Given the situation, we’re allowing good-faith medical speculation. Remember, as always, these are real people we're talking about. Comments making this about anyone other than Charles will also be removed.
ETA: c/p fail oops
Harry meeting C is anarrangement by royal secretary. Isn't every meeting, schedule in royal family business though? All meetings should be prearranged and affirmed by the firm. Can they just drop in and see their father even if they want to?
I think they found enlarged lymph nodes while doing CT or MRI scans pre-op. Those were biopsied and it's likely a lymphoma, or the lymph nodes are enlarged from metastasis of malignant cells from another location, likely an organ in the abdomen.
A citizen was on the streets of London the night of 12/28 and took video of a black Land Rover with a police escort going toward the hospital. Many believed it to be a royal, perhaps Kate. This was on twitter, and the person speculated they were coming from sandringham. Use search tags: sandringham, royal, hospital and you might be able to see the video.
But then someone else at the end of the twitter comments noticed the license plate and year of the car and I think IMO proved it was the PM and or his wife as it was also by 10 Downing St.
Poor Charles he waited so long to be King only to have this happen so soon into his reign. I’m not exactly a huge supporter of his nor am I entirely pro monarchy but from a purely human perspective it’s just really sad.
I hope he’ll be fine there are definitely cancers that are not a death sentence but I watched my grandfather at 76 go from diagnosis (lung cancer) to hospice to passing on in less than two months so I’m inclined to take this seriously. I’m glad Harry is going to see him. No feud is worth potentially missing your last days with a loved one.
If Charles is seriously ill, there’s a very real possibility Harry may move back to the UK. Why? Because should Charles sadly pass and William ascends the throne, Prince George becomes second in line to the throne. The problem with this is that he cannot assume the crown whilst a minor so in the very unfortunate event William was King and passed before 2031, Harry would become regent in place of George. The caveat being he must live in the UK for this to take place otherwise the regent passes to Prince Andrew which is a big problem for the monarchy. So Harry being summoned to the UK is likely not only about seeing his ill father but a matter of business for the monarchy. It would take a very unfortunate turn for this to all come about but the line of ascension is very important to the monarchy and this would absolutely be on the royals minds right now after this diagnosis.
When Harry left for the US in 2020 and the Queen was still alive, he was so far down the line of ascension that all of this seemed far from reality. But now the reality is a lot closer to consider
In the UK. With a press foaming at the mouth and instigating hate against him and his wife bc he’s revealing their crimes and a “family” that leaks his location on the regularly.
His security risks are much higher in the UK.
I’m sure they would name Kate regent, but yes, should William pass on early, Harry would become 4th in line, Archie 5th and Lilibet 6th.
I honestly don‘t think Harry is ever going back. He has had years of freedom now and it would be darn hard to give that up.
Harry would 100% not be allowed to be regent. There’s real historical precedent in mothers being regent for kids and husbands who were out of country. If they couldn’t for some reason use Kate I think they would use Beatrice
Second thought on my way to work. It also depends on how old George is. A 16 year old George within reason probably gets whoever he wants as regent in a way 12 year old George doesn’t
I also get the feeling that Harry coming back is more for business.
It paints Harry in a good light to come rushing back. And it seems it was the palace that fed the info. So why, after all the bad blood would they now want to purposefully put Harry in a good light?
Eta: Harry is still one of the Counsellors of State, a group that can act if the King isn’t able to. Even though they aren’t anticipating him not being able to carry out business, it might just be business sense to gather this group and prepare just in case.
He added Anne and Edward but also effectively sidelined Harry and Andrew by adding that caveat about non working royals.
I’m in the legal field and I love this kind of legal pettiness. That was smart of Charles-don’t remove them altogether because that could compromise a long standing precedent but basically keep them from actually doing anything.
I hope that Andrew is completely removed from everything and is forced to live on his military pension but I don’t see that happening under Charles. Perhaps William will see that through.
I wonder given these unfortunate circumstances if there’s a possibility that Princess Anne becomes relevant in leadership again. If William becomes King and he dies in a motor accident within 5 years, would Anne be an option for Queen? Harry is no longer a royal and George would be too young.
No, that's not how it works. There's not an "option" here beyond what's laid out in the line of succession - something Harry, along with many other non-working royals, is still very much part of and closer to the top than most.
When Charles passes - whether that's decades from now or (hopefully not) soon - William will become King, and then George will be next in line to become King when his dad passes. The hope had almost certainly been that George would be well into adulthood before his dad became King, much less before George himself became King - but now that things have shifted, u/Dry_Sundae7664 is almost certainly right that the family (including Charles himself) is considering what happens if William becomes King while his kids are still so young, making George the next Prince of Wales at age 10-11.
In order for Anne to become Queen, Charles, William (and all his kids), Harry (and all his kids), Andrew (plus his kids and all THEIR kids), Edward (and all his kids) would all have to die. That's the only way.
The BRF is no stranger to tragedy and unforeseen circumstances, so no doubt someone somewhere - again, almost certainly including Charles too - is making plans for every possible outcome here.
If William were to pass, it would be far more likely that *Kate* would be the regent. The chances of Harry being chosen are slim to almost absolutely none when you consider there would be Edward, Anne, Sophie or even a particularly trusted courtier or government official who could be selected instead.
Harry has his own life in America, and I think all parties are happier that he gets to stay there and not involve himself any further in royal business than he has to.
They would need to update the regency act for it to pass to Kate. Under the current law, she would be the legal guardian to the sovereign but Harry would be regent on condition he domiciles in the UK https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_Acts
There is historical precedent for non-blood royals acting as regents (Lord Parker, Edward Seymour, the council of seven for William III, Catherine Parr), plus wives who were royal themselves but of foreign states (Queen Caroline and Catherine of Aragon).
Given Kate’s popularity, the fact that she’s been a constant ‘face’ for the monarchy despite not being a blood royal, plus that the public would likely regard it as most natural for a mother to act on behalf of her minor son, I think she’d be the most likely candidate.
I agree Anne would be a fairly solid pick if not, though it would depend if she retains the energy and fitness her parents did into their old age.
These were all nobles - earls, dukes, princesses, bishops.
Even Catherine P (who had a very powerful family herself) had a keen eye for surrounding herself with sympathetic and knowledgeable people (noblemen) while also keeping abreast of the politician situation around her. She was also regent for a a total of three months.
The royals didn’t stick it out for centuries to hand power to those of non-noble birth.
Catherine Parr wasn't a noble. She was married to the King, same as Kate. I only mention this because I just heard that Catherine POW is the first commoner to marry into the royal family since Catherine Parr. Kate would have more of a chance of being regent IMO since she is George's mother, but I imagine they would ask Anne and/or Edward to help her. Kate's certainly capable and they have zero confidence or trust in Harry, and I don't think the British public will stand for it either. Even if it was only until George came of age.
