Princess Kate Has Surgery: Part 2

Let’s discuss if she wears wigs.

JK, let’s not.

I’m sure sh’ll be fine.

Whatever it is, she hasn't had it too terribly long because if she had been suffering from this issue while she was still close with Harry, he'd have told his Missus. And his Missus would have sold the deets to Lainey Gossip and Scabies, in an effort to hurt and embarrass Kate.

So, not serious enough to share with her (once close BIL) nor was it serious enough for her husband to share with his brother, when they were close. Back in the day.

And she sends her love R2

[quote] A Source Gives Health Update About Kate Middleton, Says Royal Kids "Haven't Seen Their Mother Yet"

Kate Middleton is currently on day four of her lengthy hospital stay following a "planned abdominal surgery" on January 16. A source told Entertainment Tonight on January 18 the Princess of Wales is "doing well" amid her recovery, adding that she has yet to see her three children, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis. Per the insider, "They've been in school and haven't seen their mother yet."

Kate was visited by her husband Prince William yesterday, who has canceled royal engagements to support his wife and be with their kids during this time.

The Princess is expected to stay in the hospital for 10 to 14 days total, and will then continue the rest of her recovery at home before continuing public duties after Easter. Kensington Palace hasn't released details of her procedure, but royal reporter Roya Nikkhah, noted that "it is understood the Princess’s condition is non-cancerous."

In their official statement, the palace emphasized that at Kate wants to keep her medical information private, saying "The Princess of Wales appreciates the interest this statement will generate. She hopes that the public will understand her desire to maintain as much normality for her children as possible; and her wish that her personal medical information remains private. Kensington Palace will, therefore, only provide updates on Her Royal Highness’ progress when there is significant new information to share. The Princess of Wales wishes to apologise to all those concerned for the fact that she has to postpone her upcoming engagements. She looks forward to reinstating as many as possible, as soon as possible."

Maybe Harry wasn't ever given the details. Maybe all he was ever aware of is that Kate had "stomach problems." Or "Kate has an upset stomach." I doubt it ever came up beyond that with Meghan too.

Crohn's involves terrible diarrhea and pain, does it not? How could she have the muscle tone she does and engage in physical activity, with those symptoms or the side effects from treatment of those side effects? I mean, her body isn't just thin, she's shapley with muscle. Trim, or whatever. Not bulky. You can tell she puts in effort.

Tightwad Charles better fatten up his "slimmed down monarchy." He's gonna have to draft Eugenie and Beatrice, and possibly Zara TIndal and her smashed up hubby. One thing is sure, Old Kent and Gloucester won't be able to manage without help.

Just so we don't have to go through it again:

From The Telegraph: "Kensington Palace has confirmed that the Princess of Wales’ planned abdominal surgery was not dealing with a “cancerous” issue."

I don’t understand why we have to hear about the decrepit King’s prostate, but are simultaneously told the young Princess’s “personal medical information “ is to be kept private. Inconsistent. Tsk.

It must have involved an abortion. That’s why they’re being so secretive due to the political climate.

Surprise, surprise, R10: He's him and she's her.

He's willing to do one thing and she another. Happens all the time, even in the best of families.

What's wrong with the Princess's wish for privacy regarding "personal medical information" anyway?

Or perhaps she hopes to avoid decades of well-intentioned inquiries into the state of her bowels as she meets the rabble.

Thots and prayers.

r10, the information released for the King is done through Buckingham Palace and for the Princess is done through Kensington Palace.

KP does not have to do everything the same way that Buck House does. When he was Prince of Wales, Charles often spoke at variance with how his mother would have wanted him to do things.

If only there were some way we could PEG DOWN what's wrong with poor Kate.

I’m not asking how it happened. I just find it ironic that they release the information no one wants to hear, and keep a lid on the information people want to know.

R3, William and Kate haven't been close to Harry for about six years now.

“people want to know”

If there was ever a better reason for people to have to divulge their private medical information I sure have not heard of one,

R17

If you want to be a beloved public figure living largely at public expense, you have obligations to the public that a private citizen does not.

What if she died, and William married Camilla? Or Meghan?

I’d like that.

R20, surely even you can agree there are limits to that.

There's no good reason for anyone having to divulge private medical information. Or any personal information they don't choose to share. What makes her health your business?

