So err, What’s Happened to the Princess of Wales?

tamzzy said:
seeing as there's a news blackout...i'll chime in with my conspiracy theory...

i think that Kate's had a cancer of some sort...probably gynaecological in origin (possibly cervical?) needing a hysterectomy and radiotherapy...would explain the prolonged absence in an otherwise presumably fit and healthy 40-ish year old
Click to expand...

I'll chip in with an additional part for the CT - they probably found Charles prostate cancer at about the same time as Kate's cancer (possibly terminal?) and the people who manage the RF (but not the RF themselves) didn't want her very bad news to cast a shadow over "The Kings" cancer (not terminal) and so the decision was made with the RFs blessing to hush Kate's cancer until the King is cancer-free. Hows that for a well rounded CT???

Of course, whilst I can respect people asking for privacy at times, sadly those folks that are the face of the RF probably shouldn't "suddenly" start hushing things up because most people like an obvious mystery to unravel and, as most of the people interested in this I believe genuinely like/love Kate, they just want to know thats she's OK and what was wrong, and when those folks begin to feel "lied to" or "made a fool of" (more accurately) by people behind the scenes then they can turn nasty very quickly.

Eventually it'll all have to come out in the wash, we'll all find out what actually has happened and it'll turn out that the RF will have taken a big (and very probably unnecessary) PR battering at a time when they could ill afford to.
 
Last edited:
StriderX said:
It's the nation's prostate damn it.
Click to expand...

I think Charlie Boy felt it was the nation's finger..

I think if Kate is ill, well I can be nice enough to admit that I don't like seeing anyone with Cancer - as a patient, as a survivor, terminally ill, or their family during and after. Not that I agree with royalty or entitlement.
 
Last edited:
tamzzy said:
seeing as there's a news blackout...i'll chime in with my conspiracy theory...

i think that Kate's had a cancer of some sort...probably gynaecological in origin (possibly cervical?) needing a hysterectomy and radiotherapy...would explain the prolonged absence in an otherwise presumably fit and healthy 40-ish year old
Click to expand...

It was reported to be bowel surgery though I guess maybe the reporting is inaccurate and that sort of cancer op does explain it.

My guess was surgery related to IBD - not an explanation for a prolonged absence for an ordinary person but it could be an explanation for a princess, simply that she/the palace doesn't want her photographed wearing a (temporary) poo bag so... surgery, recovery for a few weeks then a second operation to remove poo bag... thus explaining why she's not seen in public + also explains the desire to be surrounded by kids + use photoshop in the photo.
 
dowie said:
It was reported to be bowel surgery though I guess maybe the reporting is inaccurate and that sort of cancer op does explain it.

My guess was surgery related to IBD - not an explanation for a prolonged absence for an ordinary person but it could be an explanation for a princess, simply that she/the palace doesn't want her photographed wearing a (temporary) poo bag so... surgery, recovery for a few weeks then a second operation to remove poo bag... thus explaining why she's not seen in public + also explains the desire to be surrounded by kids + use photoshop in the photo.
Click to expand...
IIRC it wasn't that detailed, just "Abdominal".
 
Werewolf said:
IIRC it wasn't that detailed, just "Abdominal".
Click to expand...

Actually yeah, you're right - abdominal surgery and also it was a planned procedure + a correspondent said it's not linked to cancer:

It's presumably not appendicitis (as it was planned), gall bladder is a short stay/overnight thing, so it seems like bowel surgery for UC or Crohn's is a realistic possibility. I guess endometriosis is another possibility.
 
Last edited:
Interesting from a photography standpoint, as the boundaries on what is a photograph and what is digital art are closer than ever. It's picked up on as it's so poorly done. There's plenty of images of the royal family released that look nothing remotely like they do out of camera. It's ok though as it's well edited? Or is it ok as it's edited in a way that would lead you to believe it could be straight from a camera? Where do you even draw the line on what counts as as a doctored image now? Is cropping allowed, white balance adjustment, how about highlights and shadows, maybe just minor blemish removal, teeth whitening but you can't visibly tell, clarity for a softer look... The list goes on and on. Do it all 'well' (subjective) and most will just think great photo and camera and have no issue. Maybe they should just always show the before and after.
 
What i dont understand, is why it all has to be kept hush hush. I mean, sure, i guess if they want to keep their medical problems private, that is on them. However, she wilfully signed up for a life that was completely in the public eye and one that would mean she is under constant scrutiny. I mean, that's the "job" really.

I think it would be far better if they just accepted that and were honest about everything. Dirty laundry and all.
 
:cry:

heil.jpg
 
Rumours abound about King Charles' health. Not sure that there's any legit source, though, possibly a nefarious rumour that's taken off.

It's all very weird, though. I really don't tend to pay much attention to the royals, but I'm starting to get drawn in to the circus!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom