Kate Middleton cancer in remission

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have always liked Kate, but this has made me like her less. She's in a position where she could raise awareness and reduce the stigma of cancer (especially if it's colon cancer) an she's chosen not to. I get that it's hard, but it's harder for everyone who doesn't have her resources. I so admire the celebrities who during tough personal times nevertheless use the experience to make a difference.

My guess is that she was treated outside the UK or had access to treatment regular people wouldn't and they don't want to publicize that.

This is why she hasn’t said more. Right here. Or the PP guessing it’s ED related.

This is her body. She gets to say whatever she wants or doesn’t want to say about her body. Right?

All you ghouls and misogynists will just have to get used to disappointment.

I guess? What I liked about her was that she seemed like a regular person who had consciously taken on this public role and was taking it seriously. Her public persona of making appearances, looking polished and appropriate, seeming to care, seeming to be invested in raising her kids to be nice and as normal as possible...it seemed like she was not just a royal twit but someone who viewed her job as almost a sacred duty. And I get she's a human who might want privacy. But the confusing and contradictory statements, the AI photos, the maybe AI video announcement, the lack of doing even the most basic easy stuff, like thanking health care providers, the announcements now that she's not planning to do much work in the future....it doesn't accord with her image. Makes it seem like she's not who we thought.

+1

And in the end, maybe this shows that monarchies were established for personal gain (think of the kingdoms that arose slowly after the fall of the Roman Empire, they were formed to control land and literally "lord" over people). At the end of the day, same for the BRF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have always liked Kate, but this has made me like her less. She's in a position where she could raise awareness and reduce the stigma of cancer (especially if it's colon cancer) an she's chosen not to. I get that it's hard, but it's harder for everyone who doesn't have her resources. I so admire the celebrities who during tough personal times nevertheless use the experience to make a difference.

My guess is that she was treated outside the UK or had access to treatment regular people wouldn't and they don't want to publicize that.

This is why she hasn’t said more. Right here. Or the PP guessing it’s ED related.

This is her body. She gets to say whatever she wants or doesn’t want to say about her body. Right?

All you ghouls and misogynists will just have to get used to disappointment.

I guess? What I liked about her was that she seemed like a regular person who had consciously taken on this public role and was taking it seriously. Her public persona of making appearances, looking polished and appropriate, seeming to care, seeming to be invested in raising her kids to be nice and as normal as possible...it seemed like she was not just a royal twit but someone who viewed her job as almost a sacred duty. And I get she's a human who might want privacy. But the confusing and contradictory statements, the AI photos, the maybe AI video announcement, the lack of doing even the most basic easy stuff, like thanking health care providers, the announcements now that she's not planning to do much work in the future....it doesn't accord with her image. Makes it seem like she's not who we thought.

She did thank the health care providers. This thread is about an incident of her doing so.

[Anonymous]

The way the BRF handled it was a disaster PR wise, but I get the sense Kate is person who truly wants to use her position to help people and when she is ready we will find out more. I also suspect some of her more prudish fans may have some issues and she will get some advice about how to present. If it's colon cancer, then there will need to be open discussion about poop for prevention and early detection-what shape is your poop and consistency-here's a Bristow chart with pictures of poop to help....Check your poop for blood. I don't consider any of that a big deal, but I am not her fan-base.

If it's ovarian some are still prudish about such talk and it's hard to promote early detection when it's so difficult to detect it early. If it's cervical, there will be speculation about HPV and STD and the more prudish fans will take issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: The way the BRF handled it was a disaster PR wise, but I get the sense Kate is person who truly wants to use her position to help people and when she is ready we will find out more. I also suspect some of her more prudish fans may have some issues and she will get some advice about how to present. If it's colon cancer, then there will need to be open discussion about poop for prevention and early detection-what shape is your poop and consistency-here's a Bristow chart with pictures of poop to help....Check your poop for blood. I don't consider any of that a big deal, but I am not her fan-base.

If it's ovarian some are still prudish about such talk and it's hard to promote early detection when it's so difficult to detect it early. If it's cervical, there will be speculation about HPV and STD and the more prudish fans will take issue.

Katie Couric hugely helped increase colon cancer awareness and screenings after her first husband passed away from it, and that was over 25 years ago. I think the general public can handle discussions on it today

That said, I don’t think Princess Kate needs to share what type of cancer she had.

