"For everyone facing this disease ... You are not alone"

March 22, 2024 12:35 PM

Princess of Wales says she is undergoing cancer treatment

The princess's statement explains that when she had abdominal surgery in January, it was not known that there was any cancer. "However tests after the operation found cancer had been present. My medical team therefore advised that I should undergo a course of preventative chemotherapy and I am now in the early stages of that treatment," said the princess. The chemotherapy treatment began in late February. The palace says it will not be sharing any further private medical information, including the type of cancer. [...]

There have been calls for privacy from the palace after weeks of speculation and conspiracy theories about the royal couple. This had intensified after the withdrawal by photo agencies of a photograph of the princess for Mother's Day, on 10 March, because of concerns over digital alterations, for which the princess subsequently apologised.

Full statement [transcript + video] - Related: King Charles diagnosed with cancer, Buckingham Palace announces
posted by Rhaomi (115 comments total)

I want to make sure the first comment says: what sad news for that poor family and those kids, and yes, even for Prince William too.
posted by fortitude25 at 12:47 PM on March 22 [107 favorites]

I would like to think that we can limit our gawking on this.

I have so much sympathy for her and her husband, entirely aside from their royalty: with young kids, handling cancer is a lot more fraught, and it sucks no matter who you are.
posted by wenestvedt at 12:47 PM on March 22 [17 favorites]

Having dealt with my mom's cancer for the last 5 years, it never gets better. There are only pauses before each storm.
posted by lock robster at 12:58 PM on March 22 [12 favorites]

Fucking asbestos in Buckingham Palace.
posted by riruro at 12:58 PM on March 22 [4 favorites]

Damn, man. Hits weirdly close to home. I’m about the Princess’s age and two of my friends are undergoing cancer treatments right now.

I hope if nothing else, this announcement maybe makes cancer patients and their loved ones feel less isolated.
posted by Suedeltica at 12:59 PM on March 22 [15 favorites]

I'm glad that first comment came in. I was dithering around the post wondering what one could even say to this, particularly in light of the surreal tabloid hype that preceded it.
posted by infini at 1:00 PM on March 22 [6 favorites]

I've said my piece about Kate elsewhere. I'm not a William stan but I feel for the man, having both his father and his wife diagnosed with cancer. I had the "easy" kind (surgery only) and I still lost about a year being sick, being diagnosed, being treated, and recovering. Also poor kiddos, with mom and grandfather both sick.

Apart from the whole royal rich folks thing, I wish them all personally well and a swift, easy, and complete recovery for Charles and Kate.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 1:09 PM on March 22 [11 favorites]

120 years ago a king's job was to show up and look good from a distance. So long as His Majesty didn't fall off his horse, all was well.

Then radio was invented, and people got more access to a king's human side. This was not a good thing, and so king George had to go to speech therapy for his stammer.

Then came TV, which really didn't do the royals any favors. It turned them into actors who have to get into character the moment they get out of bed.

Now each royal has a device in his or her pocket that can trip him up at any moment.

This is what will finally kill the monarchy.
posted by ocschwar at 1:15 PM on March 22 [15 favorites]

As someone currently negotiating an older parent through a cancer diagnosis/treatment in the UK, facing a grossly underfunded and under resourced NHS; where we've waited months and months for "urgent" appointments and diagnostic tests, can't get answers, can't get treatment in the local area they're comfortable with but have to travel with them on very difficult public transport routes to big cities that scare and intimidate them, and deal with tired, fractious consultants who offer treatment in places with ongoing covid and mrsa outbreaks, in rushed appointments with no follow up and services only 'online' despite working with people who can't use smartphones and don't understand the technical language and are scared and tired and sick...

Sorry, no, I can't find much empathy for people rushed to the head of the queue with the most luxe treatment which i and my relative are paying for with our taxes? Maybe I'm just low on energy and humanity but I'm done with having to be mealy mouthed about them just because they're sad, or sick, or bereaved just like the rest of us plebs are all the fricking time..
posted by AFII at 1:18 PM on March 22 [121 favorites]

Cancer sucks
posted by djseafood at 1:19 PM on March 22 [3 favorites]

Cancer sucks

I'm guessing it sucks a tiny bit less if you don't have to deal with insurance companies, waiting lists, or driving yourself to appointments, though.

At a human level, I'm sympathetic for sure, but at another level this feels like just another opportunity to watch inequality in action. I certainly hope she and everyone else dealing with this get better and recover.
posted by Dip Flash at 1:25 PM on March 22 [20 favorites]

On the one hand, these are human beings who deserve sympathy when they are suffering. Also those born into it didn’t ask to be part of The Firm. On the other hand they are rich as Croesus, and could choose to step away from the lifestyle they have if they wanted to, so my sympathy is extremely limited.
posted by rikschell at 1:28 PM on March 22 [6 favorites]

Sorry, no, I can't find much empathy for people rushed to the head of the queue

No empathy for other people with cancer? That's what you're saying? Surely you don't mean that. Even if you think Kate is too privileged to be worthy of your empathy, she has three small children.

I'm done with having to be mealy mouthed about them just because they're sad, or sick, or bereaved just like the rest of us plebs are all the fricking time..

Who is calling for being mealy-mouthed? I'm sorry if the rest of the world has treated you and your parent (whom I wish a quick and easy recovery to) poorly. The solution to that is not to treat everyone else badly, just as the solution to the NHS being underfunded is not to deprive everyone of care.
posted by praemunire at 1:33 PM on March 22 [38 favorites]

Ugh, there were only a very few possible reasons for the extreme awkwardness in handling the situation, and "sick enough that even good makeup can't cover it up for a picture or two" was the worst of them. Hope she recovers well, especially for her kids' sake.
posted by tavella at 1:34 PM on March 22 [6 favorites]

Meanwhile: How have waiting times on a cancer pathway changed over time in the UK?

Ans: Performance is at a 15 year low.
posted by biffa at 1:36 PM on March 22 [13 favorites]

They are very, very wealthy. But they are also living a soap opera that they are not easily able to step away from. I think that would make dealing with this worse.

For example, it's notable that the announcement has been made today, after the end of term for their kids' school. Because you always have to take into account that you are living in a goldfish bowl.
posted by plonkee at 1:37 PM on March 22 [9 favorites]

>No empathy for other people with cancer?

I have loads of empathy for people with cancer, less for those who got things we couldn't at our expense. I find it hard to accept 'you're not alone" messages from someone who has been given everything we need when we can't access it ourselves.

