Kate Middleton

[mum]

I clearly did not express myself well last post and I apologize. I was not attacking her or her family. 

I am leaving forum. 

 

 

 

[Ausmumof3]

That is so sad 😞 

It makes sense why they weren’t ready to say anything yet. If it’s stomach or bowel cancer, she’s likely been in a lot of pain. I hope they caught it early and her treatment is successful.

I feel kind of bad for starting the thread now but everything just really didn’t seem to add up. Hopefully now they have put out a statement she can be given the space she needs to deal with this.

[Innisfree]

21 minutes ago, mum said:

I am leaving forum. 

Please don’t.

The exchange of views here can get heated, but we’d be dull without different perspectives. I don’t think anyone meant to attack you, any more than you meant to attack Kate. It’s okay if people disagree.

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

This.

Disclosure--to children (young or adult), other family members, employers, etc. is an often discussed topic on the cancer support board I belong  to. The overwhelming consensus from professionals, patients and caregivers is that it's much more likely for children to be harmed by NOT talking about cancer (or any serious diagnosis) than it is for them to be harmed by the knowledge that a parent has it.

Yeah, but in this case, Kate's diagnosis will be the topic of conversation in every classroom / extracurricular those kids participate in.  Best to give them some time to digest the facts at their level in private before loosing it on the community IMO.

The question of when and how to tell a kid about a parent's diagnosis depends on the kid IMO.  When I was going through testing for some concerns I had, my kid (who was later diagnosed with OCD) had, for years, periodically asked me if I was going to die.  And I'm honestly quite healthy for my age.  I didn't tell my kids that I was slipping off to the hospital while they were at school.  I didn't know how I'd tell them if I ended up with a diagnosis (thankfully I didn't).  I know that logically, you can't really keep that kind of secret for long, but it's a delicate matter for sure.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

Outcomes aren't always positive and kids shouldn't be blindsided.

I agree that a sudden death (such as what happened to William's mom) would be devastating.

One would assume that even an aggressive cancer would give some advance indication if it were going to turn fatal.

But I agree, there's no way to keep it from the kids forever.  It is a family matter first though.  The community's "need to know" comes last IMO.

[Katy]

They presumably needed to remove some tissue that appeared benign and then the pathology report was bad. And the chemo is preventative. If she’s being honest about that, they likely got all of the cancer as well as clear and wide margins. Hopefully, like many young people with cancer, this course of treatment will be all she needs & she’ll remain cancer free indefinitely. 

Should we discuss a possible cancer cluster in royal properties? Kate, Sarah, Charles, both Charles’s parents. I wonder how many staff? 

Is there a known cancer cluster in London? 

[Pawz4me]

44 minutes ago, mum said:

I clearly did not express myself well last post and I apologize. I was not attacking her or her family. 

I am leaving forum. 

 

 

 

I hope you won't go.

There seems to have been an unusual amount of snarkiness and silliness on this thread But it's the Hive, and along with the (many) good things about this forum . . sometimes threads like this happen.

Ignoring the silliness and sticking with Kate's health -- I do think it's likely good news that cancer was only found after her surgery. Hopefully it was just a few rogue cells, and this is a situation where chemo is being done "just in case" and once that's behind her she'll have a complete recovery.

[Ausmumof3]

15 minutes ago, Katy said:

They presumably needed to remove some tissue that appeared benign and then the pathology report was bad. And the chemo is preventative. If she’s being honest about that, they likely got all of the cancer as well as clear and wide margins. Hopefully, like many young people with cancer, this course of treatment will be all she needs & she’ll remain cancer free indefinitely. 

Should we discuss a possible cancer cluster in royal properties? Kate, Sarah, Charles, both Charles’s parents. I wonder how many staff? 

Is there a known cancer cluster in London? 

Gah… all the antivax people will be blaming that for sure! 

[Laura Corin]

14 minutes ago, Katy said:

They presumably needed to remove some tissue that appeared benign and then the pathology report was bad. And the chemo is preventative. If she’s being honest about that, they likely got all of the cancer as well as clear and wide margins. Hopefully, like many young people with cancer, this course of treatment will be all she needs & she’ll remain cancer free indefinitely. 

Should we discuss a possible cancer cluster in royal properties? Kate, Sarah, Charles, both Charles’s parents. I wonder how many staff? 

Is there a known cancer cluster in London? 

I think age is a high risk factor for cancer. The Duke of Edinburgh was in his late 80s and the Queen was in her nineties.  Charles is in his seventies. I don't think that's unusual incidence.

[Katy]

56 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Gah… all the antivax people will be blaming that for sure! 

Sigh. I thought all the antivax people denied any of the "elite" got vaccines at all. But you're probably right.

[SHP]

1 hour ago, Laura Corin said:

I think age is a high risk factor for cancer. The Duke of Edinburgh was in his late 80s and the Queen was in her nineties.  Charles is in his seventies. I don't think that's unusual incidence.

This right here. Had a rash of cancer in my family among the older members. None of the oncologists seemed particularly worried about it being unusual 

[freesia]

4 minutes ago, SHP said:

This right here. Had a rash of cancer in my family among the older members. None of the oncologists seemed particularly worried about it being unusual 

Yeah-both my parents, two of my grandparents, my FIL—I would say most older people eventually have some form of cancer. 

[Heartstrings]

2 hours ago, Katy said:

They presumably needed to remove some tissue that appeared benign and then the pathology report was bad. And the chemo is preventative. If she’s being honest about that, they likely got all of the cancer as well as clear and wide margins. Hopefully, like many young people with cancer, this course of treatment will be all she needs & she’ll remain cancer free indefinitely. 

Should we discuss a possible cancer cluster in royal properties? Kate, Sarah, Charles, both Charles’s parents. I wonder how many staff? 

Is there a known cancer cluster in London? 

I was just telling my husband that someone needs to check on things at the palace.  Maybe some of the 500 year old bric a brac has specks of uranium, or mercury or something.   Is there still asbestos in an attic somewhere? Is the maid using cleaners that don’t mix well with the old stuff? They get the best possible medical care and nutrition, so it has to be environmental.   

Edited March 23 by Heartstrings

[kbutton]

59 minutes ago, freesia said:

Yeah-both my parents, two of my grandparents, my FIL—I would say most older people eventually have some form of cancer. 

DH was told in his medical training that if you live long enough, you will likely have some form of cancer. 

[GoVanGogh]

35 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I was just telling my husband that someone needs to check on things at the palace.  Maybe some of the 500 year old bric a brac has specks of uranium, or mercury or something.   Is there still asbestos in an attic somewhere? Is the maid using cleaners that don’t mix well with the old stuff? They get the best possible medical care and nutrition, so it has to be environmental.   

One of the articles I read said that 1 in 2 UK citizens get cancer in their lifetime. Unfortunately we live in a world where everything is toxic, no matter where or how you live. 
 

We didn’t tell our young adult child about my spouse’s cancer right away, as our child was starting their first professional job the same day as my spouse’s oncology appointment. Our child (new college grad) had enough anxiety about their new job and we didn’t want to add to their plate. It was hard enough telling them, I cannot imagine navigating and processing a cancer diagnosis with young children, amid all the conspiracies and speculations. 
 

Many years ago, one of our neighbors passed away from brain cancer. He and his wife didn’t tell their teenagers the magnitude of his cancer and they didn’t know it was terminal until days before he died. 
 

[Catwoman]

I hope Kate makes a full recovery and that the chemo isn't too hard on her. I hope all of the cancer was removed and that the chemo is a preventative measure and not because they weren't able to remove all of the cancer.

I'm glad she got her story out in her own words, and that they didn't try to make her look perfectly healthy in the video (and let's face it, with the right makeup, lighting, and filters, they could have done it, even without altering the actual video.)

I think she looked pretty and natural, but somewhat pale and a little frail -- which is perfectly normal considering her illness and the chemo she's starting. I also think she was smart to make her statement now, rather than when she was farther along in her treatment and might be looking and feeling pretty awful. Hopefully, now she will be able to relax and focus on getting healthy again, without the constant pressure to make appearances and smile for the cameras.

I feel very sad for her and for her entire family. I'm praying everything works out well.

 

[Ausmumof3]

8 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I hope Kate makes a full recovery and that the chemo isn't too hard on her. I hope all of the cancer was removed and that the chemo is a preventative measure and not because they weren't able to remove all of the cancer.

I'm glad she got her story out in her own words, and that they didn't try to make her look perfectly healthy in the video (and let's face it, with the right makeup, lighting, and filters, they could have done it, even without altering the actual video.)

I think she looked pretty and natural, but somewhat pale and a little frail -- which is perfectly normal considering her illness and the chemo she's starting. I also think she was smart to make her statement now, rather than when she was farther along in her treatment and might be looking and feeling pretty awful. Hopefully, now she will be able to relax and focus on getting healthy again, without the constant pressure to make appearances and smile for the cameras.

I feel very sad for her and for her entire family. I'm praying everything works out well.

 

Yes, definitely it was the right decision to share now. I think if they hadn’t shared the previous photoshopped images it wouldn’t have become such a big deal. Prior to that it was only fringe conspiracy theorists that were interested (or super Megan/Harry fans)

[Ausmumof3]

5 hours ago, Katy said:

Sigh. I thought all the antivax people denied any of the "elite" got vaccines at all. But you're probably right.

So I have seen multiple posts on Twitter this afternoon blaming either the vax or multiple Covid infections.

Didn’t take long.

[Lady Florida.]

I think part of the reason for going public now might have been due to the attempted breach. Better to put it out there herself before the next breach attempt is actually successful. I'm not a Will and Kate fan but I think it's terrible that she can't heal in peace and think she and her family deserve privacy. 

Edited March 23 by Lady Florida.

[Katy]

1 hour ago, Lady Florida. said:

I think part of the reason for going public now might have been due to the attempted breach. Better to put it out there herself before the next breach attempt is actually successful. I'm not a Will and Kate fan but I think it's terrible that she can't heal in peace and think she and her family deserve privacy. 

I think the breaches were successful. I bet they did remove some intestine or colon and found cancer in it afterwards. That’s what happened when my (ex) stepdad had the surgery. I guess Chron’s disease greatly increases the chance of colon cancer after 10 years because it causes so much inflammation. 

I’m going off the immediate release that there were 3 breach attempts hours after House In Habit says she got the information from three separate sources. 

[Laura Corin]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

I think the breaches were successful. I bet they did remove some intestine or colon and found cancer in it afterwards. That’s what happened when my (ex) stepdad had the surgery. I guess Chron’s disease greatly increases the chance of colon cancer after 10 years because it causes so much inflammation. 

I’m going off the immediate release that there were 3 breach attempts hours after House In Habit says she got the information from three separate sources. 

I'm not trying to tell you what to do - it's not my place - but I'm wondering what it is that makes it okay to speculate about a person's private medical information, which they did not want to release and which may have been stolen? 

[Katy]

5 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

I'm not trying to tell you what to do - it's not my place - but I'm wondering what it is that makes it okay to speculate about a person's private medical information, which they did not want to release and which may have been stolen? 

She’s a public figure. I don’t think it’s wrong to speculate on publicly available information. I do think it was wrong for the London Clinic to leak to a reporter that their investigation was directly related to a specific blogger and to leak how many employees gave her information. They indirectly confirmed the leak because of their own poor policy. 

I also think that the idea Catherine should protect a mythical fairy tale or that her life is perfect is not only ridiculous, it’s harmful. It has always been a source of mental health issues. It is impossible to maintain in an information age. I do not feel any obligation to sweep information under the rug in an effort to help her maintain a lie about a fairy tale. I think the fairy tale lie is completely unethical for a myriad of reasons.

And I think many more people would be helped by her being open and completely honest. I’ve had patients who were so embarrassed about their symptoms that they refused to seek treatment until their family intervened because they were obviously and actively dying. And frankly it doesn’t matter if her condition is GI or gynecology related - her being honest could save thousands of lives of other mothers with young children.  No, that doesn’t mean she needs to do so today or in the next two years or on my timeline. It’s fine to focus on healing for years and to be honest later. But my general opinion is hiding and lying is far more unethical than telling the truth. 

