just getting the tone and timing and the wording and the approach wrong.

But they pay PR people a lot of money to get stuff like that right. And their longtime PR person left last summer to start a "luxury consultancy" that has never actually gotten off the ground, and then in January they brought on crisis PR.

It doesn't smell right, I'm sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not saying it's impossible, but Kate has since publicly visited the hospital where she had cancer treatment. If she's lying, a bunch of people surely know. I get that healthcare professionals are bound by privacy laws, but that's still a big risk. I think she's definitely been too skinny at times, but i honestly believe the cancer thing. Lying about cancer would take the RF down fast- much faster than Andrew. Which really says something about our society, btw.

I agree, a lie about cancer would be extremely risky, and it would take the Waleses down faster than anything Andrew ever did, and that's definitely a condemnation of our society. Which is why there may be some truth to it--a questionable pap smear, precancerous cells, or maybe even full-blown cancer. But the fact that she visited Marsden just the once and doesn't support cancer charities is also why people will forever be questioning why she told the Marsden chemo patients to get lots of sunlight, or told the Marsden patients that she had a port but nobody can see the port scar when she wears lowcut necklines or sleeveless dresses. People will be forever digging around the edges of this.

That's exactly why they shouldn't share details. If they said she had a certain type of cancer, then people would be digging up reasons why she is lying because she couldn't possibly have that. We already saw this when people said preventive chemo is impossible.

Charles said "I have cancer" from the start, and his office kept everyone updated on his treatment that went on for two years and is merely scaled back now. Nobody is digging around to find out what cancer he has, because they are convinced he's being straight about having cancer, end of.

The real problem, actually, is that she keeps making cancer her persona, so people like this chat keep digging into it. So many things about her are explained in terms of cancer--why she needed to move to a huge new mansion last fall, her working less than the 91-year-old Duke of Kent who lost his wife last year. Just simply stop making vague allusions to your "diagnosis" several years after the fact, like when she mentioned her vague "diagnosis" at a brewpub yesterday, sparking this very discussion. (If you don't want to drink, for understandable reasons, then don't go to a brewpub and basically call their beer poison. It really is that simple.) Because making cancer your persona inevitably invites people to reopen all the questions.

Charles is the monarch. Kate is not the monarch.

Huh? If anything, people would have more concern about the monarch's health than about hers. Yet the actual monarch, who is still undergoing cancer treatment two years on, worked 535 engagements last year compared to her 68 a year after her treatment ended. https://people.com/king-charles-hardest-working-royal-2025-despite-cancer-treatment-11875495

Please explain.

PS, please don't let the explanation involve "she's a mother" because all three of her kids are now in school full-time.

I don't think this is a difficult question. She takes her kids to and from school and has openly stated she prioritizes her family and her health. They don't have a cook, so she makes dinner every night.

Could she do more? Sure. But she doesn't want to give up the things she does at home. Presumably when she is Queen, she will have to step it up considerably, and they may be taking this time while they can.

Now, can any of us sit there and verify that she is at every pickup and drop off and sports match and dance recital? And that she's cooking most nights and not ordering takeaway curries? Of course not. But that's the story we are being told.

Kate can’t cook. There was that event where she was taught to make pancakes and really messed them up. Where are you getting that she doesn’t have a cook?

She spends months on vacation every year, often in foreign countries or skiing—this is well documented. It’s also well documented that she works out for long periods every day. You’ve swallowed the pr.

There's tons of stories where she discusses cooking, how she cooks and William can't, how they have a much a much smaller staff than the older royals and don't have a cook or butler.

I haven't heard of the pancake story, sorry.

Whether any of this is true, who knows- nobody, including you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not saying it's impossible, but Kate has since publicly visited the hospital where she had cancer treatment. If she's lying, a bunch of people surely know. I get that healthcare professionals are bound by privacy laws, but that's still a big risk. I think she's definitely been too skinny at times, but i honestly believe the cancer thing. Lying about cancer would take the RF down fast- much faster than Andrew. Which really says something about our society, btw.

I agree, a lie about cancer would be extremely risky, and it would take the Waleses down faster than anything Andrew ever did, and that's definitely a condemnation of our society. Which is why there may be some truth to it--a questionable pap smear, precancerous cells, or maybe even full-blown cancer. But the fact that she visited Marsden just the once and doesn't support cancer charities is also why people will forever be questioning why she told the Marsden chemo patients to get lots of sunlight, or told the Marsden patients that she had a port but nobody can see the port scar when she wears lowcut necklines or sleeveless dresses. People will be forever digging around the edges of this.

That's exactly why they shouldn't share details. If they said she had a certain type of cancer, then people would be digging up reasons why she is lying because she couldn't possibly have that. We already saw this when people said preventive chemo is impossible.

Charles said "I have cancer" from the start, and his office kept everyone updated on his treatment that went on for two years and is merely scaled back now. Nobody is digging around to find out what cancer he has, because they are convinced he's being straight about having cancer, end of.

The real problem, actually, is that she keeps making cancer her persona, so people like this chat keep digging into it. So many things about her are explained in terms of cancer--why she needed to move to a huge new mansion last fall, her working less than the 91-year-old Duke of Kent who lost his wife last year. Just simply stop making vague allusions to your "diagnosis" several years after the fact, like when she mentioned her vague "diagnosis" at a brewpub yesterday, sparking this very discussion. (If you don't want to drink, for understandable reasons, then don't go to a brewpub and basically call their beer poison. It really is that simple.) Because making cancer your persona inevitably invites people to reopen all the questions.

Charles is the monarch. Kate is not the monarch.

Huh? If anything, people would have more concern about the monarch's health than about hers. Yet the actual monarch, who is still undergoing cancer treatment two years on, worked 535 engagements last year compared to her 68 a year after her treatment ended. https://people.com/king-charles-hardest-working-royal-2025-despite-cancer-treatment-11875495

Please explain.

PS, please don't let the explanation involve "she's a mother" because all three of her kids are now in school full-time.

I don't think this is a difficult question. She takes her kids to and from school and has openly stated she prioritizes her family and her health. They don't have a cook, so she makes dinner every night.

Could she do more? Sure. But she doesn't want to give up the things she does at home. Presumably when she is Queen, she will have to step it up considerably, and they may be taking this time while they can.

Now, can any of us sit there and verify that she is at every pickup and drop off and sports match and dance recital? And that she's cooking most nights and not ordering takeaway curries? Of course not. But that's the story we are being told.

Kate can’t cook. There was that event where she was taught to make pancakes and really messed them up. Where are you getting that she doesn’t have a cook?

She spends months on vacation every year, often in foreign countries or skiing—this is well documented. It’s also well documented that she works out for long periods every day. You’ve swallowed the pr.

There's tons of stories where she discusses cooking, how she cooks and William can't, how they have a much a much smaller staff than the older royals and don't have a cook or butler.

I haven't heard of the pancake story, sorry.

Whether any of this is true, who knows- nobody, including you.

The thing about their staff is that they don't have a *live-in* cook or butler. That doesn't mean they don't have a cook or a butler. A lot of very wealthy people have made this shift in their generation -- staff comes during the day or even on an as-needed basis, but they don't sleep in your house and you can have a more normal family life that way. But they still have staff doing most of the stuff that normals do themselves.

Kate is not cleaning her own home or preparing most of her family's meals. She's got a team of people keeping the house clean and organized, stocking the fridge, likely doing meal prep and planning. Kate may execute some of the meals. Great, cooking is a fun hobby. But the idea that she's no different from a standard SAHM, busy with running a household and watching the kids? No. She's doing a small fraction of what a regular SAHM would do, at least in terms of childcare and homemaking. This is not shade on my part -- if I could afford to pay people to make it super easy for my family to run smoothly, I 100% would. But the idea that Kate eschews all that and is doing it all herself is insane. No she isn't. She's the Princess of Wales, folks. She's not doing much of anything she doesn't actively want to be doing.

[Anonymous]

Just to add- it must take hours for her glam but Charles probably just walks out the door.
Hence, less time for or at events.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not saying it's impossible, but Kate has since publicly visited the hospital where she had cancer treatment. If she's lying, a bunch of people surely know. I get that healthcare professionals are bound by privacy laws, but that's still a big risk. I think she's definitely been too skinny at times, but i honestly believe the cancer thing. Lying about cancer would take the RF down fast- much faster than Andrew. Which really says something about our society, btw.

I agree, a lie about cancer would be extremely risky, and it would take the Waleses down faster than anything Andrew ever did, and that's definitely a condemnation of our society. Which is why there may be some truth to it--a questionable pap smear, precancerous cells, or maybe even full-blown cancer. But the fact that she visited Marsden just the once and doesn't support cancer charities is also why people will forever be questioning why she told the Marsden chemo patients to get lots of sunlight, or told the Marsden patients that she had a port but nobody can see the port scar when she wears lowcut necklines or sleeveless dresses. People will be forever digging around the edges of this.

