Kate Middleton cancer in remission

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kate gave half her dna to a future monarch, so in that sense, her health does matter. If she had a genetic predisposition to whatever cancer and that predisposition was passed down to George, it’s relevant to the public’s interest.

This is the struggle for modern a modern monarchy.

Why would it be public interest if the heir did have genetic issues? Not like they’re going to vote another child in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ironically, Jackie Kennedy also died of cancer - after undergoing chemotherapy and radiation treatment. I doubt anyone complained that she didn’t “spread enough awareness” or criticized her for not working while undergoing treatment.

She was a private citizen then - 30 years since she'd been First Lady. Charles and Kate (supposedly) work for the British people. There's no comparison.

Charles is the only Monarch though, and Kate will never be. And Charles has never said what he has and I don't hear anyone 'disappointed' in him like they are Kate.

I think a lot of people incorrectly assumed he had prostate cancer because of him saying his cancer was discovered during treatment for an enlarged prostate. Also people hate him so pretty hard for him to be disappointing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Basic easy stuff? Really? With cancer? And three young children? Do you really think any of this has been easy for her? Esp with people like you sniffing around for personal details.

It's not like she runs her own social media--couldn't a PR person post something? She has nannies to care for the 3 kids, doesn't have to cook her own meals or clean her own house or go to work each day. Surely she might have a smidge of extra capacity compared to a regular person?

Its her life. She owes it to her kids to be an involved mother. She does not owe anyone outside of her family anything.

She actually does. That's kind of the whole thijng behind being a monarch.

DP. The PP is absolutely correct. She owes no one except her family anything whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Basic easy stuff? Really? With cancer? And three young children? Do you really think any of this has been easy for her? Esp with people like you sniffing around for personal details.

It's not like she runs her own social media--couldn't a PR person post something? She has nannies to care for the 3 kids, doesn't have to cook her own meals or clean her own house or go to work each day. Surely she might have a smidge of extra capacity compared to a regular person?

Its her life. She owes it to her kids to be an involved mother. She does not owe anyone outside of her family anything.

She actually does. That's kind of the whole thijng behind being a monarch.

Do you think she owes you details about her health? It’s her body, right? Why do you think she owes you personal health information?

Everytime you address other posters, the post is reported by the way, then the post disappears. Keep that in mind. So consider NOT addressing other posters. Key word is using "you". No need to speak to us directly. At all.

So, the way you just did? I guess I'll have to report you.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Basic easy stuff? Really? With cancer? And three young children? Do you really think any of this has been easy for her? Esp with people like you sniffing around for personal details.

It's not like she runs her own social media--couldn't a PR person post something? She has nannies to care for the 3 kids, doesn't have to cook her own meals or clean her own house or go to work each day. Surely she might have a smidge of extra capacity compared to a regular person?

Its her life. She owes it to her kids to be an involved mother. She does not owe anyone outside of her family anything.

She actually does. That's kind of the whole thijng behind being a monarch.

A "monarch" is the sovereign head of the state. That is Charles aka the King. It will never be Catherine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kate gave half her dna to a future monarch, so in that sense, her health does matter. If she had a genetic predisposition to whatever cancer and that predisposition was passed down to George, it’s relevant to the public’s interest.

This is the struggle for modern a modern monarchy.

Lol, OK. Better call Rasputin before people figure out Alexei has the bleeding disorder, Nicky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if she’s going to give up some of her patronages since she’s not able to handle as much as before.

I mean, it’s doubtful since it’s so prestigious for the organization to have a high ranking royal as patron. From what I remember, the Queen had something like 500, most of those were redistributed before and after her death but they got rid of 100 or so. It’s more about the name association and less about actual work, probably.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kate gave half her dna to a future monarch, so in that sense, her health does matter. If she had a genetic predisposition to whatever cancer and that predisposition was passed down to George, it’s relevant to the public’s interest.

This is the struggle for modern a modern monarchy.

The royal families in England, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia historically used to be terribly inbred, including the current british royal family.

Princess Katherine's 50% have drastically improved the genetics of the future heirs of the British royal family, cancer and all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kate gave half her dna to a future monarch, so in that sense, her health does matter. If she had a genetic predisposition to whatever cancer and that predisposition was passed down to George, it’s relevant to the public’s interest.

This is the struggle for modern a modern monarchy.

I think it is fair to say the the DNA of Commoner Kate has significantly improved the genetics of William's blood line by adding a bunch of branches to their family tree.

Royal families worldwide are not known for healthy genetics due to generations of marrying relatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the way she announced it was classy, visiting the hospital to thank them and talk to others still receiving treatment.

Maskless. So classy.

And dangerous when you're hugging immunocompromised chemo patients. But hey, the pictures wouldn't have turned out as well. Even more classy was stopping to look wistfully up at the sign over the front door, as the cameras clicked, although she never used the front entrance when she was a private patient using one of the side entrances.

For optics, she probably should’ve masked. As far as being dangerous to patients, probably not.

At least here in the US, you (typically) cannot receive chemotherapy if you’re neutropenic.

A lot of chemo patients are unmasked these days during infusions - as well as nurses, doctors, etc. I think a lot of cancer centers have lifted mandatory mask restrictions.

I had a checkup today at the GW cancer clinic downtown. Everybody is required to wear a mask, no matter where they are in treatment, and there's a box of masks by the reception desk.

This is DC though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ironically, Jackie Kennedy also died of cancer - after undergoing chemotherapy and radiation treatment. I doubt anyone complained that she didn’t “spread enough awareness” or criticized her for not working while undergoing treatment.

She was a private citizen then - 30 years since she'd been First Lady. Charles and Kate (supposedly) work for the British people. There's no comparison.

Charles is the only Monarch though, and Kate will never be. And Charles has never said what he has and I don't hear anyone 'disappointed' in him like they are Kate.

I think a lot of people incorrectly assumed he had prostate cancer because of him saying his cancer was discovered during treatment for an enlarged prostate. Also people hate him so pretty hard for him to be disappointing.

So what does King Charles III have if not prostate cancer? Link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ironically, Jackie Kennedy also died of cancer - after undergoing chemotherapy and radiation treatment. I doubt anyone complained that she didn’t “spread enough awareness” or criticized her for not working while undergoing treatment.

She was a private citizen then - 30 years since she'd been First Lady. Charles and Kate (supposedly) work for the British people. There's no comparison.

Charles is the only Monarch though, and Kate will never be. And Charles has never said what he has and I don't hear anyone 'disappointed' in him like they are Kate.

I think a lot of people incorrectly assumed he had prostate cancer because of him saying his cancer was discovered during treatment for an enlarged prostate. Also people hate him so pretty hard for him to be disappointing.

So what does King Charles III have if not prostate cancer? Link?

There is a rumor that it is pancreatic cancer. Have no idea if that's true.

[Anonymous]

Well she is well enough to go on a skiing vacation in the Alps. Hopefully she's well enough to meet with a few of her patronages for an hour!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well she is well enough to go on a skiing vacation in the Alps. Hopefully she's well enough to meet with a few of her patronages for an hour!

She has good days and bad days.

[Anonymous]

Good for her! I hope they enjoyed the trip.