And frankly someone in upper management at the London Clinic feels the same way or the entire situation would have been handled much differently. 

I have a lot of compassion for Catherine. But in the scheme of injustices going on in the world today, her privacy is so low on my list it doesn’t register as a tragedy in any way. 

[Katy]

It does occur to me that the idea of exposing and confronting the truth as a deep ethic may be an extremely American idea. That refusing to go along to get along or ever just submit to a request is the reason many people detest Meghan. 

There’s a viral video here about the history of the Star Spangled banner in the war of 1812. In it there is a quote that’s misattributed to George Washington. Something like, “An American would rather die on our feet than live on our knees.”  I don’t remember who actually said it. But I do think the ethic is related. 

[Laura Corin]

14 minutes ago, Katy said:

She’s a public figure. I don’t think it’s wrong to speculate on publicly available information. I do think it was wrong for the London Clinic to leak to a reporter that their investigation was directly related to a specific blogger and to leak how many employees gave her information. They indirectly confirmed the leak because of their own poor policy. 

I also think that the idea Catherine should protect a mythical fairy tale or that her life is perfect is not only ridiculous, it’s harmful. It has always been a source of mental health issues. It is impossible to maintain in an information age. I do not feel any obligation to sweep information under the rug in an effort to help her maintain a lie about a fairy tale. I think the fairy tale lie is completely unethical for a myriad of reasons.

And I think many more people would be helped by her being open and completely honest. I’ve had patients who were so embarrassed about their symptoms that they refused to seek treatment until their family intervened because they were obviously and actively dying. And frankly it doesn’t matter if her condition is GI or gynecology related - her being honest could save thousands of lives of other mothers with young children.  No, that doesn’t mean she needs to do so today or in the next two years or on my timeline. It’s fine to focus on healing for years and to be honest later. But my general opinion is hiding and lying is far more unethical than telling the truth. 

And frankly someone in upper management at the London Clinic feels the same way or the entire situation would have been handled much differently. 

I have a lot of compassion for Catherine. But in the scheme of injustices going on in the world today, her privacy is so low on my list it doesn’t register as a tragedy in any way. 

Thank you for explaining your thinking.

[KSera]

17 minutes ago, Katy said:

And I think many more people would be helped by her being open and completely honest.

That’s fine for that to be your opinion, but it’s her right to make a different choice about her privacy no matter what other people think about it. It should be her choice, not anyone else’s. Someone thinking she should make a different choice doesn’t give them the right to spread her private medical information, even if there are a whole bunch of people out there who are really hungry to know her medical information and thus think they are entitled to it.

She’s just a person. I feel like some people think the Royals are some thing other than that, but they’re not. They live weird lives that I don’t follow and I’m exceedingly glad I wasn’t a person born into that kind of situation having to live that kind of life, but at the end of the day, they’re just people, like we are, living their own particular weird life they ended up in. 

[Katy]

Just now, KSera said:

That’s fine for that to be your opinion, but it’s her right to make a different choice about her privacy no matter what other people think about it. It should be her choice, not anyone else’s. Someone thinking she should make a different choice doesn’t give them the right to spread her private medical information, even if there are a whole bunch of people out there who are really hungry to know her medical information and thus think they are entitled to it.

She’s just a person. I feel like some people think the Royals are some thing other than that, but they’re not. They live weird lives that I don’t follow and I’m exceedingly glad I wasn’t a person born into that kind of situation having to live that kind of life, but at the end of the day, they’re just people, like we are, living their own particular weird life they ended up in. 

So are you arguing that discussing leaked information is unethical? 

[Katy]

And does the palace itself directly leaking information change your views on whether it’s ethical to discuss leaked information? 

Camilla’s team reportedly leaked a great deal of information to Piers Morgan in the past week. One of the things that he discussed was Kate having a mental health breakdown. 

[KSera]

3 minutes ago, Katy said:

So are you arguing that discussing leaked information is unethical? 

No. But I do think it’s in poor taste to continue to speculate and suggest all the different terrible things that might be going on with her.  And even more so to continue to do so in a vein of discussion that she’s done something wrong by not telling the public information they want to know and so deserve to be talked about. I just think she’s been treated so badly through all of this. I’m not even a fan of hers; I don’t know her and I don’t follow her. But just having read this discussion and the way it unfolded, even before she shared that it was cancer, it just all seemed kind of awful.