That's exactly why they shouldn't share details. If they said she had a certain type of cancer, then people would be digging up reasons why she is lying because she couldn't possibly have that. We already saw this when people said preventive chemo is impossible.

Charles said "I have cancer" from the start, and his office kept everyone updated on his treatment that went on for two years and is merely scaled back now. Nobody is digging around to find out what cancer he has, because they are convinced he's being straight about having cancer, end of.

The real problem, actually, is that she keeps making cancer her persona, so people like this chat keep digging into it. So many things about her are explained in terms of cancer--why she needed to move to a huge new mansion last fall, her working less than the 91-year-old Duke of Kent who lost his wife last year. Just simply stop making vague allusions to your "diagnosis" several years after the fact, like when she mentioned her vague "diagnosis" at a brewpub yesterday, sparking this very discussion. (If you don't want to drink, for understandable reasons, then don't go to a brewpub and basically call their beer poison. It really is that simple.) Because making cancer your persona inevitably invites people to reopen all the questions.

Charles is the monarch. Kate is not the monarch.

Huh? If anything, people would have more concern about the monarch's health than about hers. Yet the actual monarch, who is still undergoing cancer treatment two years on, worked 535 engagements last year compared to her 68 a year after her treatment ended. https://people.com/king-charles-hardest-working-royal-2025-despite-cancer-treatment-11875495

Please explain.

PS, please don't let the explanation involve "she's a mother" because all three of her kids are now in school full-time.

I don't think this is a difficult question. She takes her kids to and from school and has openly stated she prioritizes her family and her health. They don't have a cook, so she makes dinner every night.

Could she do more? Sure. But she doesn't want to give up the things she does at home. Presumably when she is Queen, she will have to step it up considerably, and they may be taking this time while they can.

Now, can any of us sit there and verify that she is at every pickup and drop off and sports match and dance recital? And that she's cooking most nights and not ordering takeaway curries? Of course not. But that's the story we are being told.

Kate can’t cook. There was that event where she was taught to make pancakes and really messed them up. Where are you getting that she doesn’t have a cook?

She spends months on vacation every year, often in foreign countries or skiing—this is well documented. It’s also well documented that she works out for long periods every day. You’ve swallowed the pr.

There's tons of stories where she discusses cooking, how she cooks and William can't, how they have a much a much smaller staff than the older royals and don't have a cook or butler.

I haven't heard of the pancake story, sorry.

Whether any of this is true, who knows- nobody, including you.

The thing about their staff is that they don't have a *live-in* cook or butler. That doesn't mean they don't have a cook or a butler. A lot of very wealthy people have made this shift in their generation -- staff comes during the day or even on an as-needed basis, but they don't sleep in your house and you can have a more normal family life that way. But they still have staff doing most of the stuff that normals do themselves.

Kate is not cleaning her own home or preparing most of her family's meals. She's got a team of people keeping the house clean and organized, stocking the fridge, likely doing meal prep and planning. Kate may execute some of the meals. Great, cooking is a fun hobby. But the idea that she's no different from a standard SAHM, busy with running a household and watching the kids? No. She's doing a small fraction of what a regular SAHM would do, at least in terms of childcare and homemaking. This is not shade on my part -- if I could afford to pay people to make it super easy for my family to run smoothly, I 100% would. But the idea that Kate eschews all that and is doing it all herself is insane. No she isn't. She's the Princess of Wales, folks. She's not doing much of anything she doesn't actively want to be doing.

I absolutely don't think she does it all. But I do believe she does lots of school drops and pickups (supplemented by help from a nanny shuttling the kids around). And I wouldn't be shocked if she cooks dinner most nights, with the housekeepr doing the dishes the next morning. Yes, of course I understand she doesn't clean her house, do her laundry, or call a repair service when her dishwasher breaks.

But none of us can know what her daily life is like.

Agree it probably takes hours for her to get ready for a 20 minute ribbon cutting, although Charles is known to have his shoelaces ironed. But since he has a giant staff, maybe they are just all doing that kind of stuff all day long which speeds it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People speculate about Kate because they were weird about it from the start. The weird doctored photo, then the cancer reveal, but then talking about it like it wasn't exactly cancer, then announcing her treatment was complete and she was better, but then continuing to bring it up as though she has a chronic illness, though not specifying an actual chronic illness.

I want to believe that this is just PR mismanagement, and they aren't actually lying about anything, and Kate is just being private while also feeling she must disclose something, and they are just getting the tone and timing and the wording and the approach wrong.