For that matter, what makes anyone's private information your business? It's not your business and you'll run afoul of the HIPPA laws if you try to make someone's medical information private against their wishes.

For that matter, "people want to know" lots of things. I want to know tonight's Megabucks numbers. Why not call the lottery and tell them you need the winning numbers NOW because "people want to know."

In any case, I’m not addressing her right to withhold information. I’m addressing the public’s desire for information which exists whether she (or you) like it or not

Can I have her things?

No, seriously, can I?

I’m pretty sure HIPPA does not apply outside of the United States.

Can I have her things?

No, seriously, can I?

Again, since you seem to be a bit slow—my point was “Isn’t it ironic that they give us the information we don’t want (Charles’ enlarged prostrate) and withhold the information we do want (what is requiring a two-week hospital stay and a multi-month recovery). I’m not really looking to argue about her rights.

[quote]r23 There's no good reason for anyone having to divulge private medical information. Or any personal information they don't choose to share.

Jamie Lee Curtis has never come out publicly about having a penis, though it might have helped a lot of people if s/he had.

George, Charlotte, and Louis?

It's okay for you to start calling me Mummy now.

You'll even gain a new brother and sister!

…you'll run afoul of the HIPPA laws if you try to make someone's medical information private against their wishes.”

What fresh nonsense is this?

HIPPA does not prevent voluntary disclosure nor does it prevent involuntary disclosure by those not covered by HIPPA. It’s not the super-duper federal statute you think it is

I'd definitely like to know what's wrong with R20.

R25 does “her things” include William?

Hypertension, hypothyroid, depression, arthritis, kidney stones

Kate isn't living largely at public expense, r20, and everyone has the right to medical privacy. The public understand that.

And since you are unquestionably a bit slow your pointless is pointless. Charles disclosed details for the purpose of prompting awareness around the condition. The disclosure for Kate was to disclose her hospitalization, explain her absence from public life, and ask for privacy. There is no irony here, by the conventional definition, though there's a fair amount of obtuse.

You do realize, r35, that there have been 634 previous comments in less than 24 hours which have not generally taken the "Whatever is wrong is none of our business" stance?

Yeah and 90% of them should really embarrass the poster.

If surgery condemns Our Kate to a fate of one piece swimwear, I swear I’ll die!

"Rights" trump "Desires" every time in a situation like this.

The public "desires" a lot of things. You wouldn't want your medical data to be offered to the public. She enjoys the same right.

R26: Essentially the same rules ("my personal medical information is none of your damn business and if you share it w/o my permission you can be fined or jailed") but called the Data Protection Act in the UK instead of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act as in the US

R29: How would it have helped her? You seem to think everyone on earth except the person most impacted has the right to know your private information. Not medical, but private: please respond with your Social Security or National Insurance number. You can type it right here: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Loads of people have a desire to know it so why not share?

R31 Non-covered entities have obligations for privacy as well. Voluntary disclosure doesn't apply here: it hasn't been offered and that's why people are complaining, asking for information she chooses not to disclose.

Bottom line, whatever is wrong, you'll know when she or her spokespeople tell you or when someone violates the Data Act or the hospital's rules and illegally offers her medical information to someone not entitled to access it without her permission.

This is clearly the result of a voodoo curse placed on poor Catherine by that Gullah Geechee woman!

oh, do shut up you putz. we are here to gossip

Not really, r28. Charles is the head of state so there's a transparency issue and even political issue about the health of the head of state. His condition is also easier to treat. Kate has had what is obviously major surgery to be followed by a very long recuperation period which is obviously very stressful for her. The less information made public - beyond the fact that it's not something as life-threatening as cancer - then the less gossip and chatter and speculation about her body parts, which would stress her out even more. Perhaps she's nervous about the whole thing and wants to keep the exact condition private until she feels fully recovered, after which she can discuss it if she wishes.

R36, Charles is head of state, Catherine is not, nor does she have an official state role. Do you see the difference?

I understand that she may have very good reasons for not wanting the public to know. Do you understand that the public does want to know?

R44, that's the point I was making. Are you calm, dear?

[quote]Do you understand that the public does want to know?

That's plainly fallen in the who gives a fuck file.

Oh, go direct a choir practice.

[quote]Crohn's involves terrible diarrhea and pain, does it not? How could she have the muscle tone she does and engage in physical activity, with those symptoms or the side effects from treatment of those side effects?

There's no one way to have IBD. It goes in and out of remission and some (but not all) patients can lead extremely active lives. As ElderLez mentioned in the previous thread, biologics were game-changers. If the stars align, you can keep your illness more private now because there are so many more treatment options than steroids.

Does the public want to know, r45? I suspect most of the general public in the UK agrees that it's her private health issue. Sure, people will speculate, but I don't sense any annoyance or anger that she's chosen to keep the exact medical reason private when she's had what's obviously major surgery and will have a very long recuperation period. People are sympathetic and wish her well. Maybe at some point, when she's better and the nasty part is behind her, she will choose to discuss it herself. But, for now, while she's in hospital and recovering, most of the British public understand her desire to keep things private.

I suppose the public wants to know what's happened to her on the basis they want her to be ok. DL seems to want to know so they crow about her colostomy bag, blame her for having an eating disorder, or accuse her of wigcraft.

It’s HIPAA you asshole “experts” on heath care, not HIPPA

I’m calling it as gallbladder/bile duct surgery.

It's a cyst. Right where here oil glands are. She never knew how to eat right and she never learned how to wash.

R40 you are wrong. I learn, by whatever means, that you have cancer. I am free to tell the world, to publish it anywhere, without liability. The only limitation is my good conscience.

R31

[quote]r40 You wouldn't want your medical data to be offered to the public.

Why would I care?

[quote]Does the public want to know, [R45]?

YES.

Let's try this again. Leaving aside the rights of privacy generally (in the UK and under HIPAA) and of a Royal in particular, leaving aside Charles' role as head of state vs. Catherine's lesser role, do you in your heart of hearts, 1) want to hear about Charles's enlarged prostate and 2) want to know what's really wrong with the Princess? Be honest now.

HIPAA HIPPA hurrah!

In other words, are you the kind of person who stops at an accident and stares at the gore? That's what's really being asked here.

r56, that may well be the stupidest single comment made on Datalounge in a full decade.

Congratulations.

It's rare for a thin person to have their gall bladder removed although it does happen. Many years ago my slender aunt need the operation and afterward the doctor told her how nice it was not to cut through layers of fat like usual. My aunt was like, "uh, you're welcome?"

What brought you to this thread r59?

I came out of an interest in the topic, I stayed out of horror at the stupid. Somebody's got to call your wiggy bullshit.

"An interest in the topic" makes you a hypocrite.

I can’t stand it when the Brits say “in hospital”.

An interest in the topic means I try to contribute substantively. No wigs, no cancer, no thread starts, just enough coffee.

[quote]r60 that may well be the stupidest single comment made on Datalounge in a full decade. Congratulations.

No, really - why would I care that the world knows what’s going on with my body?

Do you have some disease you feel is shameful?

What brings you, R62, other than your control issues and weird Charlotte fixation?

Hmmm r67, perhaps a martini or eight might help. This is DL, when have you ever seen a thread that wasn’t chaotic? Hell, that’s why I come here. I have way too much zen in my life, I need a little nuttiness. It’s fun, try it.

Leave Her Royal Highness out of your fucking mouth!

Dammit, I meant r66 at my post at r69. See what happens when you get a jump on Friday night martinis?

Well, leave her name out of your fucking mouth.

R72, Kate. Kate. Kate.

Thx, R71, but I'm pretty discerning about the type of people I take advice from. Good luck with your alcohol problem, though.

In nursing school in 1970s we were taught that doctors were taught in medical school to use “FFF” as the guideline for gallbladder disease. “Fat, female, forty (years old & older).” In the 4 years I worked on a medical floor, all my gallbladder patients were male diabetics and about 50-70 years old.

R74 try it. Might help you take the stick out of your ass.

I'm not talking about Kate. See R68

Princess Colostomy Bag

She'll need shoes to match the bag.

Yeah, r75. I was puzzled when I read the 3F part. Over the decades, I've known a number relatives, acquaintances, co-workers, etc with gall bladder problems. Only one is a woman and she managed her condition through diet.

She's fine! She sends her love!

Except to a certain CA roach.

I hope someone is mixing up that pitcher of martinis!

Thanks R49! Most people with Crohn’s have the standard relapsing-remitting variety; so as long as isn’t always on full blast where you never digest anything AND you are willing to work and eat through the pain it’s certainly possible to be normal looking, if a bit thin. (Lots of people choose not to eat through the pain)

And you can become a downright porker on the biologics.

If it’s that (which I don’t know and is none of my business) I’d guess she wasn’t diagnosed or wasn’t diagnosed until there was already significant damage.

I wonder if she has irritable bowel syndrome.

Probably.

Maybe she's getting a "Mommy Makeover. " Tummy tuck, big tits, etc..

Perhaps the husband just knocked the bottom out of her girl hole? And hence the need for surgery.

Well if I'm not mistaken the King said he was being public because he said too many men ignore these problems and they shouldn't. He's into preventive care. Plus it was taking him hours to piss.

R76, put the stick in your mouth.

R20 That doesn’t include confidential medical information.

When the twiggy slag is brown bread can I have her hat? Goes with my brooch.

Pitcher ElderLez? Barrel!

I doubt she has Crohn’s or UC. It’s usually genetic and had the Queen knew about it, she wouldn’t have allowed William to marry her and pass on those diseases down the royal family bloodline.

^ Queen Victoria😂

I have advised The Palace that while Her Royal Highness is convalescing I have placed myself at their disposal to substitute for the Princess of Wales at her official engagements. In addition I have personally advised His Royal Highness Prince William that I will gladly perform any conjugal functions the Duchess of Cambridge is unable to fulfill.

Rofl R89!!!!!!

R94 Are you ok?

R91 Laughable. Are you aware of royals marrying each other for years?

[quote] For that matter, what makes anyone's private information your business? It's not your business and you'll run afoul of the HIPPA laws if you try to make someone's medical information private against their wishes.

Yes, it's HIPAA. And it's a law from the US. I don't think it applies to the UK.

Harry and Meghan have, for once, refrained from making a bad situation worse with a transparently self-serving statement or photo shoot.

Meghan must be going BATSHIT. I’m a little sympathetic towards Harry. He got to be thinking of their kids and the situation may be putting the pettiness of some of his gripes into perspective.

R97 Data Protection Act in the UK.

Karma

No wonder it took William three days to visit Kate in the hospital ...

R96 Ironical that Royalass insist on having their Circus but refuse to laugh at their clowns. Cultists are humorless.

[quote]I’m a little sympathetic towards Harry. He got to be thinking of their kids and the situation may be putting the pettiness of some of his gripes into perspective.

Hope springs eternal, R98! 🤞🏻

R82 Discussing ones bowels is ..

UC is not necessarily genetic. I have it and no one else in my family has had it going back two generations.

Still can’t attempt to spell “Cholmondeley”, R101?

My guess it's an intestinal obstruction. They can come on suddenly and be life threatening.

I've know two people who have had this. One, a former boss, was seriously ill, had surgery to fix the blockage, and was in the hospital for weeks. Same with the sibling of another co-worker.

Ass Cancer? Like Farrah?

I live in the US of A, am liberal, am not a fan at all of the royal at all, or her in general. I did grow up in the era where Princess Diana was a huge thing, so I'll concede that.

I just hope she's okay and gets well - it does kind of seems serious, despite their spinning of "planned surgery" language. That's a long time in the hospital to recover, then recover at home for many more weeks. She's always seemed kind. I don't know much about the whole "black skinned baby" rumor other than what i've read here.

if that's a real thing that suck, but she has never seemed that way in my very limited readings about her. Again, US person here and uninterested in the royal family over all.

Except the underaged-diddler "Prince."

I thought the same thing, r101.

It’s the Hanbury woman.

so many typos at r109 that make me sound Southern.

I live in NorCalifornia and grew up in SoCal. Not that that's a pass.

Sorry for sounding stupid at r109. I meant the opening line to be a quip on backwoods "US of A" 'ers in that post. failed miserably.

R91, do you know how closely related ERII and Prince Philip were? There were third cousins as both were descendants of Victoria and Albert, and were both also descendants of Christian IX of Denmark. They may as well have been first cousins!

Will Kate become the Face of Ass Cancer? She could help many, and it could alleve the useless idleness of her life.

We're past the time when royals only marry royals, r112.

[quote] We're past the time when royals only marry royals, R112

Case in point.

William married commoner Chav airline employee trash.

The future King of England will have a grandmother who was a flight attendant. ROFL!

R114, ERII's mother wasn't royalty. Queen Mary was a descendant of Victoria but only just qualified as royal, and a lot of people considered that pushing it.

[quote]I’m calling it as gallbladder/bile duct surgery.

Then it would have to have gone seriously wrong. For keyhole surgery on a gallbladder they don't even keep you in overnight any more. If they have to do the full cut for some reason you might be in for a week, tops.

That's an ugly thing to say about anybody, R115. You must have no love in your life. But, we get what we deserve.

Ah, fuck, sorry R115. R118 was for R113. But I had you on block, so maybe you're an asshole too. If not, I apologize unreservedly for equating you with ass cancer.

Also R113, alleve is not a verb. I know basic literacy is a challenge for you people, but we can't support you forever, so some instruction is required.

R107 Highly doubt it’s intestinal obstruction. What could possibly be obstructing it? The bitch doesn’t eat.

We're all so used to everything being simple and quick and home the next day, we forget things can go wrong during procedures, imaging doesn't capture everything. Everybody's looking at it linear, that the time in hospital indicates the nature of the illness. The illness or condition may be the least of it. Surely there's room for a case of "once we got in there" or "it didn't go as expected"?

R121 Maybe on a charity visit in December, she had to take a bite of cookie to humour her hosts, and there was no place to discreetly spit it out. Her digestive system was thrown into utter revolt, and here were are!

FWIW, Sophie Wessex went into labour about a month before her due date with her daughter, had to have an emergency C-section and lost so much blood she nearly died. In hospital for sixteen days. The unexpected happens, even in 2024.

here WE are, dammit!

R123, do you labor under the delusion you're actually comedic or are you good with mocking somebody who's really sick? Because I'm happy to audit your behaviour over COVID as well as the obvious mental health issues that let it roar so uncontrollably for the last three or so years. Let me know, you obnoxious piece of shit.

If it was a pregnancy complication, why wouldn’t they just say she “had a miscarriage and needs time to recover” and just leave it at that. Why the whole “planned abdominal surgery” explanation?

R127 Because she also said she wants to keep her medical condition private.

Putting aside uninformed speculation and dealing with what we know, on the surface she is young, fit and was looking well and normal at Christmas, in less than a month they announced she's in hospital - having already been operated on - that she's in hospital for as long as two weeks, out of commission until Easter, she's apologizing for her cancelling of engagements and that William was cancelling most of his engagements as a result to be with her and their children.

If any of this was expected or contemplated as possible, their schedules would have been much different, especially in the New Year when things are typically quieter for all of them.

It looks like something highly unexpected happened that completely disrupted the plan.

Yes, R129, either in relation to her condition or during the surgery.

I doubt it was a pregnancy complication, because I highly doubt that William is still fucking her. My guess is some kind of hysterectomy/fibroids/cancer thing.

R117 if they did cut a bile duct by accident during a cholecystectomy (gall bladder removal) it’ll be more than two weeks. Bile leaking into the abdominal cavity is not pleasant.

When he was Foreign Secretary of the UK, Anthony Eden’s bile duct was cut by accident and required four subsequent hospitalizations, re-operation twice in the United States and ongoing cholangitis was a source of ongoing poor health for the rest of his life. The effects of his use of pain meds is said to have contributed to the Suez fiasco when he was PM in 1956 and his resignation in 1957.

Unpleasant as whatever’s ailing the Princess, it won’t bring down a government.

R131, on what basis do you have these doubts?

R133 Surely no straight men wanna fuck a bag of bones unless it’s a fetish.

Looks like no recent news. She’s still in the hospital so this is def not a routine surgery. I feel bad for her kids, I’m sure it’s incredibly frightening for them. My dad had a heart attack when my siblings were around the same age, and it was horrifying for us. Back then, hospital stays were about two weeks. And they didn’t allow kids, so we had to wave to our dad from the parking lot.

My Mom was hospitalized for the duration of her pregnancy with my younger brother and in their wisdom my parents decided it would frighten me to see her in the hospital so I didn’t, and when she came back she brought the little bundle of joy. I was 2. Fucked me up for life. Didn’t do wonders for our relationship as siblings either.

[quote] I feel bad for her kids, I’m sure it’s incredibly frightening for them.

Don't worry.

Mummy Rose is there for them.

R127, if it is a pregnancy thing, she may well still be pregnant and very high risk plus her severe morning sickness. I've said it before and I'll say it again. She's pregnant, something happened, she had to have an operation, and now they're keeping her in the hospital and under cover until the first trimester is over.

Could be, R138. Perhaps they had to do an emergency surgery on the fetus. Those types of things can be incredibly risky for baby and mother, depending on what's involved.

I now think the pregnancy theory makes the most sense. Why else would she be lying low till Easter…that’s the first trimester

Perhaps she’s transitioning.

When the American tabloid magazines say you're too skinny, then you're too skinny.

Because they usually fawn over thin women.

But they don't fawn over sickly sticks.

The Google says they don't do fetal surgery before sixteen weeks. Everybody's showing by then, certainly someone as thin as her.

Why does anyone really care about either is the question.

Definitely pregnant again, gotta hold on to that unsatisfied husband however she can. Given her history of morning sickness, it makes sense.

She may be pregnant again, and needed to have an unrelated abdominal surgery...bowel, gallbladder, kidney? So they're keeping her so long to monitor the fetus while she recovers.

Maybe not impossible that she had some sort of surgery AND she’s pregnant. But seems pretty unlikely. They are going to avoid getting caught in a lie. So if there is any chance of a baby eventually showing up, they need to be able to reconcile that with the claim of “abdominal surgery.”

That also makes cancer very unlikely, although they could try to obfuscate when it was diagnosed.

A bowel condition fits. It fits with the surgery claim. It fits with the length of the hospital stay. It fits with the length of the recovery period. It fits with her thinness. It fits with the possibility of hair loss suggested by her use of extensions and wigs. It fits with the failure to disclose the details.

I was typing as you posted, R146. Not contradicting you. That’s not inconceivable.

Sad last days.

IMO, a miscarriage would be a big deal, as a royal. It would be something to hide.

My questions would be: why get pregnant, again? It's obvious that Louis is a lot to handle. You've already got 3 kids.

[quote]IMO, a miscarriage would be a big deal, as a royal. It would be something to hide.

Why?

Exactly, R151.

Why, R150?

[quote] IMO, a miscarriage would be a big deal, as a royal. It would be something to hide.

[quote] Why?

Because the Men in Gray Suits lie about everything.

They always want to portray the BRF in a good light.

So they lie about William's affairs, they lie about Louis having mental problems, they lie about Kate having an eating disorder, and they lie about why she's really in the hospital.

They LIE, LIE, LIE.

The Buckingham Palace press people are PAID to LIE.

R147, for the third time:

"Kensington Palace has confirmed that the Princess of Wales’ planned abdominal surgery was not dealing with a “cancerous” issue. "

You said in your own post they are going to "avoid getting caught in a lie." So "Kensington Palace has confirmed that the Princess of Wales’ planned abdominal surgery was not dealing with a “cancerous” issue" would seem pretty easy to get caught in.

For the same reason that a frail nearly 100 year old woman with mobility issues and chronic pain refused to be seen in a wheelchair. Because they're assholes who don't want to appear "weak."

You'd know an asshole, Fouler.

Why lie about a miscarriage? My opinion:

The BRF want to project an image of strength in the bloodline. (But for a fluke of birth, who your parents are, you could be an Average Joe on the streets.) So, the bloodline must be seen as special, strong, not average.

A miscarried baby would be seen as some type of defect in the "special bloodline."

I'm not saying this is how I, personally, feel. I'm trying to explain what I think may be the PR thought process.

Royals always mention if they had a miscarriage - Sophie did, Zara did.

Why would a miscarriage require hospitalisation for two weeks followed by 3 months of recuperation?

R155, the Queen barely appeared at the jubilee and only made a couple of balcony appearances. Everyone knew she was ill, she wasn't hiding anything. Why on earth would she need to appear on the balcony in a wheelchair? She was able to stand, so good for her.

It wouldn't, R158--more bullshit speculation.

They don't lie about miscarriages, as you have proven.

R157 Approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage- it’s hardly rare.

R159 It's not just the Jubiliee, she was using a wheelchair for most of her final years, but refused to be seen in one under any circumstances. Never mind that it may have made other elderly wheelchair bound people, or the disabled feel a bit better about themselves and done a service to help encourage more stubborn elderly people to accept mobility help.

She did, finally, start using her walking stick. That walking stick was kind of cool-looking, actually.

[quote]Why would a miscarriage require hospitalisation for two weeks followed by 3 months of recuperation?

It may have been a situation where she was bleeding heavily and they needed to do a hysterectomy to terminate the pregnancy. Seems unlikely, but they're clearly withholding a lot of information.

Can we all please learn that it's spelled HIPAA and that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act is an American law, not a British one? If you're talking about medical privacy laws, just say so.

There’s hiding a miscarriage and then there is simply not volunteering it.

Under normal circumstances there is no reason to volunteer a miscarriage. That’s why pregnancies aren’t announced until the second trimester. It’s not to avoid making the pregnancy public - that’s going to come out eventually. It’s to avoid having to announce a miscarriage. They had to announce one of Kate’s pregnancies early because she was ill. So not a normal circumstance and they decided not to hide it.

If Kate hadn’t already had three healthy babies they would definitely not want to disclose a miscarriage. The curiously about when and whether she would produce an heir would be insane.

But now? That would be the easy explanation. A miscarriage with complications. It implies the marriage is healthy and she’d be likely to recover completely. They are WISHING it was a miscarriage. They would much rather talk about how the loving couple’s dreams of enlarging their beautiful family will not come to fruition than field questions about a colostomy bag.

I think miscarriage is an unlikely scenario, but if that’s what it was they will probably disclose it when she is out of the woods and they’ve had more of a chance to assess the situation.

It’s natural for ANYONE to want to avoid looking weak, not just Queen Elizabeth. Ever get wheeled out of a hospital because of “policy?” It’s uncomfortable. Same thing when you fall down in public. It’s instinct.

Let’s title part 3 of this thread “Gay men weigh in on women’s gynecological problems.”

R167 I don'tthink it's mostly gay men. It's the tabloid reading frauen.

[quote]I’m sure it’s incredibly frightening for them.

Those kids are taken care of by a swarm of governesses and what not, when they're not out for a photoshoot. They may not even know she's sick.

Where in your opinion should the Queen have used her wheelchair, r162? Go on, pick one of her later public appearances when she was completely unable to walk and was wheelchair bound but she hid it.

No, the Queen isn't to blame if someone who needs a wheelchair feels embarrassed about using one.

[quote]It’s natural for ANYONE to want to avoid looking weak, not just Queen Elizabeth. Ever get wheeled out of a hospital because of “policy?” It’s uncomfortable.

I'm not understanding this. I'm happy to share every detail of all 17 diagnoses I suffer from...

[quote]It’s natural for ANYONE to want to avoid looking weak, not just Queen Elizabeth.

Apparently Saliva Fouler doesn't have an issue with it. Her histrionics seem to be a point of pride for her.

Evidence please, R169 of this “swarm of governesses”. As far as I’m aware they have one nanny - Maria Borrallo - but I’m happy to be proved wrong.

Also, the “what not”, R169 - I’m curious!

The way in which Kate and her kids interact shows she's very engaged in their upbringing, a hands-on mum.

R169, that's a remarkably stupid post. You're amazing.

[quote] the monarchy's annual Sovereign Grant Report has revealed excactly how many people they employ. The report revealed that the couple's arm of the royal family, Kensington Palace, employs 50 different staff members.

Out of 50 staff members, I find it hard to believe that only one (1) person helps with the three children.

R169 is Sylvia Fowler. I have her on block. She just wouldn't put her name to it.

[quote][R169], that's a remarkably stupid post.

It's incredibly stupid to think that the next King and Queen of England have a staff that takes care of their kids? These are not regular people on the cul de sac. But whatever.

R179, you're just making it up. Hardly a swarm. There's one nanny that is known, Maria something or other. Been with them forever. Kate and William are always criticized for light schedules because they do so much of their own parenting. Those kids are not doing constant photo shoots. That's just bullshit.

You write like a hyperbolic, a fool, and a liar. You no doubt are.

Skinny bitch needs a real job.

R179 there is no “King of England”. If you’re going to keep spewing your nonsense you could at least get the titles right.

Highly doubtful it’s a miscarriage. If it was you know they’d make sure the public knows about it. Kate will do anything to earn sympathy points.

Accuracy isn't an issue for those kind of people, R182. This is some kind of therapy, or projection.

R170 She didn't hide a wheelchair, she just didn't show up rather than show up in a chair. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

"It is thought the decision was not due to any illness, but to discussions about the comfort of getting the Queen to and from the service."