 

[catz]

16 minutes ago, Katy said:

I have a lot of compassion for Catherine. But in the scheme of injustices going on in the world today, her privacy is so low on my list it doesn’t register as a tragedy in any way. 

I agree.  I think what is hard in particular about the royal family is they walk this line between public servant and celebrity.  I would also note, since Charles released a brief factual statement about his diagnsosis and treatment and an overview of how he would be working for the most part it shut down the wide spread gossip, speculation, and chatter.   It would be nice if you could just turn off your notoriety at your convienence, but it's not realistic.  Taking control of the narrative early`is generally the best option here.

And I totally agree that in general, someone with some fame and backing bringing a diagnosis to the public eye often helps other patients, can raise funds toward research, raises awareness and education, etc etc etc.  That said, everyone gets to chose their own way of handling things.  But to expect to be a government figure in the public eye almost daily and disappear without anyone wondering or speculating just isn't realistic.

It goes without saying that health care professionals leaking information is completely unethical and inappropriate and I hope anyone who did that loses their job.  

[Corraleno]

 

25 minutes ago, Katy said:

I also think that the idea Catherine should protect a mythical fairy tale or that her life is perfect is not only ridiculous, it’s harmful. It has always been a source of mental health issues. It is impossible to maintain in an information age. I do not feel any obligation to sweep information under the rug in an effort to help her maintain a lie about a fairy tale. I think the fairy tale lie is completely unethical for a myriad of reasons.

16 minutes ago, Katy said:

It does occur to me that the idea of exposing and confronting the truth as a deep ethic may be an extremely American idea. That refusing to go along to get along or ever just submit to a request is the reason many people detest Meghan. 

In that first post you seem to be suggesting that those who are demanding information and invading her privacy are the ethical, righteous ones here, because they're exposing "lies" and debunking "fairy tales"??? How is not wanting the entire world to know your private medical information "maintaining a lie about a fairy tale"? Are you seriously arguing that it is unethical of her to want the same rights to medical privacy as every other human being? 

 

[Corraleno]

1 minute ago, catz said:

I agree.  I think what is hard in particular about the royal family is they walk this line between public servant and celebrity.  I would also note, since Charles released a brief factual statement about his diagnsosis and treatment and an overview of how he would be working for the most part it shut down the wide spread gossip, speculation, and chatter.   It would be nice if you could just turn off your notoriety at your convienence, but it's not realistic.  Taking control of the narrative early`is generally the best option here.

Charles is 75 years old, not a relatively young mother with three young children, including a 5 year old!

This really comes across as victim blaming — if Kate had just accepted the fact that she has no right to privacy and had prioritized the public's obsession with her over the mental health of her children, then she wouldn't have gotten herself into this mess. 

 

[Katy]

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

 

In that first post you seem to be suggesting that those who are demanding information and invading her privacy are the ethical, righteous ones here, because they're exposing "lies" and debunking "fairy tales"??? How is not wanting the entire world to know your private medical information "maintaining a lie about a fairy tale"? Are you seriously arguing that it is unethical of her to want the same rights to medical privacy as every other human being? 

 

I don’t think it’s wrong to continue to speculate on leaked and confirmed information, which is what I was confronted for in my understanding.  I think there’s a difference between her expectation of her legal rights to medical privacy (which she has), and expectations of the world at large to stop discussing confirmed information. 

I think the only reason she hasn’t been more open is that her husband was raised with the idea that the public needs to believe the fairy tale. Both he and Harry have discussed that at various times. 

And frankly, with “the firm” constantly leaking information of their own, it feels pretty hypocritical to me to suddenly expect something different m. 

[KSera]

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

and had prioritized the public's obsession with her over the mental health of her children

Be prepared for the come back that it was the wrong choice for her to make for her children and she should have done that part differently, and other people’s judgment on what the ideal timeline for handling terrible news like this in her specific situation trumps her own, and therefore they are justified. 