[Anonymous]

We know how people on the Internet get about health stuff. Whatever type of cancer she had, it would become a bunch of “SEED OILS!!!” “I bet she’s an ALCOHOLIC!!!!1111” “You can cure cancer with a no sugar diet of all organic foods, look up the blah blah blah protocol!” “Did you try essential oils?????” She probably just wanted to cut all that off before it even started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why neither she nor King Charles will say what kind of cancer they had. Aren't their whole "jobs" supposed to be to help people, raise awareness, blah, blah...couldn't they be a bigger help if they shared their own experiences?

For example, when Betty Ford had breast cancer and openly talked about it, she made it OK to talk about breast cancer.

https://cancerletter.com/in-the-archives/20210625_7/

Betty Ford lived in an era before endless social media and celebrity obsession. She also wasn’t as globally high profile as Kate and Charles. They probably want to avoid the media circus that will ensue, especially for Kate with her young kids. There’s nothing wrong with them wanting to keep their medical information private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why neither she nor King Charles will say what kind of cancer they had. Aren't their whole "jobs" supposed to be to help people, raise awareness, blah, blah...couldn't they be a bigger help if they shared their own experiences?

For example, when Betty Ford had breast cancer and openly talked about it, she made it OK to talk about breast cancer.

https://cancerletter.com/in-the-archives/20210625_7/

Betty Ford lived in an era before endless social media and celebrity obsession. She also wasn’t as globally high profile as Kate and Charles. They probably want to avoid the media circus that will ensue, especially for Kate with her young kids. There’s nothing wrong with them wanting to keep their medical information private.

Betty Ford was absolutely as globally famous as Kate Middleton. Don’t be absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have always liked Kate, but this has made me like her less. She's in a position where she could raise awareness and reduce the stigma of cancer (especially if it's colon cancer) an she's chosen not to. I get that it's hard, but it's harder for everyone who doesn't have her resources. I so admire the celebrities who during tough personal times nevertheless use the experience to make a difference.

My guess is that she was treated outside the UK or had access to treatment regular people wouldn't and they don't want to publicize that.

This is why she hasn’t said more. Right here. Or the PP guessing it’s ED related.

This is her body. She gets to say whatever she wants or doesn’t want to say about her body. Right?

All you ghouls and misogynists will just have to get used to disappointment.

I guess? What I liked about her was that she seemed like a regular person who had consciously taken on this public role and was taking it seriously. Her public persona of making appearances, looking polished and appropriate, seeming to care, seeming to be invested in raising her kids to be nice and as normal as possible...it seemed like she was not just a royal twit but someone who viewed her job as almost a sacred duty. And I get she's a human who might want privacy. But the confusing and contradictory statements, the AI photos, the maybe AI video announcement, the lack of doing even the most basic easy stuff, like thanking health care providers, the announcements now that she's not planning to do much work in the future....it doesn't accord with her image. Makes it seem like she's not who we thought.

I don’t know. My priorities have changed as I have aged and as I have had different experiences so, currently in my 50’s I am probably not what people thought I was in my 20’s, and different from my 30’s and different from my 40’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why neither she nor King Charles will say what kind of cancer they had. Aren't their whole "jobs" supposed to be to help people, raise awareness, blah, blah...couldn't they be a bigger help if they shared their own experiences?

For example, when Betty Ford had breast cancer and openly talked about it, she made it OK to talk about breast cancer.

https://cancerletter.com/in-the-archives/20210625_7/

Betty Ford lived in an era before endless social media and celebrity obsession. She also wasn’t as globally high profile as Kate and Charles. They probably want to avoid the media circus that will ensue, especially for Kate with her young kids. There’s nothing wrong with them wanting to keep their medical information private.

Betty Ford was absolutely as globally famous as Kate Middleton. Don’t be absurd.

No she wasn’t. You're the one being absurd.

Any First Lady is going to be more globally famous than the wife of someone who might be the king someday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why neither she nor King Charles will say what kind of cancer they had. Aren't their whole "jobs" supposed to be to help people, raise awareness, blah, blah...couldn't they be a bigger help if they shared their own experiences?

For example, when Betty Ford had breast cancer and openly talked about it, she made it OK to talk about breast cancer.

https://cancerletter.com/in-the-archives/20210625_7/

Betty Ford lived in an era before endless social media and celebrity obsession. She also wasn’t as globally high profile as Kate and Charles. They probably want to avoid the media circus that will ensue, especially for Kate with her young kids. There’s nothing wrong with them wanting to keep their medical information private.