My problem is that I don't think that 'cancer' is a get out clause for critiques about unearned wealth, unfair treatment, hiding racists and rapists amongst your staff and family, all the rest. Already we're being called on - again - to stop being critical in any way of a ridiculous, privileged family because one of them is experiencing something extremely common, without being allowed to point out that no, actually, their experience is not like ours. I'm tired of them being human when it suits them to be empathised with and forgiven, and invulnerable and expensive (including, you know, at the expense of our public services) the rest of the time.
posted by AFII at 1:39 PM on March 22 [103 favorites]

My wife had one of the US 24 hour news channels and one person said, "let's hope that the press steps back and gives Kate and her family some distance." Oh yeah, that's gonna happen. The UK tabloids are well known for their restraint. This is going to be a shitshow of epic proportions.
posted by Ber at 1:40 PM on March 22 [1 favorite]

I lost my mom to cancer when I was fourteen. I just dropped a meal off for a family with kids whose mom has cancer. Fuck cancer.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 1:47 PM on March 22 [23 favorites]

As far as I can tell, Kate and William are not asking for your sympathy, they are asking for privacy. They were forced to make the statement she made today because of the rampant speculation and conspiracy theories. Let them be.

I hope for a speedy and complete recovery.

(Embarrassingly, I did not have cancer as one of the possibilities of what was going on. I had mental health issue as my guess.)
posted by JohnnyGunn at 1:54 PM on March 22 [15 favorites]

I find it hard to accept 'you're not alone" messages from someone who has been given everything we need when we can't access it ourselves.

Same here. Not buying the illusion that wealthy celebrities - or, worse yet, aristocrats and royals - are like us.
posted by doctornemo at 1:55 PM on March 22 [7 favorites]

Already we're being called on - again - to stop being critical in any way of a ridiculous, privileged family because one of them is experiencing something extremely common

Again, where, and by whom? And who has asked you not to point out that the royals have access to better medical treatment than your parent does? It appears that Kate was treated privately, at least at the beginning, and to the extent the royals don't use the NHS, that is a grim sign (and a depressing one for an American leftist who wants universal health care for her own country). But...what does this have to do with giving her and her family privacy while she pursues treatment and, hopefully, recovery? This is what everyone should have.

Everyone who said awful things about Britney Spears, or Monica Lewinsky, or name-your-female-punching-bag-of-the-90s: this here is your chance to not have to look back in 15-20 years and be embarrassed about (or deny) what you said. Just let her be.
posted by praemunire at 1:58 PM on March 22 [34 favorites]

I feel a MetaTalk coming on

if the decent thing is to respect an individual's privacy, how is it this thread will exceed 200 comments
posted by elkevelvet at 2:17 PM on March 22 [8 favorites]

I think that how the other people in one’s life talk about the royals is a going to inform everyone’s responses to this.

It is terrible for her to have cancer, and it is terrible for everyone surrounding them, and that’s kind of it. Everyone can still get mad about inequality and whatever other issues. On a human level, it also feels wild to come down from the internet hype bubble that I’ve existed on the outermost periphery of for some time and to have the conclusion just be sad, not sordid. From where I sit, It feels like a judgment on the tabloid press, though the story will surely get a million more clicks. I wish the monarchy and all of its tabloid coverage could stop, but even then that wouldn’t really undo its complicated damage it has caused over the centuries.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:17 PM on March 22 [8 favorites]

My step-sister died of leukaemia last October. She was in her mid-20's and spent 5 years fighting this shitty, horrific disease. We were all with her every step of the way. She was loved and looked after and received every single bit of care the NHS could give her. At her funeral, my stepmum read out this piece, titled 'The Warrior', that she'd written for her:

Her courage and sheer determination to live meant that whatever happened, however bad it got, she would always choose to fight on. She was a true inspiration to us all. Her doctor called me a day or so after [she] died, he personally asked us not to say ‘[she] lost her battle’. He told me that despite them wanting to, there was absolutely nothing left for them to offer her, no further treatments, they had nothing left for her.

Her body was scarred and bruised, her internal organs failing her, but just a day or so before she died she told me that she didn’t want to die and had there been any chance at all, however small, any offer of treatment, any trial, however risky, she would have taken it. She did not lose her battle, there was however nothing left for the Warrior to fight with!

Cancer doesn't care who you are, or how rich you are. Yes, it's easier to treat if you have access, and that will give you advantages. But for many people, it doesn't discriminate. It is a disease that wrecks the human body. I don't think Kate's children will understand that mummy's money means she's able to get better care. They'll just care that their mum is sick and they might have to face the fact that they will lose her, well before they're prepared to.

Nobody should ever have to go through that. Maybe it's just me, but being tired and broke and stuck in this shitty country with the NHS failing doesn't make me wish ill on someone who is going through this, it just makes me sad. All I can think is that Kate may be coping with the same side-effects and the same mortal experience as my sister, all the stupid and painful and undignified tests, the bruises, the exhaustion, the sickness.

I don't know where I'm going with this, I'm just so tired of everything being about the Discourse. I just hope Kate gets through this, I really do.
posted by fight or flight at 2:18 PM on March 22 [54 favorites]

Love the Daily Mail headline: "Anything to say for yourselves? The American celebrities who poked fun at Kate's time away, as she announces shock cancer diagnosis" (link to collection of tweets from Kim Kardashian, Andy Cohen, John Oliver, etc.)
posted by Melismata at 2:19 PM on March 22 [2 favorites]

It's difficult to understand how a comment on metafilter could constitute an invasion of a royal's privacy. But I do think the efforts to sort of fence in what reactions are allowable and moral, are interesting and telling.

This entire story--the rampant speculation, oddball theories, and depressing denouement--really point out the essential brokenness of the modern concept of the public figure. Old-style PR, an effort to spin a coherent palatable narrative, the former grand bargain of "you will develop a deep and lasting parasocial relationship with this figure, and we will tell you how to feel about them," has completely fallen apart. We seem to be feeling everything--suspicion, hatred, jealousy, sympathy, fear--a massive transference that is out of our control.

(How differently would we feel if it had been Trump in that video? Would anyone listen to pleas for either privacy or sympathy?)

Anyway. It's weird and I don't like it.
posted by mittens at 2:20 PM on March 22 [14 favorites]

Kate will absolutely be prioritized and displace others in the NHS system but it won't be the ordinary folk who are directly displaced. It will be other rich people who will be bumped from their slots in the private wings of the hospital that are dedicated to treating those much richer than ordinary folk. Of course that displacement will trickle down but that trickle will just be raindrops in a downpour of already occurring NHS destruction.
posted by srboisvert at 2:25 PM on March 22 [3 favorites]

Yes, I thought the essential deal with The Royals is that they get scads of money, publicity, and (soft) power, and we get to put them in a fishbowl, quid pro quo.
posted by rikschell at 2:27 PM on March 22 [5 favorites]

>Again, where, and by whom?

On social media, on forums, in newspapers, and by the tone of your posts.

I'd love to give them privacy; privacy would mean this wasn't being rubbed in my face over and over for the next weeks and months, and that I didn't feel compelled to try to justify my sadness and my fear and my rage at this inequality, and my apparent "unempathetic" and by implication somehow "unfeminist" (!) reaction to total strangers.

(I am done thread sitting; I'm out)
posted by AFII at 2:28 PM on March 22 [36 favorites]

On a side note, it’s clear that just as with murder mysteries, the cover-up is what led to the reveal. If all of this had simply been announced a while ago prior to the photoshopped images and the body doubles and the cryptic comments from palace staff, the discourse would be in a healthier place.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 2:32 PM on March 22 [22 favorites]

it's wild that there are people who are mad that folks are treating Kate Middleton as a signifier of varied social forces inclusive of inequality, medical queues, the funding of cancer research vs other diseases common to lower income, BIPOC populations, etc

like the Royals are literally meant to be figureheads, representations of the British state

she is absolutely human but crocodile tears for a family whose celebrity status, ability to sway public opinion, enormous wealth, and other accoutrements of power are built on centuries of the worst and most widespread forms of colonial depredations is a bit... cringy, surely?

I would certainly be more sympathetic if, say, they paid their wealth out in vast sums of reparations to their formerly colonized subjects but we live in a reality so distant from that becoming a reasonable expectation that it's almost satirically absurd that people are being swayed so much by the Crown's PR release on this. makes me want to get one of those 'you are not immune to propaganda' Garfield shirts
posted by paimapi at 2:37 PM on March 22 [24 favorites]

there have been some very discordant discussion here on the Blue recently - this thread is hitting that nerve too - I'm not sure where we're going, but it's feeling a lot less friendly around here.
posted by djseafood at 3:20 PM on March 22 [13 favorites]

it's feeling a lot less friendly around here.

It's a big place! This problem is not in most of it.
posted by Glinn at 3:32 PM on March 22 [2 favorites]

[Within the last year, we had a 600+ comment MetaTalk thread about how we talk about billionaires on the site, especially when they are the victims of tragedy. I hope we do not recapitulate it here; I do recommend it to your attention if you are in conflict with other MeFites on the topic of pressure to perform sympathy or to express/not express anger at the royal family in this particular thread.]
posted by brainwane at 3:38 PM on March 22 [15 favorites]

The Firm suck at chess. You're supposed to protect the Queen, and here they are, fumbling bag after bag.

The Firm would have been content not to say anything about Kate's health issue if not for the online shitshow following the Photoshop disaster. Covering it up only made matters worse, and certainly wasn't respectful to Kate. Why couldn't they have said something around the time of Kate's chemo treatment starting?
posted by stannate at 3:40 PM on March 22 [9 favorites]

It’s kind of difficult to explain the concept of “royal family” in practice, if they’re not from a country with a monarchy. And even then, most monarchies in the contemporary period are removed from actual power and most people’s lives. Not the Windsor’s though: they’re rich, they’re at the centre of the establishment, and they’re on every penny you spend in the uk. In some areas the crown might be your landlord, or maybe your employer. Your breakfast cereal will have a little sign on the side saying “by royal appointment to HRH”. As a person living in the uk, you are unable to avoid them.

When major life events happen to the royal family, you are forced to join in, even if you don’t want to. You are kept aware of births, deaths, and marriages, by bank holidays and front page news. You’re getting a high level of monarchy exposure all the time. Normally this is tolerable, but when it throws up the disparity between the lived experience of cancer treatment in the uk it is going to raise questions about the royal family.

(And just because some of them are unfortunate enough to be sick doesn’t mean we should stop asking them about their giant tax evasion moves, or any other of the myriad problems that comes with having an anointed first family.)
posted by The River Ivel at 3:41 PM on March 22 [23 favorites]

I was reminded that the initial announcement specifically ruled out cancer. There were a lot of reasons to speculate. I don’t think it’s misogynistic or ghoulish to react that way.

I wish her the best.
posted by girlmightlive at 3:46 PM on March 22 [6 favorites]

I was reminded that the initial announcement specifically ruled out cancer.

Right, I think in some sense it would have been conspiracy thinking for we the public (us the public? my grammar fails me) to imagine it was cancer, given the setup. Of course I’m not suggesting they lied — in hindsight it makes sense that sometimes you think something is benign and the path report says otherwise. Certainly I wish one of our boring explanations had been it instead.
posted by eirias at 3:53 PM on March 22 [3 favorites]

Why couldn't they have said something around the time of Kate's chemo treatment starting?

They could have done. The most straightforward explanation is that Kate herself didn't want to.

Given that she was expected to return to the public eye after Easter, their team probably knew that they would need to make some kind of announcement about now. Given that, I probably would have suggested the day the children finished school for the holidays, so that there would be time for the press interest to die down before they went back to school.
posted by plonkee at 3:59 PM on March 22

I don't think there is any contradiction.

It is right to be outraged by the help and care Ms. Middleton will receive that poorer people won't, or the ease with which she will receive it compared to the fight they have to endure for less.

It is also completely normal and right to wish a young mother stricken with a terrible disease well, and to hope her illness does not hurt her family, especially her children. The problem isn't that she is getting support after all. It is that the rest of those sick with cancer aren't guaranteed it.

The "you are not alone" business is pretty galling, but I imagine have folks on the internet roll their eyes at her is the least of her concerns right now.

I think the best thing we can all do is ignore the royal family's personal lives. I think that is always good advice.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 4:05 PM on March 22 [18 favorites]

Mod note: One comment removed, for being hateful and insensitive. Please avoid hoping or wishing someone has cancer, thanks.

Otherwise, yes, their are problematic elements with the British Royal Family. But consider that there's a time and place to express that and that a thread on the announcement of one of them having cancer isn't the greatest place to share ones dislike of said family.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:08 PM on March 22 [17 favorites]

Not buying the illusion that wealthy celebrities - or, worse yet, aristocrats and royals - are like us.

They may have the resources to stave them off for awhile but pain, suffering and death come to all. Being top deck on the Titanic doesn't count for much at the end. But who wouldn't spend whatever it took had they had whatever it took?
posted by y2karl at 4:20 PM on March 22 [2 favorites]

Is it permissible to wish that the British tabloids contract cancer from their coverage and painfully wither away?
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:24 PM on March 22 [5 favorites]

My frustrations with this kind of post is that it always gets into this space of treating anyone who isn't talking about the royals the same way you'd talk about a co-worker or community member going through the same thing is an monster without empathy. People are allowed to not feel maximal empathy in every scenario without being hateful garbage.

It's especially galling when the person in question is a figurehead for a legacy of colonial oppression across the globe. Reducing it down to "you have to treat them just like anyone else" is trying to force the conversation into a place that ignores that fact.
posted by Ferreous at 4:25 PM on March 22 [41 favorites]

it's so intensely weird to push people to self-censor on discussing sociohistorical contexts surrounding one of the most privileged families on this planet especially when access to healthcare is a heavily utilized tool in the toolbox of systemic class and racial oppression and the subject of discussion happens to be a descendant of that toolbox's creator
posted by paimapi at 4:41 PM on March 22 [31 favorites]

It's a big place! This problem is not in most of it.

Mefi really isn't a big place these days.
posted by Sebmojo at 4:42 PM on March 22 [14 favorites]

Being top deck on the Titanic doesn't count for much at the end.

First class passengers had the highest survival rate at 62 percent, followed by second class at 41 percent, and third class at 25 percent. Crew was a similar percentage to third class. So it counted for something.

I think there are lots of fair criticisms to be leveled at both the crown and the royal family and I think this is a really good time to talk about the NHS and how money bus you it of it and why that's bad for a nationalized health care system. I don't think how they did or did not choose to tell us that Kate has cancer is really one of them. I mean, you can mock the own goal by their PR department, I guess, but it is a difficult, shitty situation and that is so unimportant.
posted by jacquilynne at 4:47 PM on March 22 [22 favorites]

I'm still boggling over this and I've been busy all afternoon to boot so I haven't had time to read or sort through it all, but it's terrible that the king and princess got cancer at the exact same time. This is going to be a huge mess for that family to deal with, plus kids, and no wonder William's been all over the map, to put it politely, the last few weeks.

Slimming down the monarchy/booting people out of the family now, well, uh....

That said, uh, they probably could have come up with better ways to handle that situation so that we didn't have all of the drama going on that we ended up with. Honesty is the best policy, even if they don't want to disclose the kind of cancer/wait until the kids are yet again out of school. People are going to really wonder over the Photoshopping (since Kate looks ok so far) and the fake Kate doubles now. Or possibly be too distracted by the C-word there, I dunno.

People can die of cancer even if they have royalty-level care, so....I'm leaving it at that.
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:52 PM on March 22 [4 favorites]

Well, I stand red facedly corrected. Thank you for the edufication
posted by y2karl at 4:55 PM on March 22 [1 favorite]

I don't think monarchy is a system that has any place in the world, but I'm obviously sorry to hear this woman has cancer, as I think any normal human being would be.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:57 PM on March 22 [11 favorites]

The firm make a mess of things again. I assumed that photoshop job was a cry for help from an intern, not a PR blunder at the behest of the subject.

People who are feeling sympathetic towards this person who has disclosed their cancer diagnosis should not feel that people who do not express sympathy for that person are attacking them in any way. This is clearly an emotional issue for anyone who has had to deal with the threat of cancer, entirely understandably. It is a very sobering experience to be faced with potentially inevitable mortality. Some people have to deal with supporting people who are going through this on a regular basis, through their work, paid or otherwise.

However, the British Royal family are fairly close to the top of the kyriarchy. The entire organisation is offensive in multiple ways on every level. This particular royal has been a willing and active participant in a racist campaign against another member of her family. It is possible to have sympathy for her family due to her health issues, at the same time as expressing how awful the system that she has benefitted from is for almost everyone else who is effected by it.

Metafilter remains a place where humanity is granted nuance, which is all for the best.
posted by asok at 5:06 PM on March 22 [17 favorites]

As much as I was concerned about it, which was not greatly, I assumed that Kate had undergone a hysterectomy, probably as a result of having fibroids. I still assume that's what happened, and that signs of cancer were discovered after the operation. It's a horrible situation for her children, and I'm sure that the last thing William wants is another royal funeral with the children walking through the streets of London behind a coffin containing their mother's body. With the departure of the Sussexes, the Royal family is shrinking quickly-- who will be left to carry on the official duties if both Charles and Kate do not survive? King William and his stepmother, the Queen, and his aging aunt and uncles. Perhaps this is the time to just let them go.
posted by jokeefe at 5:15 PM on March 22 [5 favorites]

I don't see the value of Monarchy in our current world, but...

Anyone fighting cancer deserves our concern. More people with cancer are not royalty than are.
posted by Windopaene at 5:21 PM on March 22 [2 favorites]

Sarah (Ferguson), Duchess of York, has cancer, too: three months ago, malignant melanoma was discovered while she was undergoing post-mastectomy reconstructive surgery.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:29 PM on March 22 [5 favorites]

AFII I'm sorry about the difficulties you and your family members have had with cancer and treatment and the whole inadequate system. You deserve sympathy and respect every bit as much as Kate and her family, regardless of how anyone does or doesn't vent frustration about those who already have all the attention they need.

Thank you for sticking with your family when they've needed you.
posted by straight at 5:34 PM on March 22 [10 favorites]

Let’s not jump too quickly to foretelling everyone’s medium term demise, here; people do survive cancer, sometimes even cancers with terrible prognoses at the outset — it does happen.
posted by eirias at 5:50 PM on March 22 [5 favorites]

I think this is a really good time to talk about the NHS and how money bus you it of it and why that's bad for a nationalized health care system

I realize there’s an autocorrect thing going on, but given that there was an NHS Money Bus in the Brexit fiasco, it’s an extremely apt thing.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:51 PM on March 22 [5 favorites]

For context, the sovereign grant for 22/23 was £86.3 million, which pays for the core royal family, mostly staff and property maintenance, which was 25% of the profits generated from the Crown Estate (assets held in trust, which is managed independently) - the rest goes to the Treasury. The King gets an additional £20 million (mostly rent) from the Duchy of Lancaster, and about the same for William from the Duchy of Cornwall.

For individuals? An obscene amount of wealth. But also about the size of a district council budget. The NHS budget for the same year was £153 billion. Put another way, the annual income of the royal family, including their main private income, would have paid for about 7 hours of NHS funding.

So turning the Royal Family into commoners, and seizing their entire remaining estate (and we absolutely should, for many, many reasons) would only make a tiny, tiny fraction of a difference to the NHS. I'm furious about the current perilous state of the NHS, and I blame the fucking tories who've utterly trashed absolutely everything to funnel billions of public money into private hands and slashed taxes for the rich; their shadowy financial backers (and the shitty pro-tory press); and the absolute idiocy of Brexit, and the people that voted for both, that has driven 10's of thousands of skilled EU citizen NHS staff out of the country, along with the huge economic damage.