[Heartstrings]

Celebrity is such an interesting thing.  No one can choose to be a celebrity, and in a lot of ways no one can choose NOT to be a celebrity.   Celebrity is really a decision made by the media or the public.  The other Royal families aren’t as interesting to us, for example. I don’t think there’s anything the royal family of Norway could do to get us to chatter about them for weeks, even if they desperately wanted us to.  At the same time, there are often private citizens who fall into the spot light for some reason and can’t get the media to leave them alone.  
 

 I don’t think it’s really fair to say this or that is because Kate “wants” celebrity so she has to pay for having that desire. The media gives her that celebrity whether she wants it or not.  

Edited March 23 by Heartstrings

[Lawyer&Mom]

1 minute ago, Heartstrings said:

For example, I don’t think there’s anything the royal family of Norway could do to get us to chatter about them for weeks, even if they desperately wanted us to.

Well, not for lack of trying!  Let me tell you about The Princess and The Shaman…  

[Heartstrings]

Just now, Lawyer&Mom said:

Well, not for lack of trying!  Let me tell you about The Princess and The Shaman…  

Exactly!  I have no idea what the Princess and the Shaman means at all…..   

[Murphy101]

19 minutes ago, Katy said:

She’s a public figure. I don’t think it’s wrong to speculate on publicly available information.
 

When the publicly available information is from the primary source? Sure. Otherwise it’s just gossip mongering. 

19 minutes ago, Katy said:

I do think it was wrong for the London Clinic to leak to a reporter that their investigation was directly related to a specific blogger and to leak how many employees gave her information. They indirectly confirmed the leak because of their own poor policy.

They did and hope they get their sued into closing for it. 

19 minutes ago, Katy said:

I also think that the idea Catherine should protect a mythical fairy tale or that her life is perfect is not only ridiculous, it’s harmful. It has always been a source of mental health issues. It is impossible to maintain in an information age. I do not feel any obligation to sweep information under the rug in an effort to help her maintain a lie about a fairy tale. I think the fairy tale lie is completely unethical for a myriad of reasons.

Sure. And yet also….

While she may or may not care about protecting a fairy tale image it’s more likely that same as anyone else - she simply has no desire to air her dirty laundry out to public ridicule. And that is her right too. Same as it should be for anyone else. 

19 minutes ago, Katy said:

And I think many more people would be helped by her being open and completely honest.

I think in the big picture it doesn’t make one bit of difference.  Frankly I think that’s BS. She has always advocated for mental health and family health and women’s health. And a huge part of that is women having the right and freedom to decide what is best for themselves and their family.

They didn’t lie. They were not dishonest. They told the entire world more than any one person has a right to know at all.

19 minutes ago, Katy said:

I’ve had patients who were so embarrassed about their symptoms that they refused to seek treatment until their family intervened because they were obviously and actively dying.

I doubt this will change that. Knowing someone else has stepped in crap doesn’t make anyone else happy about stepping in it. 

19 minutes ago, Katy said:

And frankly it doesn’t matter if her condition is GI or gynecology related - her being honest could save thousands of lives of other mothers with young children.
 

What would save thousands of lives of other mothers with young children is having the same access to medical care that the duchess has. Just hearing about some famous person doesn’t save anyone. Raising awareness about a problem is okay but pointless if it doesn’t supply any actual solution. 

19 minutes ago, Katy said:

 But my general opinion is hiding and lying is far more unethical than telling the truth. 
 

You can have your opinion but what it’s based on wrt to KM is beyond me. She wasn’t hiding and lying. She was recovering and healing and probably circling the wagons to continue to do so. There’s absolutely nothing unethical about that. In fact - kudos to her for it and her family for supporting her in it. The closest you can get is that someone made the mistake of using a photoshopped image of her and the kids. A mistake for sure, but it’s not on par with hiding and lying. 

19 minutes ago, Katy said:

And frankly someone in upper management at the London Clinic feels the same way or the entire situation would have been handled much differently. 

Then frankly that management at the London Clinic should be fired and blackballed from working at medical facilities.

19 minutes ago, Katy said:

I have a lot of compassion for Catherine. But in the scheme of injustices going on in the world today, her privacy is so low on my list it doesn’t register as a tragedy in any way. 

