Kate Middleton cancer in remission

[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 openly said she would be prioritizing her health and her family post-diagnosis. Taking a family vacation seems in line with that statement. And who knows how much skiing she did, not that it's any of our business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good for her! I hope they enjoyed the trip.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 openly said she would be prioritizing her health and her family post-diagnosis. Taking a family vacation seems in line with that statement. And who knows how much skiing she did, not that it's any of our business.

If she was able to leap on hay bales for her video over the summer, I’m sure she’s able to ski now, months after she’s been done with treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Isn't it just so great for her that her good days coincide with ski trips and Wimbledon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 openly said she would be prioritizing her health and her family post-diagnosis. Taking a family vacation seems in line with that statement. And who knows how much skiing she did, not that it's any of our business.

DP. They’ve done this every year. They basically disappear for all of December to go skiing and to mustique. That said not sure why people only care that she’s lazy when William is right there with her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Isn't it just so great for her that her good days coincide with ski trips and Wimbledon.

Muahaha

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Isn't it just so great for her that her good days coincide with ski trips and Wimbledon.

And so sad that her bad days coincide with going actual work 😂

[Anonymous]

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 didn’t see any masks in those videos - it’s not like everyone was masked and Kate strolled in maskless for the camera.

[Anonymous]

No hate from me. If I had limited energy I'd use it to go thank the hospital workers and take a family trip instead of some dumb ribbon cutting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 openly said she would be prioritizing her health and her family post-diagnosis. Taking a family vacation seems in line with that statement. And who knows how much skiing she did, not that it's any of our business.

Yes, she definitely said this, and she also said that she'd only be doing things that bring her joy. The thing is, a lot of Brits (like my relatives there) don't think this is good enough, because she's living off the public purse to a greater or lesser extent depending on which lawyers you talk to. Certainly taxpayers pay for those multiple security guards who entered the Swiss restaurant with her. The royals have been busted using taxpayer-funded jets for private vacations and, even if William's duchy paid for it, some argue that the duchy income properly belongs to the state; at the very least, it should be taxed and because it's not taxed, that's millions in lost revenue. Not to mention the hypocrisy about flying a private jet for vacation when William is lecturing others about carbon loads. Given the multiple taxpayer-funded bennies they all receive (read "And What Do You Do" and you'll see many more than I've listed here), there's an expectation that, now that her children are all in school, she could turn up more than once a month to visit a patronage or something. If you read the Daily Mail's comment section you'll see that sentiment is starting to turn against William and Kate. If her next public appearance is all glammed up at the BAFTAs, the Mail's comment section is going to go berserk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 openly said she would be prioritizing her health and her family post-diagnosis. Taking a family vacation seems in line with that statement. And who knows how much skiing she did, not that it's any of our business.

Yes, she definitely said this, and she also said that she'd only be doing things that bring her joy. The thing is, a lot of Brits (like my relatives there) don't think this is good enough, because she's living off the public purse to a greater or lesser extent depending on which lawyers you talk to. Certainly taxpayers pay for those multiple security guards who entered the Swiss restaurant with her. The royals have been busted using taxpayer-funded jets for private vacations and, even if William's duchy paid for it, some argue that the duchy income properly belongs to the state; at the very least, it should be taxed and because it's not taxed, that's millions in lost revenue. Not to mention the hypocrisy about flying a private jet for vacation when William is lecturing others about carbon loads. Given the multiple taxpayer-funded bennies they all receive (read "And What Do You Do" and you'll see many more than I've listed here), there's an expectation that, now that her children are all in school, she could turn up more than once a month to visit a patronage or something. If you read the Daily Mail's comment section you'll see that sentiment is starting to turn against William and Kate. If her next public appearance is all glammed up at the BAFTAs, the Mail's comment section is going to go berserk.

The Daily Mail’s comment section is a sewer.

She has an 80% favorability rating. Andrew, Harry, and Charles have all damaged the monarchy. I’m not sure it will continue. And I don’t know that William and Catherine would mind too much just f*ck ing off with their personal fortune anyway.

BTW, the taxpayer plays slightly over 1£ and the return is phenomenal. Receive about 86b bring in about 1.8b. Having an apolitical head of state is unquantifiable but valued by many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 openly said she would be prioritizing her health and her family post-diagnosis. Taking a family vacation seems in line with that statement. And who knows how much skiing she did, not that it's any of our business.