Wishing ill on a woman who had what was no doubt a gruelling surgery (recovering from abdominal surgery absolutely fucking sucks), only to be diagnosed with cancer afterwards, and waited to tell her 3 young children until they were out of school and so away from the media feeding frenzy - because of who she married, or because she didn't go public fast enough? No, I won't.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 6:30 PM on March 22 [20 favorites]

It’s kind of difficult to explain the concept of “royal family” in practice, if they’re not from a country with a monarchy

Fair point, I think that may be the source of some disconnect here. Coming from a place where people are certainly not forced to engage with the royals, but choose to do so for the gossip, it just feels a little unseemly not to just take the engagement down a notch when it turns out that what’s going on is a pretty mundane misfortune. But obviously they aren’t “our” Royal Family.
posted by atoxyl at 6:39 PM on March 22

Framing it as wishing ill is disingenuous, the larger theme is that the only comment a lot of people here are willing to accept is some version of "my thoughts and prayers go out to her and her family" as though there's zero baggage on the topic.
posted by Ferreous at 6:43 PM on March 22 [26 favorites]

I'm not being disingenuous, it absolutely looks to me like some people here are wishing ill on her and her family. Cancer and chemotheraphy are utterly horrible (and yes, I've had close family experience). We could have drawn strength from each other, perhaps shared our personal experiences of this horrible disease, and surviving tragedies - we've certainly done similar at other times. But screeds about the monstrosity of the royal family, lets do lots more of that instead, it's not like we haven't filled two other comment threads about that already.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 7:07 PM on March 22 [9 favorites]

And on reflection, I'll give sharing a go. My dad has had anamolous test results last week, so he's scheduled for more. He's 77, and there's about a 10% chance it's going to be bowel cancer. He's already survived prostate cancer, my wife had major surgery for other reasons that turned out to be pre-cancerous, and I'm just crossing every finger I've got that he turns out to be OK. I'm terrified. Fuck cancer.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 7:21 PM on March 22 [12 favorites]

It's almost as if the beneficiaries and figureheads of a colonial empire don't lose all the context surrounding them because they experience human tragedy.

If people want the online equivalent of signing a get well card perhaps engaging with this on a place with a lot of people who have justifiable anti-Royal sentiment isn't the place to go for that.
posted by Ferreous at 7:38 PM on March 22 [17 favorites]

I assumed that Kate had undergone a hysterectomy, probably as a result of having fibroids.

Same. 2 weeks surgical recovery and 3 months light duty is what's usually recommended for a total hysterectomy. That no-one in the media mentioned this possibility shows how little people know about gynocologic medicine.
posted by fiercekitten at 7:54 PM on March 22 [8 favorites]

I wasn’t paying much attention to the whole Kate Middleton thing save for what little popped up in my heavily curated and infrequently visited socials. But now that this news has come out my reaction is very much along the lines of “Damn. She’s only a year younger than me.”
posted by eekernohan at 8:30 PM on March 22 [1 favorite]

If you think you might ever want privacy, you shouldn’t marry into a family of mass murders who claim to be endowed by God with the right to rule an empire. Monarchs don’t get privacy. That’s how monarchy works. The Windsors are trying to live as if they were private citizens, and if that’s what they want, good for them—if they abdicate the throne. The bargain is that you get wealth and power in exchange for surrendering your selfhood, and that has been the bargain for centuries.

I hope this person recovers, as a person, and I also hope the institution she married into is crushed forever.
posted by Just the one swan, actually at 8:32 PM on March 22 [33 favorites]

good lord people, write a goddamn fpp on anti-royalist sentiment. this ain't that.
posted by j_curiouser at 8:46 PM on March 22 [21 favorites]

Katie Couric’s husband died of colorectal cancer at 42, leaving behind school age kids. Fame and fortune do not help here.
Fuck cancer and I wish Kate a full a speedy recovery.

Coincidentally my dad’s cancer was identified through what was thought to be a non-cancerous abdominal surgery. We had good health coverage but it was a very stressful battle that we lost.
posted by CostcoCultist at 9:22 PM on March 22 [4 favorites]

As a cancer survivor in pretty similar straits to Kate (hysterectomy in January, fortunately my lymph nodes came away clean), it really is jarring to hear some of the anger directed at another cancer patient. Kate has her issues, clearly, since she wanted to marry into the royal family, not to mention her alleged comments about her nephew's skin color, but she's not responsible for the entirety of the long-term malfeasance of the royal institution. Intellectually I know not to take what people say on the blue personally and I get the anger at the institution but wow, harsh, and emotionally unpleasant for me. I get that anti-monarchists are big mad but there are a lot of us here with cancer experiences for whom cancer talk and seeing a cancer victim talking about her diagnosis is (perhaps surprisingly) personal.

Also I had missed that Fergie had cancer. I wish her well too, even though her ex-husband is the best individual argument for getting rid of the lot of the royals and the fact that she continues to hang around him doesn't speak well of her either.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 9:23 PM on March 22 [14 favorites]

My main thought when I heard this earlier was, maybe people will finally learn from this not to nitpick celebrities' appearance and/or Photoshop skills. Like yes, recent images were a telltale sign that something was going on, but I'm guessing (hoping) that a lot of the more ghoulish commenters might now feel some chagrin and human empathy.
posted by limeonaire at 10:31 PM on March 22 [1 favorite]

the fact that she continues to hang around with him
The exes still live together, at the Royal Lodge at Windsor. Last month, after William changed his plan to attend King Constantine's memorial, Andrew (with Sarah) led the British royals into the church. "Despite stepping away from public engagements, Prince Andrew has continued to join the royals for family events such as holiday church outings, funerals and other services. He also attended the coronation of his brother in May 2023."
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:55 AM on March 23

Even the most extreme wealth and privilege don’t mean much if your Mum might be dying.
posted by Phanx at 1:04 AM on March 23 [6 favorites]

But they do help with jumping to the front of the queue for treatment.
posted by biffa at 3:16 AM on March 23 [7 favorites]

Thanks for this post, Rhaomi. It was (could it be, in 2024?) where I heard the news first. My heart goes out to her, to all of us who are battling or have battled cancer, and to all of us who have been the caregivers. Cancer sucks.

I would like to think that we can limit our gawking on this.

That's my first instinct, but honestly... I love this post. It's MetaFilter at its best and worst, all at the same time. William "The only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself" Faulkner would have posted a The Joker Clapping reaction jif. Or would he have posted a Joker Slow Clap GIF? The power of that image is so strong that it destabilized taxonomy. I feel the same way about the subject of this post. Is a woman battling cancer, the second to be stricken in her family in recent months, an object of sympathy, evoking empathy for many of us? Or is she the target for righteous scorn, given the extraordinary wealth and power of the family she married into, people now and historically anathema to much of humanity, the ur-examples of the vampire, nigh-Weberian in the extent to which they prey upon the land to which they are heir, rendering their wounds a righteous punishment from God? I can't tell you what the truth is, or what your truth is, but I think we should pin this post to the top of the front page and leave it there forever. This is MetaFilter.
posted by cupcakeninja at 4:28 AM on March 23 [12 favorites]

"We have met the enemy, and he is us". Pogo.
posted by Czjewel at 4:40 AM on March 23 [6 favorites]

it’s clear that just as with murder mysteries, the cover-up is what led to the reveal.