No one has said it’s a tragedy she didn’t get privacy. Frankly medical privacy is a joke everywhere.  And that is a problem that needs to be addressed and probably never will be bc there’s more money in breaches than any laughable penalty for privacy failure.

But as women and mothers and wives?

Yeah. I feel for any woman who is going through what she is. And there’s millions. People want open and honest about the weather and how great the kids are doing. When it’s ugly they want to step far and wide of that pile of crap, not walk through it with someone.  I’m blessed to have a few good people who have and would walk through it with me. Likely KM had told those who were walking through it with her and that’s all that matters for her and her family.  This is the reality for most people in crisis. And that’s not protecting a fairy tale. It’s just people doing what they need to each day. 

[Katy]

8 minutes ago, Lawyer&Mom said:

Well, not for lack of trying!  Let me tell you about The Princess and The Shaman…  

I actually had heard about that one… The Shaman is American. 

[SKL]

As to whether it's unethical to discuss / spread leaked info ....

Info is leaked because it earns money for unethical people.  Boosting this in any way isn't ideal IMO.  If I see stuff like that on my timelines, I try to scroll past as fast as I can to avoid allowing any internet algorithm to think I want to see that stuff.  I try very very hard not to accidentally click and give views to anything of that nature, and I never like, share, etc.

So to me, because engaging online has the effect of boosting the narrative and rewarding the leakers, I personally consider it unethical to do that on purpose.

[Heartstrings]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

As to whether it's unethical to discuss / spread leaked info ....

Info is leaked because it earns money for unethical people.  Boosting this in any way isn't ideal IMO.  If I see stuff like that on my timelines, I try to scroll past as fast as I can to avoid allowing any internet algorithm to think I want to see that stuff.  I try very very hard not to accidentally click and give views to anything of that nature, and I never like, share, etc.

So to me, because engaging online has the effect of boosting the narrative and rewarding the leakers, I personally consider it unethical to do that on purpose.

This is such a good point.  

[SKL]

39 minutes ago, catz said:

I would also note, since Charles released a brief factual statement about his diagnsosis and treatment and an overview of how he would be working for the most part it shut down the wide spread gossip, speculation, and chatter. 

I just think Charles is way more boring in general than Kate - especially now that he's married to the person who used to be his mistress.

I don't know or care about the photoshop "scandal."  I think it is ridiculous that so many people care about such things, and I would hope that Kate would also see the sad humor in it.

I think people should ask themselves why they really think they need to know what is going on inside Kate's digestive organs, and why they need to know this faster than they themselves would probably tell their own in-laws.  (Did these same people feel the same way about the US Defense Secretary recently hiding serious medical issues from people who actually needed to know?)

[catz]

4 minutes ago, SKL said:

(Did these same people feel the same way about the US Defense Secretary recently hiding serious medical issues from people who actually needed to know?)

That was actually a pretty prominent item in the news?  In general, in the US, if a polical figure disappears for medical reasons there is typically a statement released.  And often it is WAY more info than needed in my opinon to shut down discussion.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/why-is-us-defense-secretary-lloyd-austin-hospitalized-again-2024-02-12/

I really borderline care about any of this at all.  But it does feel like shaking your fist at the sky to expect people not to wonder about a prominent public figure basically disappearing.  A lot of the chatter is from people who actually care and respect the royal family.  

The need for a modern country to have a government supported royal family in this day and age with "duties" is another matter and the UK could make a change here.,  

[Laura Corin]

25 minutes ago, catz said:

 

I really borderline care about any of this at all.  But it does feel like shaking your fist at the sky to expect people not to wonder about a prominent public figure basically disappearing.  

She issued a statement saying that she was going to have an operation and would be back after Easter.  That's not disappearing  - it's looking after a medical condition.  She's as entitled to time off work as any other Brit. Eta we are entitled to 28 weeks of long term sick pay, for example,  if prescribed by a doctor. 

Edited March 23 by Laura Corin

[Murphy101]

2 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

She issued a statement saying that she was going to have an operation and would be back after Easter.  That's not disappearing  - it's looking after a medical condition.  She's as entitled to time off work as any other Brit.