Yes, she definitely said this, and she also said that she'd only be doing things that bring her joy. The thing is, a lot of Brits (like my relatives there) don't think this is good enough, because she's living off the public purse to a greater or lesser extent depending on which lawyers you talk to. Certainly taxpayers pay for those multiple security guards who entered the Swiss restaurant with her. The royals have been busted using taxpayer-funded jets for private vacations and, even if William's duchy paid for it, some argue that the duchy income properly belongs to the state; at the very least, it should be taxed and because it's not taxed, that's millions in lost revenue. Not to mention the hypocrisy about flying a private jet for vacation when William is lecturing others about carbon loads. Given the multiple taxpayer-funded bennies they all receive (read "And What Do You Do" and you'll see many more than I've listed here), there's an expectation that, now that her children are all in school, she could turn up more than once a month to visit a patronage or something. If you read the Daily Mail's comment section you'll see that sentiment is starting to turn against William and Kate. If her next public appearance is all glammed up at the BAFTAs, the Mail's comment section is going to go berserk.

The Daily Mail’s comment section is a sewer.

She has an 80% favorability rating. Andrew, Harry, and Charles have all damaged the monarchy. I’m not sure it will continue. And I don’t know that William and Catherine would mind too much just f*ck ing off with their personal fortune anyway.

BTW, the taxpayer plays slightly over 1£ and the return is phenomenal. Receive about 86b bring in about 1.8b. Having an apolitical head of state is unquantifiable but valued by many.

How old is that favorability rating though? It’s changed in even just the few mo the since she claimed to be “cancer-free” in that video, yet has still refused to work.

Tourists come to see the buildings, not to have tea with royalty. France takes on more from tourism than Britain but hadn’t had a monarchy for almost two centuries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 openly said she would be prioritizing her health and her family post-diagnosis. Taking a family vacation seems in line with that statement. And who knows how much skiing she did, not that it's any of our business.

Yes, she definitely said this, and she also said that she'd only be doing things that bring her joy. The thing is, a lot of Brits (like my relatives there) don't think this is good enough, because she's living off the public purse to a greater or lesser extent depending on which lawyers you talk to. Certainly taxpayers pay for those multiple security guards who entered the Swiss restaurant with her. The royals have been busted using taxpayer-funded jets for private vacations and, even if William's duchy paid for it, some argue that the duchy income properly belongs to the state; at the very least, it should be taxed and because it's not taxed, that's millions in lost revenue. Not to mention the hypocrisy about flying a private jet for vacation when William is lecturing others about carbon loads. Given the multiple taxpayer-funded bennies they all receive (read "And What Do You Do" and you'll see many more than I've listed here), there's an expectation that, now that her children are all in school, she could turn up more than once a month to visit a patronage or something. If you read the Daily Mail's comment section you'll see that sentiment is starting to turn against William and Kate. If her next public appearance is all glammed up at the BAFTAs, the Mail's comment section is going to go berserk.

The Daily Mail’s comment section is a sewer.

She has an 80% favorability rating. Andrew, Harry, and Charles have all damaged the monarchy. I’m not sure it will continue. And I don’t know that William and Catherine would mind too much just f*ck ing off with their personal fortune anyway.

BTW, the taxpayer plays slightly over 1£ and the return is phenomenal. Receive about 86b bring in about 1.8b. Having an apolitical head of state is unquantifiable but valued by many.

That 1.6 pound figure is only for their security. It doesn’t cover the cost of so many other taxpayer-funded bennies, such as free room and board in palaces, no taxation of capital gains or inheritances, sealed wills so the taxpayer doesn’t know what’s going on, Charles and William not even bothering to file tax returns for the past year or two, charging the NHS to park ambulances on duchy lands and lifeboats on duchy lands, untaxed profits from various wheezes on duchy lands, and more. All of which is income foregone to the Treasury and country. Channel 4 had a documentary exposing a lot of this a few months ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 openly said she would be prioritizing her health and her family post-diagnosis. Taking a family vacation seems in line with that statement. And who knows how much skiing she did, not that it's any of our business.