I disagree. I believe that "The Firm," in full possession of the facts from the get-go, managed this remarkably well from a PR standpoint, despite outward appearances. Kate Middleton was isolated (from the media) and the shitstorm speculation allowed to form. It reached fever pitch. Brazilian butt lifts! Kidnapping! PhotoshopKategate!

And then all of that punctured in an instant with a heartfelt, emotional video about a tragic illness that she has and that many people have, with a note of inspiration & empathy. That the explanation for the timing was the children and their school schedule is a "chef's kiss."

Love the Daily Mail headline: "Anything to say for yourselves? The American celebrities who poked fun at Kate's time away, as she announces shock cancer diagnosis" (link to collection of tweets from Kim Kardashian, Andy Cohen, John Oliver, etc.)

The media's Middleton Pivot (from wild conspiracy mongering to "shame on you for trolling Brave Kate at this tragic time") is breathtaking. Pointing at the heartless colonials (and also John Oliver) is a lovely cynical touch.

I can't wait for the next issue of Private Eye with the inevitable collection of before and after hypocrisy among the opinion-making classes.
posted by chavenet at 4:43 AM on March 23 [9 favorites]

You're giving the Palace PR folks quite a bit of credit there, chavenet. Not sure it's warranted, to say the least.
posted by mediareport at 5:33 AM on March 23 [7 favorites]

Why so rough on the Kardashians, are the royal family and Kris's brood really that much different in their public functions at this point? I guess that's the difference a thousand years of landowning history makes.
posted by kingdead at 6:10 AM on March 23 [2 favorites]

Slimming down the monarchy/booting people out of the family now, well, uh....

The links jenfullmoon posted in the previous thread about Charles' decision to "slim down the monarchy" after Elizabeth died were really helpful in understanding why the palace may have reacted so stupidly to the development that Kate also had cancer. There were already articles questioning Charles' judgment on that from diehard royal watchers, and this will just emphasize how stupid and shortsighted (to them) his decision was. Royals reacting in panic makes a lot more sense to me than some kind of nth-dimensional chess game where they set us all up to feel bad for daring to wonder what the fuck was going on.
posted by mediareport at 6:31 AM on March 23 [5 favorites]

I was mildly entertained by the Royals, am now starting to really hate them.

I am irked by the lack of specifics--"abdominal" surgery and now its "cancer". Say what the hell it is. It only opens up all sorts of speculation that is oppositional to wanting privacy.

These days, most people know someone with cancer or have firsthand experience of cancer diagnosis and treatments. So to just say "cancer" as if it is one thing is disingenuous. If she doesn't want to talk about it, say "I have a serious condition and am getting treatment".

But whatever, she can do what she wants of course.

Her sign-off line made it official that I think they are awful.
posted by rhonzo at 7:38 AM on March 23

Charles has also not disclosed what type of cancer he has. I saw the commentary that it was great he announced he had cancer and that it will encourage people to get screened but, like…a general cancer screening? It’s hard for me to see how that’s helpful for the average person.
posted by girlmightlive at 7:56 AM on March 23 [4 favorites]

We could have drawn strength from each other, perhaps shared our personal experiences of this horrible disease, and surviving tragedies

But that's the thing. Monarchy and aristocracy are precisely about *not* having shared personal experiences. They are radically predicated on the separation between a handful of people around a bit of DNA and the rest of us, the latter being degraded as a result.

Yes, there's the secondary effect of the rest of us projecting psychological functions onto the family. That is one reason we permit them to continue lording over us.

One more note: some call on us to be human or humane as a way of not criticizing the royals and aristos. Keep in mind that part of being human is being mindful of power and its manifold injustices. So is being humane.
posted by doctornemo at 7:57 AM on March 23 [13 favorites]

Not saying whatever cancers that Charles and Kate have is probably because they have fairly bad ones. It's one thing to admit to a relatively easily cured sort, but if they say pancreatic, people know how fast and bad it's gonna go. (Or alternately, not wanting to say it's an embarrassingly located cancer because after years of creating a much classier image, you become "poop cancer princess" forever.) I don't blame them for not wanting to admit under those circumstances, but there's enough people online who can make educated guesses (bladder and colon) that I'm not sure privacy can um, work. In truth, very little can be kept legitimately private for them anyway.

I've always found the royals a better reality show to watch than Kardashians. The original fun of reality TV was that people didn't know how to act on it, and the royals are terrible at it despite eons of experience, somehow. Kardashians are pros and thus dull to me.

As for PR, they lied and got caught at it, as lies often are because some truths cannot be hidden. The body doubles were ridiculous, didn't sell the lie, and once we see Kate for real, well. They absolutely did not "need" to post a Mother's Day pic. Could have had text well wishes. Could have posted an old picture. But no, someone had to Frankenphoto and lie about its origins, despite Kate apparently being facially undamaged (surprise). They didn't even need to Frankenphoto, apparently?! The big ol' alarm bells going off was that Kate was too ill or gone so that they "had" to do all of this. For what?
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:58 AM on March 23 [2 favorites]

The British royals are people and they're political figures and they're symbolic figures. Didn't Freud say we dream of kings and queens when we dream of our parents? It's disorienting to me and hard to know how, if at all, to respond. I guess my immediate feeling is a repeat of that "well, shit," reaction to every piece of news like this ever. It often seems to take a few weeks or a couple of months to go from a "health scare" to something really bad, and then I always feel like I'd known all along, or should have.

My father, an American, got very upset by Princess Diana's death. He cut short a vacation because there was poor TV reception where he was staying and he wanted to absorb every single piece of news and commentary. He was always a Democrat and an egalitarian sort of person, so it took me aback that he seemed to care so much about this royal figure who he had nothing to do with. I think for him, Diana had great symbolic value and besides being royal, she was every young woman he'd ever known, so it had more of an impact than just one person dying?
posted by BibiRose at 9:15 AM on March 23 [6 favorites]

I still can't believe people think they used body doubles. They couldn't hide a photoshop from news agencies and y'all think they could keep the amount of people needed for a body-double scheme quiet?
posted by cooker girl at 9:21 AM on March 23 [11 favorites]

but, like…a general cancer screening?