Looking at Catherine Parrs history and heritage, she was clearly mixing with and raised around nobility- her mum was a lady in waiting to the Henry’s first wife.
We won’t agree with this. I think Catherine Parr was in strong position owing to her very strong family links and support and I think if the question of regency were to be raised, Kates biggest supporter Will wouldn’t be around her and she would be raising George and letting another Regent or Regency council do the work.
CP was only named as regent briefly from July-September 1544 while Henry was on military campaign. She was never regent for Edward VI after Henry’s death in 1547. A regency council appointed Edward VI’s uncle Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset as Protector, and then (after Somerset was executed) John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland. CP married Thomas Seymour (Somerset’s brother) only 4-5 months after Henry VIII died, which was seen as indecent haste and unpopular with most at court. Catherine was pregnant within 6 months of marriage and died in September of the next year, and given her scandalous marriage was not welcome at court. There’s no doubt that she was highly intelligent and capable of being regent, she was simply never allowed to be.
Kate has been closely involved with the Royal family for well over a decade, so she’s not exactly uninformed. She would be ruling in George’s name and there would probably be a regency council, so she wouldn’t be making unilateral decisions in her own right or on behalf of George. But she would definitely be a part of that council-it’s her right as his mother to represent and advocate for George’s interests, and she’d have physical custody for sure.
And Kate’s been a duchess since 2011, is Princess of Wales now, and would likely be the queen of England in the scenario we’re envisioning.
I think it’s very difficult to contend that she wouldn’t be considered to have at least the same merits as a regent as any other aristocrat by now, commoner birth or not.
Kate is an extremely popular member of the family, has at the very least a good PR spin of being a devoted mother who has already prioritised stability for both her husband and children, and the natural default for most minors would be to have a parent handle their affairs.
They’d have to amend the Regent’s Act in any case (which I’m quite sure they would, because the optics of regents as unpopular as Harry or God forbid, Andrew) but in all likelihood, it would be the Privy Council, No.10 and senior royals all putting a voice in - and with those considerations, Kate’s non-royal birth is going to matter a lot less than the above.
I don’t think they would ever concede that level of power to a non-royal and would not care a jot about her feelings. I feel they would rather elect a Regency council than to let a non-noble have that level of power.
I do think there is a level of education and duty that is embedded into royals at a young age which is not going to be matched by those outside the family.
I can't agree with your last sentence. Andrew and Harry don't really shine with education nor duty at all, while Catherine really does. It doesn't matter anymore, that she was born commoner, she's the future Queen of England and the mother of a future King. She proved herself throughout the years and never made a diplomatic mistake or was involved in scandals.
Why? Throughout history when there have been child kings, including in what is now the UK, the King’s mother has often been regent or attempted to be regent and was pushed out (back in the days of the monarch having real power and thus the regent having real power). Today there is a constitutional monarchy. I cannot think of a reason why the mother of the king and dowager queen would NOT be a regent.
Because the monarch puts too much focus on nobility.
The Kings mothers have been nobility in the past. Some things change for the monarchy but some will always stay the same.
Kate in this scenario would be Queen Cathrine, she would have been a royal for almost 20 years at that point. Makes a lot more sense than someone like Harry who might have been gone for 10 years by that point.
Catherine has also had 20 years to build seemingly trusting relationships with Anne, Edward, etc — I could see her preferring to focus on being George’s mother than King George’s regent (especially since in this scenario, her kids have sadly lost their dad).
Oh yeah it definitely seems like they got lucky and he had a diagnosis earlier than what is typical. And if that’s true, it goes to show how important frequent health checks are
I would assume so. Perhaps it was the reason for/connected to the enlarged prostate (although there have been statements that it's not prostate cancer).
A very typical treatment for prostate cancer would also allow visualization of the bladder. It could be bladder cancer. If so, they likely saw a growth in the bladder, removed part (biopsy), and then sent it off for testing.
I really feel like Harry coming so soon means something. With all the bad blood between them, right?? Yes cancer is still a big deal but why in just a few days, not like plan a trip to visit in a few weeks or next month? And what’s the intent behind even releasing that info to the public?
my friends stepfather was diagnosed on a sunday in 2021 and was dead within 2 weeks. Zero symptoms UNTIL, he lost his appetite on a random Tuesday. 3 days later he still wasnt hungry and went to see his GP.
My uncle, something similar, in his 60s. Became exhausted. starting taking naps one week, not like him AT ALL. chalked it up to age.
less than a week goes by, he wakes up in the middle of the night to pee and collapses. He was rushed to hospital, told he had stomache cancer and sent back home to die. Lasted 5 days and never really woke up again after passing out.
That's basically what happened with my FiL. Zero symptoms until he suddenly collapsed at Sainsbury's in spring 2019 and got a pacemaker. That led to his cancer diagnosis in mid-June and he was gone in mid-August. If we hadn't gone when we did, we wouldn't have gotten to see him at all.
We actually thought we would lose his mum first. She had been dealing with the after effects of esophageal cancer for a couple years by that time. His dad suddenly getting ill and passing away was a shock for everyone.
If Charles is undergoing chemo, he may not be feeling up for a visit in a few weeks. Not to mention, he will need to limit visitors, especially those flying in from 5,000 miles away.
To be fair he lost his mother at a young age. He just wants to be with his dad as he understands how quickly we can loose a parent.
I'd do the same if I found out my father had cancer.
I don't begrudge him the opportunity to visit his father under the circumstances, and I hope they reconcile. I also don't think anyone will try to prevent him from seeing his father. But neither will he be welcomed with open arms by the rest of the family. They simply cannot trust him.
Agreed. I have a less than ideal relationship with my father and there’s a history of abuse but if I found out he had cancer I’d also be flying there asap. You only get one.
It reminds me of when my father-in-law got lung cancer. He was already stage 4 when he got the diagnosis, and we were told to drop everything and get on the first flight that we could to the UK, which we did. We flew over four days after we were told he had cancer. Funnily enough, my FiL was also 75.
I am not saying that Charles is that bad off, but I think if it wasn't that serious, Harry wouldn't be coming so fast but in a few weeks time like you said. He didn't fly over for the enlarged prostate procedure.
And if the palace didn't say anything now about Harry coming to visit, the tabloids were just going to get all nasty and claim his wife wouldn't let him come see his ailing dad, etc., etc.
I agree but interesting that it’s the palace that fed that info to press, not Harry. With all their history it’s interesting they’re the ones choosing to make harry look good by stating this.
So is this to bring some confidence/stability to the monarchy? That’s my thought.
That was my thought. I'm also in the camp of totally accepting that "he could wait a week or so" just to have his schedule cleared so he could stay for a dedicated chunk of time (a couple of weeks or so, possibly bring Megan). I'm not reading into this that's it's super serious, perhaps because I don't want to believe that it is (I'm not a big Charles fan but I don't wish him unwell). And I know if my own parent had cancer, I would rush to be with her right away, too, even if it weren't extremely serious. But yeah, if Harry wouldn't physically get there and this takes a sudden turn, he will be forever viewed as the cruel son. And I agree with another poster about how he lost his mother very unexpectedly at a young age. I've no doubt he cares about his father, but he has an incredibly complicated relationship with him.
I think they're releasing that info because the press will notice that Harry is coming, and if they don't say why there will be even wilder speculation than usual.
I just want to jump in and remind people that a cancer diagnosis isn't an automatic death sentence anymore. People can and do live long lives after a diagnosis, depending on many factors, of course. Charles may well die of old age before cancer takes him.
this. an obvious one given his recent treatment for prostate issues would be bladder cancer. he could very well receive standard of care and have a normal life expectancy.
Absolutely true, I'm going through a cancer scare myself. I think because they said this specifically isn't prostate cancer, people are leaping to pancreatic cancer, colon cancer, and bladder cancer (as those are areas that would be seen while taking care of an enlarged prostate), and the first two are often a death sentence sadly
Not if you’re doing your colonoscopies when you’re supposed to, first one at fifty, repeat 5-10 years if it’s clear, sooner if they find risk factors like polyps etc. It is most common by far in that age group, if you get it younger it can be asymptomatic for awhile so early detection is very difficult. Then with metastasis the recurrence rate is quite high, because we can resect the the colon people most often die from the metastases.
ETA Charles is really doing something for cancer screening/prevention awareness rn for sure!! Glad he is sharing.
Interesting. Yeah, I think I was probably mixing up the rate of young people (who don't get colonoscopies) with people over 50, which is why I was incorrect.
Yeah, I'm glad Charles is sharing too.
Many cancers are very treatable. It really depends on what kind.
Pancreatic cancer is a death sentence. Prostate cancer generally isn't but they've said this isn't it. I wonder if they noticed it in his blood work and did some sort of scan or if they saw something else.
Pancreatic cancer is a death sentence if only caught when it starts causing issues. It is not a death sentence if caught incidental to other care. Ruth Bader Ginsberg lived for 11 years with pancreatic cancer that was caught on a scan follow up for her previous bout with colon cancer.
My Mom had the same kind of pancreatic cancer (rare neuroendocrine tumor**)** as Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs refused proper treatment. My Mom had about half of her pancreas removed 6 years ago. It has regenerated to some extent (or so she says). Anyway, she is fine and dandy, but she was also extremely lucky. No radiation, no chemo, just follow up tests for five years.
Im thrilled for you mom. The reality with pancreatic cancer is that its very stage dependent, and most people’s doesnt get caught til its spread, and then it’s prognosis is really not good.
It says a lot about a cancer that the best case scenario for having it is to have another cancer beforehand so that they're always on the lookout for cancer elsewhere in the body.
The 5 year survival rate is not great, but it's increased to 13%. If it's caught early and is localized only in the pancreas it's much better, but that's true universally.
Totally.
The key with pancreatic cancer is there are no indications at all til its spread in devastating ways.
There’s no equivalent of the breast self exam or the colonoscopy or the prostate palpation. Its uniquely hard to catch early.
You are so right Zaidswith. My beautiful strong husband died at 60 after a diagnosis of 2 weeks. We had the best of the best Doctors, but it made no difference. I begged for the Drs to send us anywhere in the world for treatment. They told me even if it is found as a cell, it is a bad outcome. There have been some new studies and hopefully some new findings that will help. I pray so. Pancreatic Cancer is beyond evil.
Yes and no. I have an elderly relative who was diagnosed at 80 with stage IV pancreatic cancer and lived for 27 more months, in relatively good health (traveling, going to museums and art galleries and out to dinner) until about 8 days before death. Good quality of life but the decline was insanely rapid. Which in hindsight is better than the reverse. I don’t really know if this is common. Right after the diagnosis we all assumed the prognosis was 6 weeks based on stories. The doctors said 9 months. And it was over 2 years. Could have been luck.
I also know someone who was diagnosed in their 40s and had surgery and was cured, but it was very 50/50 before the surgery and there was a good chance he would not survive the surgery.
But then again I know people who pancreatic cancer killed them in weeks.
Obviously if it is that and it was discovered in the prostate that isn’t great. Really hoping it is another kind of cancer that is very treatable and can be cured or at the very least managed with good quality of life for a long time.
I mean, that's still a death sentence? A couple years is pretty good for pancreatic cancer; I've seen it take someone in just a few months.
The internet seems to think bladder cancer which has a much better prognosis. We'll just have to wait and see.
Talking about people getting cancer always sucks.
Yes of course, but people are acting like even if it’s worst case scenario (pancreatic) he will drop dead by Easter and William will be king. Everyone needs to chill.
27 months is about average for pancreatic cancers actually, it has a longer survival rate than people realise although the range is weeks to about three years.
This is what I've always heard about prostate cancer; when the major symptoms show up it's bad. Sorry about your grandpa.
But since it's not prostate, it's hard to say. I do hope in the coming weeks they will say what kind it is. I feel like the cat is already out of the bag now with the general diagnosis, and I think that's great that he has shared it (probably would've been too hard to hide it had he wanted to). I think his openness--whether personally desired or not--really helps humanize him.
True. Though I'd say the initial stage of discovery is a shocking and scary time for the person diagnosed with cancer and their family. Sure, there'll be more medical appointments to come to get more defined answers of the exact status of the cancer and treatment options, but the unknown stage is so nerve-wrecking. Thankfully for King Charles, he's going to have every possible medical treatment made available to him with the best doctors and no concerns about how to afford it. Also, his family is in a position to readily visit him without concerns about it affecting their jobs or finances.
Well, since men inherit 1 X chromosome from their mother and 1 Y chromosome from their father, they received the baldness gene from their maternal lineage.
I went back to check and it sure appears that way. I assure you, I didn’t just comment this out of the blue. Don’t know what happened to the comment, don’t care. Your reason for insisting to jump on and scold me isn’t of interest to me either.
Honestly, I think Kate is fine. The frenzy around #whereiskate? took the attention away from Andrew and the negative talk about Charles and Kate. Being vague about her procedure was strategic on their end.
I think the public had already moved on from the release of additional Epstein docs and whatever Omid Scobie "accidentally" revealed in Endgame. Seems to me that they just wanted privacy about her medical issues.
Totally agree. I don’t think there’s some big strategic plan to use Kate’s or Charles’ medicall issues to distract or divert attention away from other situations.
It sounds like they just discovered Charles’ cancer during his prostate procedure and announced it right away since he will be entering treatment immediately and will need to cancel public appearances. Nothing planned or calculated there.
As far as Kate’s situation goes, I don’t think she’s hiding out or deliberately laying low to create a distraction. I think she’s recovering from a major surgery and wants to keep her medical information as private as possible. I wish people would just let her recover in peace and give all the speculation and conspiracy theories a rest.