Betty Ford was absolutely as globally famous as Kate Middleton. Don’t be absurd.

No she wasn’t. You're the one being absurd.

Any First Lady is going to be more globally famous than the wife of someone who might be the king someday.

Is this sarcasm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why neither she nor King Charles will say what kind of cancer they had. Aren't their whole "jobs" supposed to be to help people, raise awareness, blah, blah...couldn't they be a bigger help if they shared their own experiences?

For example, when Betty Ford had breast cancer and openly talked about it, she made it OK to talk about breast cancer.

https://cancerletter.com/in-the-archives/20210625_7/

Why wasn’t it OK to talk about breast cancer before? Do those stigmas persist today?

Keep in mind she just finished active treatment. I can’t think of a single celebrity who was out raising awareness while undergoing active treatment. Can you?

Maybe she will make this a cause in the future, maybe she won’t. Give her a minute! I bet her blood work isn’t even back to normal yet!

It was considered shameful and improper to talk about breasts, let alone cancer. People suffered alone. My mom has said it was a HUGE thing when Betty Ford talked about it. It was mind-blowing at the time that someone famous and respected would admit to having breast cancer and speak openly and frankly about something so "private." To some degree that generation viewed illness as a moral failing. When my mom's grandmother had breast cancer, she didn't even tell her family.

Re: Kate, I mostly agree with you but we don't know if she just finished treatment or she finished six months ago. She hasn't said.

+1 same experience with my mom. She had just had a radical mastectomy (unbelievably barbaric treatment and highly recommend the podcast "Less Radical" for more info), and the fact that the first lady was open about her experience was huge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The way the BRF handled it was a disaster PR wise, but I get the sense Kate is person who truly wants to use her position to help people and when she is ready we will find out more. I also suspect some of her more prudish fans may have some issues and she will get some advice about how to present. If it's colon cancer, then there will need to be open discussion about poop for prevention and early detection-what shape is your poop and consistency-here's a Bristow chart with pictures of poop to help....Check your poop for blood. I don't consider any of that a big deal, but I am not her fan-base.

If it's ovarian some are still prudish about such talk and it's hard to promote early detection when it's so difficult to detect it early. If it's cervical, there will be speculation about HPV and STD and the more prudish fans will take issue.

Katie Couric hugely helped increase colon cancer awareness and screenings after her first husband passed away from it, and that was over 25 years ago. I think the general public can handle discussions on it today

That said, I don’t think Princess Kate needs to share what type of cancer she had.

Yes, but that's in the US and they weren't royal. No idea what the older Brit royal fans are like and how they would handle hearing about blood in Kate's poop and irregular bowl movements even though it's important to talk opening about that since so many young adults are getting colon cancer before the age you are supposed to start colonoscopies. No idea if she had colon cancer, but sadly there are people who just can't deal with hearing about cancers in certain areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why neither she nor King Charles will say what kind of cancer they had. Aren't their whole "jobs" supposed to be to help people, raise awareness, blah, blah...couldn't they be a bigger help if they shared their own experiences?

For example, when Betty Ford had breast cancer and openly talked about it, she made it OK to talk about breast cancer.

https://cancerletter.com/in-the-archives/20210625_7/

Betty Ford lived in an era before endless social media and celebrity obsession. She also wasn’t as globally high profile as Kate and Charles. They probably want to avoid the media circus that will ensue, especially for Kate with her young kids. There’s nothing wrong with them wanting to keep their medical information private.

Betty Ford was absolutely as globally famous as Kate Middleton. Don’t be absurd.

No she wasn’t. You're the one being absurd.

Any First Lady is going to be more globally famous than the wife of someone who might be the king someday.

I’m not weighing in on the squabble whether a US First Spouse or a Brit Princess has more worldwide fame, but a key difference is being in the public eye in the 1960s/70s pre-internet and social media and globalization and democratization of news (Betty Ford’s time) VS today (Kate’s time) - I’d say many people have more “fame” today due to the internet and constant social media postings.

[Anonymous]

Michelle, Hillary, or Melania might be as famous as Kate, but definitely not Laura or Jill... the royals stay prominent for decades whereas a First Lady only gets her 4-8 years, so she has to have done other stuff or be married to an especially popular or famous President.

[Anonymous]

There is only one First Lady that was popular and iconic across the world, and that was Jacqueline Kennedy. Europe doesn’t care very much about American First Ladies, generally, they come and go. But the BRF is famous across the world.