I'm flashing back to when Reagan had his polyps removed--you couldn't turn on the news for a while without an anchor solemnly lecturing you about colons, with an inset illustration to the side. It really was a thing for a minute there!
posted by mittens at 9:22 AM on March 23 [5 favorites]

If we have to choose between cancer and monarchy, cancer wins every time
posted by some loser at 9:28 AM on March 23 [1 favorite]

If we have to choose between cancer and monarchy, cancer wins every time

the broader category beats the subcategory
posted by Coeliac McCarthy at 9:33 AM on March 23 [6 favorites]

It’s sure I’m not the first to suggest it’s possible to simultaneously have deep empathy for a fellow human being fighting an awful disease and also resent the fact that they have access to immediate, top-notch treatment not available to 99.99% of the general population.
posted by gottabefunky at 9:43 AM on March 23 [12 favorites]

You genuinely think those car and shop shots of Kate were really her? Every time? Especially comparing Perky Shop Kate to the video from yesterday? (The car shots, frankly, aren't easy to see. I've seen the woman a billion times and can't ID her from grainy car or her head turned away.)
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:53 AM on March 23

This information only makes it more baffling to me that they attributed the obvious photo editing to Kate herself once it was pointed out. Why do that? It’s just such a strange choice, out of all the possible responses.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:32 AM on March 23 [8 favorites]

In 1974, Betty Ford announced that she had breast cancer. It was shocking, she was brave. Cancer was scary, people kept it secret, there was shame attached. It's good that members of the royal family are a bit more open these days. Cancer sucks and I hope her treatment is successful. Not least because she has 3 kids.

Otherwise, royalty is a huge scam, with lots of pageantry and a huge bulwark of the class system. Kate won't be going to the NHS, she'll get the absolute best care. Every Briton should get care that good, just as every American should get care as good as members of Congress.
posted by theora55 at 11:37 AM on March 23 [1 favorite]

I wonder if someone should fire up a MeTa thread about how we talk about royals.
This thread shows us to be deeply, at times bitterly divided.
We also had a mod tell us not to criticize the monarchy in this thread, but folks are doing it anyway (like me).

Should we accept that this is one topic MeFiites are just going to split passionately over, or should we get MeTa on it?
posted by doctornemo at 11:49 AM on March 23 [1 favorite]

How about we be adults and not just go running to mommy all the time when we agree to disagree.
posted by Melismata at 11:53 AM on March 23

Do we think of MeTa as a parental figure?? To me it’s more like the bulletin board at the co-op: one part community announcements of general interest, one part year-round Festivus.
posted by eirias at 12:04 PM on March 23 [14 favorites]

If someone wants to start an anti-monarchy, "I hate these people, and the NHS is a dumpster fire and it's not fair Kate gets better medical treatment" post with related links for those arguments, maybe just do that? I'm not English so I don't have the experience of living with those situations or links, but if those in the know want to...?

On a related note, I tried listening to some Scandal Mongers podcasts on YouTube and some guy interviewed said something like, "Of course I'm in favor of the monarchy, what else is there?" Me: Democracy? Socialism? Communism? Anarchy?
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:06 PM on March 23 [1 favorite]

Kate won't be going to the NHS, she'll get the absolute best care.

For the record, in the UK this actually means, for the most part, she'll be getting the same care as the NHS provides, probably just on a slightly accelerated scale.

I'm not sure why so many people seem to think there's this amazing Secret Perfect Healthcare System hiding behind a golden door for all of the richie riches and celebrities, while the rest of us poor bastards are lumped with the NHS. Many -- if not most -- doctors in the UK provide care for private clients as well as on the NHS. Only 2% of UK specialists work exclusively in private care, many of them in elective services. Kate will probably be using the exact same facilities, seeing the same doctors, and getting the same drugs as many people in the NHS at the same level of severity. She will have a lot more privacy, yes, but the gap isn't as big as many in this post seem to think it is.

Honestly, I feel like it plays into the Tories' hands somewhat to get people thinking, "all I need to do to get better care is to pay privately for it". It also plays into their hands to have people assume that the NHS isn't worth supporting or praising, because that way they can sell it off all the more easily. I can attest that the NHS absolutely takes cancer seriously and will go all out for every person in their care. To act like Kate is getting some mythical level of care when we don't even know her diagnosis (and I'm glad we don't) is farcical.
posted by fight or flight at 12:07 PM on March 23 [27 favorites]

It does sound like the main difference is that she doesn't have to wait for diagnosis and treatment and get assigned random appointments in random places announced by letters that sometimes arrive months in advance and sometimes after the appointment time. (A friend recently got her appointment letter and the chastisement for missing her appointment in the same delivery.)

I recently dealt with the same system in Poland and just waiting a month after the initial (private) imagining brought up omg cancer (bzzt, wrong). I can't imagine waiting six months or more depending on postcode lottery
posted by I claim sanctuary at 12:27 PM on March 23 [7 favorites]

I've been dealing with cancer both in my immediate family and had my own surgery--which I don't like to talk about even with friends, much less the world--last year.

Much of this thread, particularly those comments downplaying cancer (you'd take it over the monarchy? really?) makes me sad.
posted by TwoStride at 12:29 PM on March 23 [7 favorites]

To correct the record above in contrast with Kate the Palace has been upfront that Charles had prostate cancer. He went in for treatment for an enlarged prostate and they discovered the cancer. It is very common in men his age and the prognosis is usually excellent.

I think that Kate is probably facing a more complex case given her age and the location. That doesn’t mean it is dire or grim news at this point. Lien a lot of cancer patients she is probably in that early wait for more tests to see if they’ve gotten it and what if anything is next, that period of time is very stressful and it is not unusual for people to avoid telling anyone until they know more. Withholding details from the public is understandable given the inevitable speculation those details would generate. Well meaning people often come to those diagnoses with cancer offering all kinds of treatment advice and predictions. Don’t be that person if someone in your life has cancer or another terminal illness. It isn’t helpful.
posted by interogative mood at 12:42 PM on March 23 [3 favorites]

But that's the thing. Monarchy and aristocracy are precisely about *not* having shared personal experiences. They are radically predicated on the separation between a handful of people around a bit of DNA and the rest of us, the latter being degraded as a result.

This part.

I see a lot of hand-wringing and "respect their privacy" calls from folks who are certainly onboard with drug-testing welfare recipients and aggressively interfering with parenting choices of the poor.

When I had a cancer diagnosis as a mom of young kids in 2015 (in the US) about half of my first two weeks after getting my diagnosis was sitting on 1800 phone calls making sure I could keep my health insurance and maybe still have a job.

Privacy is for the wealthy.
posted by pantarei70 at 12:47 PM on March 23 [10 favorites]

Nope, they explicitly said Charles's cancer is unrelated to his prostate surgery (apart from being detected then - presumably in the blood labs or imagining). And re Kate, she's not waiting, she's in active chemotherapy. Authoritative pronouncements may come out better after getting the facts straight first.
posted by I claim sanctuary at 1:16 PM on March 23 [4 favorites]

I'm not sure why so many people seem to think there's this amazing Secret Perfect Healthcare System hiding behind a golden door for all of the richie riches and celebrities, while the rest of us poor bastards are lumped with the NHS.

But there kind of is, isn't there? If it turns out the world's leading expert in that type of cancer treatment is at an institute in the US, or Germany, either she'd be put on a private plane headed there or the expert would be flown in. That kind of access doesn't happen for other people, even if the majority of her care would just be posher, no-waiting versions of more normal care. There are going to be practitioners coordinating her care, also in a way that most people don't get.