But they pay PR people a lot of money to get stuff like that right. And their longtime PR person left last summer to start a "luxury consultancy" that has never actually gotten off the ground, and then in January they brought on crisis PR.

It doesn't smell right, I'm sorry.

Isn't the crisis PR bc of Andrew?

Agree the PR teams of William/Catherine (and another couple we won't mention by name) don't seem to actually contain anything, which makes me wonder if the royals are just subject to a different kind of scrutiny than most public figures. Idk, this Andrew thing may be what finally takes them all down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not saying it's impossible, but Kate has since publicly visited the hospital where she had cancer treatment. If she's lying, a bunch of people surely know. I get that healthcare professionals are bound by privacy laws, but that's still a big risk. I think she's definitely been too skinny at times, but i honestly believe the cancer thing. Lying about cancer would take the RF down fast- much faster than Andrew. Which really says something about our society, btw.

I agree, a lie about cancer would be extremely risky, and it would take the Waleses down faster than anything Andrew ever did, and that's definitely a condemnation of our society. Which is why there may be some truth to it--a questionable pap smear, precancerous cells, or maybe even full-blown cancer. But the fact that she visited Marsden just the once and doesn't support cancer charities is also why people will forever be questioning why she told the Marsden chemo patients to get lots of sunlight, or told the Marsden patients that she had a port but nobody can see the port scar when she wears lowcut necklines or sleeveless dresses. People will be forever digging around the edges of this.

That's exactly why they shouldn't share details. If they said she had a certain type of cancer, then people would be digging up reasons why she is lying because she couldn't possibly have that. We already saw this when people said preventive chemo is impossible.

Charles said "I have cancer" from the start, and his office kept everyone updated on his treatment that went on for two years and is merely scaled back now. Nobody is digging around to find out what cancer he has, because they are convinced he's being straight about having cancer, end of.

The real problem, actually, is that she keeps making cancer her persona, so people like this chat keep digging into it. So many things about her are explained in terms of cancer--why she needed to move to a huge new mansion last fall, her working less than the 91-year-old Duke of Kent who lost his wife last year. Just simply stop making vague allusions to your "diagnosis" several years after the fact, like when she mentioned her vague "diagnosis" at a brewpub yesterday, sparking this very discussion. (If you don't want to drink, for understandable reasons, then don't go to a brewpub and basically call their beer poison. It really is that simple.) Because making cancer your persona inevitably invites people to reopen all the questions.

Charles is the monarch. Kate is not the monarch.

Huh? If anything, people would have more concern about the monarch's health than about hers. Yet the actual monarch, who is still undergoing cancer treatment two years on, worked 535 engagements last year compared to her 68 a year after her treatment ended. https://people.com/king-charles-hardest-working-royal-2025-despite-cancer-treatment-11875495

Please explain.

PS, please don't let the explanation involve "she's a mother" because all three of her kids are now in school full-time.

I don't think this is a difficult question. She takes her kids to and from school and has openly stated she prioritizes her family and her health. They don't have a cook, so she makes dinner every night.

Could she do more? Sure. But she doesn't want to give up the things she does at home. Presumably when she is Queen, she will have to step it up considerably, and they may be taking this time while they can.

Now, can any of us sit there and verify that she is at every pickup and drop off and sports match and dance recital? And that she's cooking most nights and not ordering takeaway curries? Of course not. But that's the story we are being told.

Haha, she does have a chef. Stop believing what you read. Someone has to feed the family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People speculate about Kate because they were weird about it from the start. The weird doctored photo, then the cancer reveal, but then talking about it like it wasn't exactly cancer, then announcing her treatment was complete and she was better, but then continuing to bring it up as though she has a chronic illness, though not specifying an actual chronic illness.

I want to believe that this is just PR mismanagement, and they aren't actually lying about anything, and Kate is just being private while also feeling she must disclose something, and they are just getting the tone and timing and the wording and the approach wrong.

But they pay PR people a lot of money to get stuff like that right. And their longtime PR person left last summer to start a "luxury consultancy" that has never actually gotten off the ground, and then in January they brought on crisis PR.

It doesn't smell right, I'm sorry.

Thank you. Charles’ team has handled his cancer in a straightforward way from the start, with the result that nobody is demanding to know what type of cancer it is. Kate’s team has been really squirrely, including what this pp says, and more, like sending those actors to Windsor market, Kate announcing “I’m cancer-free” within months although cancer patients know you can’t say that for five years, and more. And then using cancer as an excuse for so many things (new house, not working) over the past two years.