This. Why do people keep acting like this part didn’t happen?!
 

i’m 100% that if she had had her surgery and recovery done entirely via live streaming there’d still be people saying she was hiding and lying and what all else and that they had a right to that from her bc she’s famous or wealthy or royalty or a woman who should do it to “help” other women. It’s all BS though. 

[KSera]

16 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

i’m 100% that if she had had her surgery and recovery done entirely via live streaming there’d still be people saying she was hiding and lying

100%. People would hyper analyze the video and whether it was really her or a body double, etc. etc.

[Heartstrings]

10 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

This. Why do people keep acting like this part didn’t happen?!
 

i’m 100% that if she had had her surgery and recovery done entirely via live streaming there’d still be people saying she was hiding and lying and what all else and that they had a right to that from her bc she’s famous or wealthy or royalty or a woman who should do it to “help” other women. It’s all BS though. 

They would also complain in the same breath about her being an attention hog, why does she thinks we all care, she thinks she’s so special.  

[bolt.]

Hasn't it always been a Christian perspective that gossip (of all kinds) is unethical?

I think it's one thing to be informed and aware of information that has become public by a variety of means. But to me, continuing the chain (either by adding my own speculations anywhere outside of my own brain, or by amplifying the existing information sources) or rewarding the perpetrators (even indirectly by providing view/click statistics) is clearly outside of the general understanding of ethical behaviour within my faith. It's a clear violation of the golden rule, even without it being a specific sin identified in the Bible.

[Alice]

I feel for her and haven't personally really engaged in posting anything anywhere about her. But whenever this kind of thing comes up I do have the thought that the royals basically get paid to be public figures. That is their job, or at least a large part of it. I'm not British so if I'm wrong, I stand corrected. But I think it is somewhat difficult to ask people to respect the privacy of someone who is basically living a life of extreme privilege with the understanding that her job is to perform public "duties". I think the system is really messed up and I don't have a great answer for it...and I when I say I think it's difficult to ask people to respect the privacy, I don't mean that it's okay for someone medical to leak information. I mean that I've just seen so many ordinary people get shamed for having posted and wondered about this....but in reality that is what keeps the royals relevant- people are interested in their lives. 

I kind of feel the same about other celebrities. There are celebrities that have made very obvious choices to keep their kids away from the public, even though they themselves are very very famous. They seem to really live a professional life and a personal one. So it can be done, even at a high level of fame, but it probably takes sacrifices that some aren't willing to make. Bono comes to mind as one person who seems to have mostly kept his family very private until they were basically of age to choose for themselves. And then there are other celebrities that seem to post about their kids and their marriages  and such but then get upset when people speculate about them or don't honor their privacy when they ask for it. Examples of those to me are more people who are social media celebrities and profit over their marriage/family.

I don't know. There aren't easy answers. But it just feels like to me now that all the people jumping on the "shame bandwagon" for those who have speculated at Kate are kind of doing the same thing to those people that they are upset was done to Kate. It's a bigger issue that one individual woman. 

[SHP]

1 hour ago, Laura Corin said:

She issued a statement saying that she was going to have an operation and would be back after Easter.  That's not disappearing  - it's looking after a medical condition.  She's as entitled to time off work as any other Brit. Eta we are entitled to 28 weeks of long term sick pay, for example,  if prescribed by a doctor. 

I think the speculation from those in US is because we do get anywhere near that amount of sick paid time off. The Family Medical Leave Act only guarantees some, not all, employees 12 weeks of unpaid time off a year. 28 weeks off and you will be working on your resume and trying to find another job or spending time and energy on paperwork if you have short term disability, which is voluntary and not available to everyone. 

[Laura Corin]

7 minutes ago, SHP said:

I think the speculation from those in US is because we do get anywhere near that amount of sick paid time off. The Family Medical Leave Act only guarantees some, not all, employees 12 weeks of unpaid time off a year. 28 weeks off and you will be working on your resume and trying to find another job or spending time and energy on paperwork if you have short term disability, which is voluntary and not available to everyone. 

US salaries are higher, but most Brits would not swap out the sick leave plus minimum 4 weeks of annual holiday/vacation time.