Yes, she definitely said this, and she also said that she'd only be doing things that bring her joy. The thing is, a lot of Brits (like my relatives there) don't think this is good enough, because she's living off the public purse to a greater or lesser extent depending on which lawyers you talk to. Certainly taxpayers pay for those multiple security guards who entered the Swiss restaurant with her. The royals have been busted using taxpayer-funded jets for private vacations and, even if William's duchy paid for it, some argue that the duchy income properly belongs to the state; at the very least, it should be taxed and because it's not taxed, that's millions in lost revenue. Not to mention the hypocrisy about flying a private jet for vacation when William is lecturing others about carbon loads. Given the multiple taxpayer-funded bennies they all receive (read "And What Do You Do" and you'll see many more than I've listed here), there's an expectation that, now that her children are all in school, she could turn up more than once a month to visit a patronage or something. If you read the Daily Mail's comment section you'll see that sentiment is starting to turn against William and Kate. If her next public appearance is all glammed up at the BAFTAs, the Mail's comment section is going to go berserk.

The Daily Mail’s comment section is a sewer.

She has an 80% favorability rating. Andrew, Harry, and Charles have all damaged the monarchy. I’m not sure it will continue. And I don’t know that William and Catherine would mind too much just f*ck ing off with their personal fortune anyway.

BTW, the taxpayer plays slightly over 1£ and the return is phenomenal. Receive about 86b bring in about 1.8b. Having an apolitical head of state is unquantifiable but valued by many.

That 1.6 pound figure is only for their security. It doesn’t cover the cost of so many other taxpayer-funded bennies, such as free room and board in palaces, no taxation of capital gains or inheritances, sealed wills so the taxpayer doesn’t know what’s going on, Charles and William not even bothering to file tax returns for the past year or two, charging the NHS to park ambulances on duchy lands and lifeboats on duchy lands, untaxed profits from various wheezes on duchy lands, and more. All of which is income foregone to the Treasury and country. Channel 4 had a documentary exposing a lot of this a few months ago.

PS. Read Norman Baker’s book, And What Do You Do. Baker is a former MP and Privy counselor and brings the facts. What’s above us just off the top of my head from his book and Channel 4, but you starry-eyed Americans could really do with even a sampling of reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 openly said she would be prioritizing her health and her family post-diagnosis. Taking a family vacation seems in line with that statement. And who knows how much skiing she did, not that it's any of our business.

Yes, she definitely said this, and she also said that she'd only be doing things that bring her joy. The thing is, a lot of Brits (like my relatives there) don't think this is good enough, because she's living off the public purse to a greater or lesser extent depending on which lawyers you talk to. Certainly taxpayers pay for those multiple security guards who entered the Swiss restaurant with her. The royals have been busted using taxpayer-funded jets for private vacations and, even if William's duchy paid for it, some argue that the duchy income properly belongs to the state; at the very least, it should be taxed and because it's not taxed, that's millions in lost revenue. Not to mention the hypocrisy about flying a private jet for vacation when William is lecturing others about carbon loads. Given the multiple taxpayer-funded bennies they all receive (read "And What Do You Do" and you'll see many more than I've listed here), there's an expectation that, now that her children are all in school, she could turn up more than once a month to visit a patronage or something. If you read the Daily Mail's comment section you'll see that sentiment is starting to turn against William and Kate. If her next public appearance is all glammed up at the BAFTAs, the Mail's comment section is going to go berserk.

The Daily Mail’s comment section is a sewer.

She has an 80% favorability rating. Andrew, Harry, and Charles have all damaged the monarchy. I’m not sure it will continue. And I don’t know that William and Catherine would mind too much just f*ck ing off with their personal fortune anyway.

BTW, the taxpayer plays slightly over 1£ and the return is phenomenal. Receive about 86b bring in about 1.8b. Having an apolitical head of state is unquantifiable but valued by many.

How old is that favorability rating though? It’s changed in even just the few mo the since she claimed to be “cancer-free” in that video, yet has still refused to work.

Tourists come to see the buildings, not to have tea with royalty. France takes on more from tourism than Britain but hadn’t had a monarchy for almost two centuries.

I checked the ratings before I commented.

Their contributions to the economy are much more than tourism.