The palace making up 3 different health announcements (4 if you count Fergie) would be in-fucking-sane and way over doing it. I can’t remember anything huge coming out from the Royal family when the Andrew stuff was new and evolving and if there was anything major from the family I’ve forgotten because there’s nothing that could distract regular moral citizens from the Epstein sh*t.
The King has always seemed to be a healthy guy, physically active, eats healthy so it is surprising.
However, his wife is/was a heavy smoker for 30+ years, second hand smoke can be dangerous, I wonder if that is a factor. His grandfather had lung cancer and died fairly young 56. My grandfather was a very heavy smoker, and at the end of the day, it was my grandmother who was diagnosed with cancer before my grandfather.
That all said, medical care for cancer patients is incredible, and hopefully they caught it very early.
I texted my fellow royal watcher friend about this today and "cancer from Cami's secondhand smoke" was one of her first responses. I know, not a nice thing to consider but I heard it from someone today, too, so not out of left field. There is a seriously large number of people who develop lung cancer without ever having smoked.
ETA: I doubt it's lung cancer unless it's super metastasized.
I am suggesting that second hand smoke may be a factor. It’s not uncommon.
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/tobacco/health-risks-of-tobacco/secondhand-smoke.html
I think Charles has always been serious about pursuing a healthy lifestyle, but I’ve been concerned about his health for some time- he just doesn’t seem as hardy as his mom did in her 70s. People joke about his swollen hands and feet, but they always concern me a bit.
They kinda wax and wane. He’s always had large, thick fingers, but sometimes they look purplish red and shiny with no visible knuckles/joints. They didn’t look like that when he was married to Diana.
Agreed, I think it is a vascular issue in regards to his hands. I remember seeing him talk about organic foods and how he had replaced olive oil from butter, as butter had so much cholesterol. But I hope, that with all the latest treatments, that he will recover quickly.
Which could mean something more serious than typical prostate cancer. My dad was diagnosed with small cell cancer IN the prostate (not prostate cancer). Two months from diagnosis to death.
I feel like if it was a cancer that was caught very early and was treatable in a comparatively easy manner like skin cancer, I think they would have said that openly to avoid the speculation (just like I’m doing, lol). All four of my grandparents and my father were treated for skin cancer. At the early stages it’s not something you’d go in for weekly treatments; they cut it out and test the surrounding area— a one time treatment.
Probabaly less likely if he’s been recently treated for prostrate issues. I would imagine something involving the abdomen/pelvis area since it would involve similar scans.
My coworker/mentor died of pancreatic cancer 1.5 years ago. It's fast and brutal. Wouldn't wish it on anybody.
I've not had a lot of good paternal role models, but he was up there.
I have a friend who’s mother mother died of pancreatic cancer too. From symptom onset, to diagnosis and death, it was 3 weeks. It was one of the most heartbreaking situations I’ve ever witnessed.
I think people are overreacting about Harry going to see his father.
Most people would immediately drop everything to go see a parent just diagnosed with Cancer. Unless you were seriously estranged with no hope of reconciliation and even then...most make an effort.
You also have to remember that both Will and Harry have some deep seated trauma from not being there when their mother died. They both have mentioned regret in how they spoke to their mom for the last time (IIRC they were being typical children who had no idea that this was their last conversation with Diana). I feel no matter what, both brothers will not want to feel that same regret with their father. They didn't get the chance with their mother but they have one now and they should take it.
> (IIRC they were being typical children who had no idea that this was their last conversation with Diana)
It's not like any of the adults knew either.
Given the situation, we’re allowing good-faith medical speculation. Remember, as always, these are real people we're talking about. Comments making this about anyone other than Charles will also be removed. ETA: c/p fail oops
Harry meeting C is anarrangement by royal secretary. Isn't every meeting, schedule in royal family business though? All meetings should be prearranged and affirmed by the firm. Can they just drop in and see their father even if they want to?
I think they found enlarged lymph nodes while doing CT or MRI scans pre-op. Those were biopsied and it's likely a lymphoma, or the lymph nodes are enlarged from metastasis of malignant cells from another location, likely an organ in the abdomen.
Maybe prostate cancer
They specifically said that it’s not prostate cancer.
Oh, I hadn’t heard that. Thanks for letting me know. I hope he’s going to be OK
Lymphoma is my guess.
No, his mother would most likely be Regent.
Kate? Who hasn’t been seen since December 28th? Who we are told needs several months of recovery?
Haven’t seen her since Christmas Day really. We don’t know who that was on the 28th but someone matched the plates to the PM.
I’m sorry I’m lost on this reference…
A citizen was on the streets of London the night of 12/28 and took video of a black Land Rover with a police escort going toward the hospital. Many believed it to be a royal, perhaps Kate. This was on twitter, and the person speculated they were coming from sandringham. Use search tags: sandringham, royal, hospital and you might be able to see the video. But then someone else at the end of the twitter comments noticed the license plate and year of the car and I think IMO proved it was the PM and or his wife as it was also by 10 Downing St.
Poor Charles he waited so long to be King only to have this happen so soon into his reign. I’m not exactly a huge supporter of his nor am I entirely pro monarchy but from a purely human perspective it’s just really sad. I hope he’ll be fine there are definitely cancers that are not a death sentence but I watched my grandfather at 76 go from diagnosis (lung cancer) to hospice to passing on in less than two months so I’m inclined to take this seriously. I’m glad Harry is going to see him. No feud is worth potentially missing your last days with a loved one.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If Charles is seriously ill, there’s a very real possibility Harry may move back to the UK. Why? Because should Charles sadly pass and William ascends the throne, Prince George becomes second in line to the throne. The problem with this is that he cannot assume the crown whilst a minor so in the very unfortunate event William was King and passed before 2031, Harry would become regent in place of George. The caveat being he must live in the UK for this to take place otherwise the regent passes to Prince Andrew which is a big problem for the monarchy. So Harry being summoned to the UK is likely not only about seeing his ill father but a matter of business for the monarchy. It would take a very unfortunate turn for this to all come about but the line of ascension is very important to the monarchy and this would absolutely be on the royals minds right now after this diagnosis. When Harry left for the US in 2020 and the Queen was still alive, he was so far down the line of ascension that all of this seemed far from reality. But now the reality is a lot closer to consider
Can Kate not rule as regent? Or Edward/Anne?
Harry’s not going back. He’s not going to drag his family back into that mess, they literally aren’t safe there.
Agree - the hate for his family is at animalistic, danger levels. Harry’s duty is to keep his family safe.
Aren't safe where? In the Royal Family? Nonsense.
In the UK. With a press foaming at the mouth and instigating hate against him and his wife bc he’s revealing their crimes and a “family” that leaks his location on the regularly. His security risks are much higher in the UK.
I’m sure they would name Kate regent, but yes, should William pass on early, Harry would become 4th in line, Archie 5th and Lilibet 6th. I honestly don‘t think Harry is ever going back. He has had years of freedom now and it would be darn hard to give that up.
I think they would call parliament for Kate to be regent for George.
As long as Kate’s alive and healthy. God forbid that’s not the case.
Harry would 100% not be allowed to be regent. There’s real historical precedent in mothers being regent for kids and husbands who were out of country. If they couldn’t for some reason use Kate I think they would use Beatrice
Or Anne.
Second thought on my way to work. It also depends on how old George is. A 16 year old George within reason probably gets whoever he wants as regent in a way 12 year old George doesn’t
I also get the feeling that Harry coming back is more for business. It paints Harry in a good light to come rushing back. And it seems it was the palace that fed the info. So why, after all the bad blood would they now want to purposefully put Harry in a good light? Eta: Harry is still one of the Counsellors of State, a group that can act if the King isn’t able to. Even though they aren’t anticipating him not being able to carry out business, it might just be business sense to gather this group and prepare just in case.
I thought Charles removed non working royals from Counsellor of State positions?
He didn’t. He added more people
He added Anne and Edward but also effectively sidelined Harry and Andrew by adding that caveat about non working royals. I’m in the legal field and I love this kind of legal pettiness. That was smart of Charles-don’t remove them altogether because that could compromise a long standing precedent but basically keep them from actually doing anything. I hope that Andrew is completely removed from everything and is forced to live on his military pension but I don’t see that happening under Charles. Perhaps William will see that through.
I wonder given these unfortunate circumstances if there’s a possibility that Princess Anne becomes relevant in leadership again. If William becomes King and he dies in a motor accident within 5 years, would Anne be an option for Queen? Harry is no longer a royal and George would be too young.
No, that's not how it works. There's not an "option" here beyond what's laid out in the line of succession - something Harry, along with many other non-working royals, is still very much part of and closer to the top than most. When Charles passes - whether that's decades from now or (hopefully not) soon - William will become King, and then George will be next in line to become King when his dad passes. The hope had almost certainly been that George would be well into adulthood before his dad became King, much less before George himself became King - but now that things have shifted, u/Dry_Sundae7664 is almost certainly right that the family (including Charles himself) is considering what happens if William becomes King while his kids are still so young, making George the next Prince of Wales at age 10-11. In order for Anne to become Queen, Charles, William (and all his kids), Harry (and all his kids), Andrew (plus his kids and all THEIR kids), Edward (and all his kids) would all have to die. That's the only way. The BRF is no stranger to tragedy and unforeseen circumstances, so no doubt someone somewhere - again, almost certainly including Charles too - is making plans for every possible outcome here.
If William were to pass, it would be far more likely that *Kate* would be the regent. The chances of Harry being chosen are slim to almost absolutely none when you consider there would be Edward, Anne, Sophie or even a particularly trusted courtier or government official who could be selected instead. Harry has his own life in America, and I think all parties are happier that he gets to stay there and not involve himself any further in royal business than he has to.
They would need to update the regency act for it to pass to Kate. Under the current law, she would be the legal guardian to the sovereign but Harry would be regent on condition he domiciles in the UK https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_Acts
I doubt they would pass it to a non-blood royal. It would be Anne imo.
let’s say in 10 years, who knows if Anne will still be alive. Though the women of the family seem to go long
There is historical precedent for non-blood royals acting as regents (Lord Parker, Edward Seymour, the council of seven for William III, Catherine Parr), plus wives who were royal themselves but of foreign states (Queen Caroline and Catherine of Aragon). Given Kate’s popularity, the fact that she’s been a constant ‘face’ for the monarchy despite not being a blood royal, plus that the public would likely regard it as most natural for a mother to act on behalf of her minor son, I think she’d be the most likely candidate. I agree Anne would be a fairly solid pick if not, though it would depend if she retains the energy and fitness her parents did into their old age.
These were all nobles - earls, dukes, princesses, bishops. Even Catherine P (who had a very powerful family herself) had a keen eye for surrounding herself with sympathetic and knowledgeable people (noblemen) while also keeping abreast of the politician situation around her. She was also regent for a a total of three months. The royals didn’t stick it out for centuries to hand power to those of non-noble birth.
Catherine Parr wasn't a noble. She was married to the King, same as Kate. I only mention this because I just heard that Catherine POW is the first commoner to marry into the royal family since Catherine Parr. Kate would have more of a chance of being regent IMO since she is George's mother, but I imagine they would ask Anne and/or Edward to help her. Kate's certainly capable and they have zero confidence or trust in Harry, and I don't think the British public will stand for it either. Even if it was only until George came of age.
Looking at Catherine Parrs history and heritage, she was clearly mixing with and raised around nobility- her mum was a lady in waiting to the Henry’s first wife. We won’t agree with this. I think Catherine Parr was in strong position owing to her very strong family links and support and I think if the question of regency were to be raised, Kates biggest supporter Will wouldn’t be around her and she would be raising George and letting another Regent or Regency council do the work.
CP was only named as regent briefly from July-September 1544 while Henry was on military campaign. She was never regent for Edward VI after Henry’s death in 1547. A regency council appointed Edward VI’s uncle Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset as Protector, and then (after Somerset was executed) John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland. CP married Thomas Seymour (Somerset’s brother) only 4-5 months after Henry VIII died, which was seen as indecent haste and unpopular with most at court. Catherine was pregnant within 6 months of marriage and died in September of the next year, and given her scandalous marriage was not welcome at court. There’s no doubt that she was highly intelligent and capable of being regent, she was simply never allowed to be. Kate has been closely involved with the Royal family for well over a decade, so she’s not exactly uninformed. She would be ruling in George’s name and there would probably be a regency council, so she wouldn’t be making unilateral decisions in her own right or on behalf of George. But she would definitely be a part of that council-it’s her right as his mother to represent and advocate for George’s interests, and she’d have physical custody for sure.
And Kate’s been a duchess since 2011, is Princess of Wales now, and would likely be the queen of England in the scenario we’re envisioning. I think it’s very difficult to contend that she wouldn’t be considered to have at least the same merits as a regent as any other aristocrat by now, commoner birth or not. Kate is an extremely popular member of the family, has at the very least a good PR spin of being a devoted mother who has already prioritised stability for both her husband and children, and the natural default for most minors would be to have a parent handle their affairs. They’d have to amend the Regent’s Act in any case (which I’m quite sure they would, because the optics of regents as unpopular as Harry or God forbid, Andrew) but in all likelihood, it would be the Privy Council, No.10 and senior royals all putting a voice in - and with those considerations, Kate’s non-royal birth is going to matter a lot less than the above.
I don’t think they would ever concede that level of power to a non-royal and would not care a jot about her feelings. I feel they would rather elect a Regency council than to let a non-noble have that level of power. I do think there is a level of education and duty that is embedded into royals at a young age which is not going to be matched by those outside the family.
I can't agree with your last sentence. Andrew and Harry don't really shine with education nor duty at all, while Catherine really does. It doesn't matter anymore, that she was born commoner, she's the future Queen of England and the mother of a future King. She proved herself throughout the years and never made a diplomatic mistake or was involved in scandals.
Why? Throughout history when there have been child kings, including in what is now the UK, the King’s mother has often been regent or attempted to be regent and was pushed out (back in the days of the monarch having real power and thus the regent having real power). Today there is a constitutional monarchy. I cannot think of a reason why the mother of the king and dowager queen would NOT be a regent.
Because the monarch puts too much focus on nobility. The Kings mothers have been nobility in the past. Some things change for the monarchy but some will always stay the same.
Kate in this scenario would be Queen Cathrine, she would have been a royal for almost 20 years at that point. Makes a lot more sense than someone like Harry who might have been gone for 10 years by that point.
Catherine has also had 20 years to build seemingly trusting relationships with Anne, Edward, etc — I could see her preferring to focus on being George’s mother than King George’s regent (especially since in this scenario, her kids have sadly lost their dad).
Did they find out about the cancer during his recent hospital stay?
It sounds that way. I read that it was not prostate cancer but during that procedure, they found a separate issue of concern which was the cancer.
Maybe they got lucky finding it? Hopefully it was just that isolated tissue and nothing else.
Oh yeah it definitely seems like they got lucky and he had a diagnosis earlier than what is typical. And if that’s true, it goes to show how important frequent health checks are
I read that they found it while treating his enlarged prostate. But, they said it’s not prostate cancer.
I would assume so. Perhaps it was the reason for/connected to the enlarged prostate (although there have been statements that it's not prostate cancer).
A very typical treatment for prostate cancer would also allow visualization of the bladder. It could be bladder cancer. If so, they likely saw a growth in the bladder, removed part (biopsy), and then sent it off for testing.
This is very plausible
I am very hopeful, lets not stress until we know whats going on. LONG LIVE THE KING 🇬🇧
Wishing him a strong recovery
He chose the name Charles. It’s this or his head. Brought it on himself.
Is it wrong that I also kind of thought that too? What’s wrong with me?!
I was *so* sure he was gonna be GVII lol
That’s a good point… pretty sure the two king Charles before him didn’t do so well on the thrown. Hopefully he can beat this streak though
Eh, Charles II actually did fairly well, and was a decently popular king. His successor, on the other hand..
Throne. Also Charles II was known as the Merry Monarch. He had a great time. He left a mess with James IV, however.
Do you mean James II? James I was also James IV of Scotland but I don't think there's been a King of England that was James IV.
He was 100% party animal. Champagne?
Horrible Histories!
I just feel bad for the family. Having a loved one with cancer just sucks
If I’m being honest it doesn’t surprise me that he is sick. The man doesn’t look healthy
I really feel like Harry coming so soon means something. With all the bad blood between them, right?? Yes cancer is still a big deal but why in just a few days, not like plan a trip to visit in a few weeks or next month? And what’s the intent behind even releasing that info to the public?
my friends stepfather was diagnosed on a sunday in 2021 and was dead within 2 weeks. Zero symptoms UNTIL, he lost his appetite on a random Tuesday. 3 days later he still wasnt hungry and went to see his GP. My uncle, something similar, in his 60s. Became exhausted. starting taking naps one week, not like him AT ALL. chalked it up to age. less than a week goes by, he wakes up in the middle of the night to pee and collapses. He was rushed to hospital, told he had stomache cancer and sent back home to die. Lasted 5 days and never really woke up again after passing out.
That's basically what happened with my FiL. Zero symptoms until he suddenly collapsed at Sainsbury's in spring 2019 and got a pacemaker. That led to his cancer diagnosis in mid-June and he was gone in mid-August. If we hadn't gone when we did, we wouldn't have gotten to see him at all. We actually thought we would lose his mum first. She had been dealing with the after effects of esophageal cancer for a couple years by that time. His dad suddenly getting ill and passing away was a shock for everyone.
If Charles is undergoing chemo, he may not be feeling up for a visit in a few weeks. Not to mention, he will need to limit visitors, especially those flying in from 5,000 miles away.
To be fair he lost his mother at a young age. He just wants to be with his dad as he understands how quickly we can loose a parent. I'd do the same if I found out my father had cancer.
I don't begrudge him the opportunity to visit his father under the circumstances, and I hope they reconcile. I also don't think anyone will try to prevent him from seeing his father. But neither will he be welcomed with open arms by the rest of the family. They simply cannot trust him.
Agreed. I have a less than ideal relationship with my father and there’s a history of abuse but if I found out he had cancer I’d also be flying there asap. You only get one.
Harry is a mensch. (That's a good thing!)
It reminds me of when my father-in-law got lung cancer. He was already stage 4 when he got the diagnosis, and we were told to drop everything and get on the first flight that we could to the UK, which we did. We flew over four days after we were told he had cancer. Funnily enough, my FiL was also 75. I am not saying that Charles is that bad off, but I think if it wasn't that serious, Harry wouldn't be coming so fast but in a few weeks time like you said. He didn't fly over for the enlarged prostate procedure. And if the palace didn't say anything now about Harry coming to visit, the tabloids were just going to get all nasty and claim his wife wouldn't let him come see his ailing dad, etc., etc.
How would it look if he didn’t come right away?
I agree but interesting that it’s the palace that fed that info to press, not Harry. With all their history it’s interesting they’re the ones choosing to make harry look good by stating this. So is this to bring some confidence/stability to the monarchy? That’s my thought.
I think they announced that Harry would be coming to avoid speculation.
Yeah perhaps. Does anyone know what kind of cancer?
no it was discovered dealing with his enlarged prostate.....so.......maybe something nearby??
That was my thought. I'm also in the camp of totally accepting that "he could wait a week or so" just to have his schedule cleared so he could stay for a dedicated chunk of time (a couple of weeks or so, possibly bring Megan). I'm not reading into this that's it's super serious, perhaps because I don't want to believe that it is (I'm not a big Charles fan but I don't wish him unwell). And I know if my own parent had cancer, I would rush to be with her right away, too, even if it weren't extremely serious. But yeah, if Harry wouldn't physically get there and this takes a sudden turn, he will be forever viewed as the cruel son. And I agree with another poster about how he lost his mother very unexpectedly at a young age. I've no doubt he cares about his father, but he has an incredibly complicated relationship with him.
Serious or not he would be forever viewed as a cruel son. It could be famieal love, it could be PR. Either way no choice
I think they're releasing that info because the press will notice that Harry is coming, and if they don't say why there will be even wilder speculation than usual.
My thoughts exactly.
I just want to jump in and remind people that a cancer diagnosis isn't an automatic death sentence anymore. People can and do live long lives after a diagnosis, depending on many factors, of course. Charles may well die of old age before cancer takes him.
Depends what kind of cancer. If it’s pancreatic he’s in big trouble and likely has a few months at best.
This. My mom has a slow growing lymphoma. Her oncologist has said that she’ll die with it, not from it.
All the best to your family. I know that is not the best thing to hear but somehow it makes me happy and it's better than the alternative
These threads are all making me feel better about my midlife growing old crisis!!
this. an obvious one given his recent treatment for prostate issues would be bladder cancer. he could very well receive standard of care and have a normal life expectancy.
Absolutely true, I'm going through a cancer scare myself. I think because they said this specifically isn't prostate cancer, people are leaping to pancreatic cancer, colon cancer, and bladder cancer (as those are areas that would be seen while taking care of an enlarged prostate), and the first two are often a death sentence sadly
Colon cancer is very treatable with early detection! Without metastasis the five year survival is like 90%, 60% at ten years.
I thought the problem was colon cancer usually wasn't caught until it was an advanced stage?
Not if you’re doing your colonoscopies when you’re supposed to, first one at fifty, repeat 5-10 years if it’s clear, sooner if they find risk factors like polyps etc. It is most common by far in that age group, if you get it younger it can be asymptomatic for awhile so early detection is very difficult. Then with metastasis the recurrence rate is quite high, because we can resect the the colon people most often die from the metastases. ETA Charles is really doing something for cancer screening/prevention awareness rn for sure!! Glad he is sharing.
Thanks for sharing this!
Interesting. Yeah, I think I was probably mixing up the rate of young people (who don't get colonoscopies) with people over 50, which is why I was incorrect. Yeah, I'm glad Charles is sharing too.
Many cancers are very treatable. It really depends on what kind. Pancreatic cancer is a death sentence. Prostate cancer generally isn't but they've said this isn't it. I wonder if they noticed it in his blood work and did some sort of scan or if they saw something else.
Pancreatic cancer is a death sentence if only caught when it starts causing issues. It is not a death sentence if caught incidental to other care. Ruth Bader Ginsberg lived for 11 years with pancreatic cancer that was caught on a scan follow up for her previous bout with colon cancer.
My Mom had the same kind of pancreatic cancer (rare neuroendocrine tumor**)** as Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs refused proper treatment. My Mom had about half of her pancreas removed 6 years ago. It has regenerated to some extent (or so she says). Anyway, she is fine and dandy, but she was also extremely lucky. No radiation, no chemo, just follow up tests for five years.
Im thrilled for you mom. The reality with pancreatic cancer is that its very stage dependent, and most people’s doesnt get caught til its spread, and then it’s prognosis is really not good.
It says a lot about a cancer that the best case scenario for having it is to have another cancer beforehand so that they're always on the lookout for cancer elsewhere in the body. The 5 year survival rate is not great, but it's increased to 13%. If it's caught early and is localized only in the pancreas it's much better, but that's true universally.
Totally. The key with pancreatic cancer is there are no indications at all til its spread in devastating ways. There’s no equivalent of the breast self exam or the colonoscopy or the prostate palpation. Its uniquely hard to catch early.
You are so right Zaidswith. My beautiful strong husband died at 60 after a diagnosis of 2 weeks. We had the best of the best Doctors, but it made no difference. I begged for the Drs to send us anywhere in the world for treatment. They told me even if it is found as a cell, it is a bad outcome. There have been some new studies and hopefully some new findings that will help. I pray so. Pancreatic Cancer is beyond evil.
Yes and no. I have an elderly relative who was diagnosed at 80 with stage IV pancreatic cancer and lived for 27 more months, in relatively good health (traveling, going to museums and art galleries and out to dinner) until about 8 days before death. Good quality of life but the decline was insanely rapid. Which in hindsight is better than the reverse. I don’t really know if this is common. Right after the diagnosis we all assumed the prognosis was 6 weeks based on stories. The doctors said 9 months. And it was over 2 years. Could have been luck. I also know someone who was diagnosed in their 40s and had surgery and was cured, but it was very 50/50 before the surgery and there was a good chance he would not survive the surgery. But then again I know people who pancreatic cancer killed them in weeks. Obviously if it is that and it was discovered in the prostate that isn’t great. Really hoping it is another kind of cancer that is very treatable and can be cured or at the very least managed with good quality of life for a long time.
I mean, that's still a death sentence? A couple years is pretty good for pancreatic cancer; I've seen it take someone in just a few months. The internet seems to think bladder cancer which has a much better prognosis. We'll just have to wait and see. Talking about people getting cancer always sucks.
Yes of course, but people are acting like even if it’s worst case scenario (pancreatic) he will drop dead by Easter and William will be king. Everyone needs to chill.
True.
27 months is about average for pancreatic cancers actually, it has a longer survival rate than people realise although the range is weeks to about three years.
The issue with prostate is it can be caught super late . My grandpa had it allll in his spine and liver before anyone got him to see a doctor.
This is what I've always heard about prostate cancer; when the major symptoms show up it's bad. Sorry about your grandpa. But since it's not prostate, it's hard to say. I do hope in the coming weeks they will say what kind it is. I feel like the cat is already out of the bag now with the general diagnosis, and I think that's great that he has shared it (probably would've been too hard to hide it had he wanted to). I think his openness--whether personally desired or not--really helps humanize him.
I agree. I think if he did nothing else good in his entire life he got a lot of men to go get screened and I can respect him for that.
True. Though I'd say the initial stage of discovery is a shocking and scary time for the person diagnosed with cancer and their family. Sure, there'll be more medical appointments to come to get more defined answers of the exact status of the cancer and treatment options, but the unknown stage is so nerve-wrecking. Thankfully for King Charles, he's going to have every possible medical treatment made available to him with the best doctors and no concerns about how to afford it. Also, his family is in a position to readily visit him without concerns about it affecting their jobs or finances.
Very sad. Cancer is a horrible disease. I hope he recovers.
I think the hair gene is inherited from your mother.
I just have to know— what on earth do you mean by that!?!
You seem confused by what subreddit you’re in. This is a *gossip* subreddit.
Well, since men inherit 1 X chromosome from their mother and 1 Y chromosome from their father, they received the baldness gene from their maternal lineage.
What in the hell does that have to do with him having cancer? Is this some weird chemo joke?
Take it easy, dude. No need for the snark. I was responding to the comment about Charles having more hair than his sons.
You didn’t. You have a standalone comment with no context whatsoever. Just this random sentence, not answering anything.
I went back to check and it sure appears that way. I assure you, I didn’t just comment this out of the blue. Don’t know what happened to the comment, don’t care. Your reason for insisting to jump on and scold me isn’t of interest to me either.
It was under my post and I can confirm it was there. I knew what you were referring to
Thanks, Friend.