It's not "perfect," but it's a lot better than what I'll ever have access to for sure.
posted by Dip Flash at 1:39 PM on March 23 [6 favorites]

I cannot accept "you are not alone" from the famous cancer haver because I am facing the cancer and I am fucking alone.

It has been 9 months since the first marker- a FIT test. Now it's Colorectal Cancer Awareness month and everyone everywhere seems to be talking about colonoscopy and I can't get one because I'm homeless and have nowhere I can poop continuously for 6 hours nor where I can recover after surgery. I have been through a massive odyssey of attempted logistics, availing nothing.

My mental condition is not such that I can coordinate my care. I contacted my social worker for help but they just sent me a link to the local housing authority. If I needed a colonoscopy 7 years from now that might be helpful... if I had not already been on their waitlist for 10 at this point.

tl;dr I'm going to die because I'm socially isolated because society does not value people, so I'm not interested in one of society's leaders telling me I'm "not alone" whilst they receive Rolls-Royce care.

Fuck them & fuck me too.

sheeeeeeeeit
posted by Rev. Irreverent Revenant at 2:52 PM on March 23 [33 favorites]

I am so sorry, Rev. Irreverent Revenant. This is horrendous.
posted by doctornemo at 4:06 PM on March 23 [3 favorites]

That's awful Rev. If you had the funds for a motel room, could you get the scope then? I can send a little, and maybe other folks here could help out if they have the ability.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 4:30 PM on March 23 [6 favorites]

The Rev has a funding site linked from their profile for anyone who wants to reach out in that way.
posted by Iteki at 4:40 PM on March 23 [4 favorites]

To act like Kate is getting some mythical level of care when we don't even know her diagnosis (and I'm glad we don't) is farcical.

Here's some 'farcical reading for you..
posted by srboisvert at 6:39 PM on March 23 [4 favorites]

The King's cancer hasn't been specified, but it is not prostate cancer. Diagnostic tests performed after a surgery to treat his benign prostate enlargement "identified a form of cancer," and he's receiving treatment on an outpatient basis. The PM told the BBC that the cancer was caught early.

Charles had "gone public about his prostate treatment, with the aim of encouraging more men to get prostate checks;" in the 24 hours after his disclosure, the NHS webpage for benign prostate enlargement saw a 1061% increase in traffic.

There is currently no screening programme for prostate cancer in the UK. The TRANSFORM randomised controlled trial, a £42 million research endeavor to find a screening programme for prostate cancer, began last November.
posted by Iris Gambol at 7:36 PM on March 23

You genuinely think those car and shop shots of Kate were really her? Every time?

Yes. Occam's Razor and also I generally do not cotton to conspiracy theories of any kind.
posted by cooker girl at 8:56 AM on March 24 [9 favorites]

Charles had "gone public about his prostate treatment, with the aim of encouraging more men to get prostate checks;" in the 24 hours after his disclosure, the NHS webpage for benign prostate enlargement saw a 1061% increase in traffic.

I despise royals and aristocrats, but I'm glad that every one in a while they use their undemocratic, unjust, inhumane power to do the occasional bit of good for the rest of the human race.
posted by doctornemo at 2:42 PM on March 24 [2 favorites]

Slate article: The Hideous Circus of the Monarchy: What’s happening with Kate Middleton is awful. But the public is hardly to blame for how we got here.

We’re in the odd but useful position of being able to compare what happened with Kate Middleton’s cancer directly with the cancer of another royal at the same moment, King Charles. There, the palace announced enough information to keep nosy hordes at bay, and they did it promptly. What the palace apparently decided to do here was to allow speculation to reach fever pitch over a period of weeks, release an obviously doctored photo of Middleton, blame her for the editing job, approve a grainy piece of bystander footage of her leaving a farm shop, and patch all of this up by trotting out a woman fighting cancer to sit alone on a bench and tell us, in the kindest words they could write for her, to leave her alone.

But the royals do owe the public, in order to justify their existence. ....The idea that a person like that could just disappear, and people wouldn’t wonder where she was, is ludicrous. The royal family turns its members into figures who exist purely as spectacle, as glossy, likable ciphers for monarchical power. They have taught the public that they exist for us to see. That’s a hard lesson for people to unlearn.

Is this horrible? That any human being owes huge numbers of people who don’t know them private information about their life? That a person can belong to a public institution so completely? Yes. But that is not the fault of the public. If it is unpleasant for us to watch that video of Kate Middleton, that is an unavoidable consequence of the existence of the royal family, and the unique, un-squarable sordidness of their position. Being a member of this institution is intolerable. Princess Diana knew it; Meghan Markle and Prince Harry came to find it so too, as they’ve said ad nauseam. The reason it’s intolerable for the individuals under its umbrella is that being in the royal family is built on a fundamental paradox. You are an individual person with the desire for and the right to a private life, but you are also, quite literally, public property.

If we don’t like looking at the animals in their cages at the zoo, perhaps the zoo shouldn’t have put them there specifically for us to look at in the first place.

posted by jenfullmoon at 9:43 PM on March 24 [7 favorites]

Remember when Nancy Reagan got a mastectomy and everyone went shrieking mad yelling that she should've had a lumpectomy instead because somehow that was the more feminist choice. But really the philosophy behind it was: Whatever Nancy Reagan Does in Any Situation Is the Most Fascist Possible Choice Because Nancy Reagan Is Nancy Reagan. And the poor thing woke up from surgery and said "Did you take my breast?" and learned that they had and then went directly into the maw of the beastpress. That was, whatever, thirty years before Twitter, and nevertheless it looked so stupidly and unfairly and counterproductively hellish that I wrote a little letter to her and said it was her decision what she wanted to do with her very own breasts and her very own tumors that she grew her very own self, that's the whole entire point of feminism, Jesus H. Christ on a crutch.

I believe the royal family is a pointless nonsense, but I will just say what I said before, namely that incursions into the privacy of official public figures should be limited to what they were subjected to when their various public figure roles were initially established, or at least to a pre-television or proto-television era. They cannot be the ultimate possible with whatever equals the current technology. They just cannot be or else nobody could stand it/survive it. We need to wind this Gattaca dystopia back, like way back, for celebrities and for everybody else. I do not want the government/my employers/Mark Zuckerberg gazing at my fucking corpuscles and I don't want to see the corpuscles of celebs and government officials, either.

I was not speculating about what the whereabouts of Kate Middleton. All I wanted to know, and I still do want to know it, is why did somebody make theose weird AI edits to the kids' sweaters. Were they wearing Kiss T-shirts in the original photo?
posted by Don Pepino at 9:18 AM on March 25 [4 favorites]

“How we got here,” Ryan Broderick, Garbage Day, 25 March 2024
posted by ob1quixote at 4:09 PM on March 25 [3 favorites]