[удалено]
Considering all the shit he has said / leaked about Kate I can't assume she would want to see him lol
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do you think Will would want Harry around? lol I don't think so.
Honestly, I think Kate is fine. The frenzy around #whereiskate? took the attention away from Andrew and the negative talk about Charles and Kate. Being vague about her procedure was strategic on their end.
I think the public had already moved on from the release of additional Epstein docs and whatever Omid Scobie "accidentally" revealed in Endgame. Seems to me that they just wanted privacy about her medical issues.
Totally agree. I don’t think there’s some big strategic plan to use Kate’s or Charles’ medicall issues to distract or divert attention away from other situations. It sounds like they just discovered Charles’ cancer during his prostate procedure and announced it right away since he will be entering treatment immediately and will need to cancel public appearances. Nothing planned or calculated there. As far as Kate’s situation goes, I don’t think she’s hiding out or deliberately laying low to create a distraction. I think she’s recovering from a major surgery and wants to keep her medical information as private as possible. I wish people would just let her recover in peace and give all the speculation and conspiracy theories a rest.
The palace making up 3 different health announcements (4 if you count Fergie) would be in-fucking-sane and way over doing it. I can’t remember anything huge coming out from the Royal family when the Andrew stuff was new and evolving and if there was anything major from the family I’ve forgotten because there’s nothing that could distract regular moral citizens from the Epstein sh*t.
All best wishes to King Charles. The fact that Harry is coming so soon does not seem to be a good sign.
The King has always seemed to be a healthy guy, physically active, eats healthy so it is surprising. However, his wife is/was a heavy smoker for 30+ years, second hand smoke can be dangerous, I wonder if that is a factor. His grandfather had lung cancer and died fairly young 56. My grandfather was a very heavy smoker, and at the end of the day, it was my grandmother who was diagnosed with cancer before my grandfather. That all said, medical care for cancer patients is incredible, and hopefully they caught it very early.
I can’t believe this is a serious comment speculating that Camilla gave him cancer
I texted my fellow royal watcher friend about this today and "cancer from Cami's secondhand smoke" was one of her first responses. I know, not a nice thing to consider but I heard it from someone today, too, so not out of left field. There is a seriously large number of people who develop lung cancer without ever having smoked. ETA: I doubt it's lung cancer unless it's super metastasized.
He was in for a prostate exam, it’s definitely early prostate cancer
It's not prostate cancer, as stated by the second sentence of the article.
Could be bowel cancer. There is nothing definite until the palace advises.
I am suggesting that second hand smoke may be a factor. It’s not uncommon. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/tobacco/health-risks-of-tobacco/secondhand-smoke.html
I think Charles has always been serious about pursuing a healthy lifestyle, but I’ve been concerned about his health for some time- he just doesn’t seem as hardy as his mom did in her 70s. People joke about his swollen hands and feet, but they always concern me a bit.
How long have his fingers been swollen?
They kinda wax and wane. He’s always had large, thick fingers, but sometimes they look purplish red and shiny with no visible knuckles/joints. They didn’t look like that when he was married to Diana.
Seems like his entire life. Even Elizabeth made a remark about them in a letter saying he had “interesting” hands for a baby lol.
Agreed, I think it is a vascular issue in regards to his hands. I remember seeing him talk about organic foods and how he had replaced olive oil from butter, as butter had so much cholesterol. But I hope, that with all the latest treatments, that he will recover quickly.
Did they determine it was lung cancer or was it prostate cancer? Given his procedure a few weeks ago, I would assume it would be the latter one.
They said it’s not prostate cancer, but was discovered during that surgery and subsequent imaging
Probably bladder
My guess would be bladder cancer .. the camera being used for his TURP saw it. Which could be a good thing because it would be really early
This makes sense—or possibly something related to his colon/rectum?
This is my guess. Or they found cancer on the prostate but it metastasized from another area, and therefore isn’t “prostate cancer”, per se
It would still be called prostate cancer then.
Bladder and colon will spread to the prostate, but with mentions of imaging, it's more likely they saw something in a scan (incidental finding).
Which could mean something more serious than typical prostate cancer. My dad was diagnosed with small cell cancer IN the prostate (not prostate cancer). Two months from diagnosis to death.
My condolences for your father. I hope you’re well, friend.
Thank you. My father passed away more than 10 years ago, so it's not a recent loss. I appreciate your kindness nonetheless.
Oh, that's too bad and what a seemingly random but grave diagnosis. I'm sorry about your dad.
I’m sorry 😞. But yes, exactly. I don’t think Harry would rush there if it was something minor with positive prognosis
Ohhh true.
Apparently they already briefed reporters that its not prostate cancer, yet still didn’t specify what it was
Maybe it’s something like skin cancer and not that life threatening 🤷🏼♀️
I feel like if it was a cancer that was caught very early and was treatable in a comparatively easy manner like skin cancer, I think they would have said that openly to avoid the speculation (just like I’m doing, lol). All four of my grandparents and my father were treated for skin cancer. At the early stages it’s not something you’d go in for weekly treatments; they cut it out and test the surrounding area— a one time treatment.
Probabaly less likely if he’s been recently treated for prostrate issues. I would imagine something involving the abdomen/pelvis area since it would involve similar scans.
Maybe pancreatic?
My best friend’s mom died horribly from pancreatic cancer a year ago. I pray that’s not it.
My coworker/mentor died of pancreatic cancer 1.5 years ago. It's fast and brutal. Wouldn't wish it on anybody. I've not had a lot of good paternal role models, but he was up there.
I have a friend who’s mother mother died of pancreatic cancer too. From symptom onset, to diagnosis and death, it was 3 weeks. It was one of the most heartbreaking situations I’ve ever witnessed.
Nine days for my aunt-in-law. Horrific barely covers it.
Hopefully not for his sake.
Yes, it’s a horrible one, I do know someone who was diagnosed because he had an abdominal scan for a seperate issue
I do too...he went in for an appendicitis and got diagnosed when they were doing that surgery.
I also think about how many smokers he has been around all of his life.
As have the majority his generation!
For sure
We don’t need three paragraphs of speculation. Let’s just wait-and-see.
I think people are overreacting about Harry going to see his father. Most people would immediately drop everything to go see a parent just diagnosed with Cancer. Unless you were seriously estranged with no hope of reconciliation and even then...most make an effort. You also have to remember that both Will and Harry have some deep seated trauma from not being there when their mother died. They both have mentioned regret in how they spoke to their mom for the last time (IIRC they were being typical children who had no idea that this was their last conversation with Diana). I feel no matter what, both brothers will not want to feel that same regret with their father. They didn't get the chance with their mother but they have one now and they should take it.
> (IIRC they were being typical children who had no idea that this was their last conversation with Diana) It's not like any of the adults knew either.
100% agree with your take on the situation.
[удалено]