That's palace-speak for "Betty is embarrassed to be seen in her wheelchair."

She didn't show up because she was ill and in her final days, not because she was embarrassed to be seen in a wheelchair.

Relatives of mine who are brother and sister have Crohns. The male has it much less severe than the female. The female is very, very big from medication, the male is normal sized. .

[quote]My questions would be: why get pregnant, again?

You're right, they don't need more kids. Kate's 42, she has difficult pregnancies and they've already got three.

They don't live in Kensington Palace, r177.

As even your speculative link says:

[quote]When the Wales family relocated from Kensington Palace to Adelaide Cottage, they no longer had space for live-in staff as their property only has four bedrooms. However, it seems very likely that they still have housekeepers, gardeners, and nannies that help with the running of the household, they simply don't live on-site.

Kate is very much a hands-on mum.

R189 I'm surprised they live in such a small residence. They don't even have a guest room if each of the children have their own rooms.

R182 next thing you’re going to tell us is that there’s no King of Canada.

As difficult as pregnancies are for her, it would be great if she were expecting as that would put another person between Dimbo and the throne.

Miscarriage not fully expelled can lead to sepsis. Miscarriage also requires a DNC=same as the dreaded abortion. Or maybe she had an ectopic pregnancy, which can be fatal and very damaging. At her age she is considered an elderly mother!

Not at all, R191, but calling the British monarch “King of England” is no different to calling Joe Biden “President of New York”. He is the king of the UK of which England is a constituent country, along with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The latter is also referred to as a province or region depending on one’s political beliefs.

Simple, really!

R183 is Meghan

[quote]r161 Approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage- it’s hardly rare.

Yet Kate wants all this attention and pity.

Typical.

Why is Saliva Fouler so triggered by this? She's usually hiding under the bed over COVID. The fixation on the Queen seems personal. Then again that guy is fucking nuts.

Jealousy

Your post makes no sense, R196. I doubt that she staged her own miscarriage followed by two weeks recovery in hospital and two months more at home. She’s one of the most famous women in the world - even if she enjoyed the attention she’s had it for twenty years.

You’re rather stupid, aren’t you, R196?

[quote]R199 I doubt that she staged her own miscarriage followed by two weeks recovery in hospital and two months more at home.

[italic]Prove it!

[quote] [R183] is Meghan

They will find a way to work her into any topic.

As I said, R200 - you’re rather stupid, aren’t you? And with no fucking idea about gynaecology. Many women have miscarriages without realising that they were pregnant. In the first month it’s often like a heavy period. Or they do miscarry later in the first trimester before they’ve told anyone and are back at work soon after.

She may be the Princess of Wales but I doubt that she could do-opt her medical team into giving her three months sick leave including two weeks in a very plush private hospital for that. Why would she? As someone said above - Sophie Edinburgh and Zara Tindall both announced that they had miscarried - theres no shame attached.

Even the Duchess of Kent - married to the late Queen's cousin - didn’t cover up her termination in the seventies after contracting rubella, followed by a still birth - and that was 50 years ago.

Maybe it was a mutant baby's miscarriage. After all, William is genetically related to the Monster of Glamis Castle.

"The way in which Kate and her kids interact shows she's very engaged in their upbringing, a hands-on mum"

Sure Jan.

Completely obsessed R204. The ignored list can make fascinating (and rather disturbing) reading.

R194 so you agree that he’s the king…of England and elsewhere. Glad you now understand that. Thanks.

Yep R206 - you really are stupid, aren’t you?

There hasn't been a King of England since the Acts of Union in 1707. Now, silence.

Went right over 207’s head…

[quote] There hasn't been a King of England since the Acts of Union in 1707.

Technically speaking, no. But, since "England" has frequently been commonly used for centuries conversationally as a synecdoche for the greater United Kingdom, both he and the other kings of the UK have been casually called that by millions of people worldwide and in the UK.

Anyone anywhere who heard or read that phrase would know exactly to whom you were referring, even if it does not fit standard protocol. And this is not the Court Circular.

R210 Just because some Americans can’t discern between “King of England” (and it’s always Americans) and “King of the UK” doesn’t mean that it’s correct - synecdoche or no synecdoche.

If you can’t see how this is offensive to the Welsh, the Scots and the Northern Irish who identify with the UK then there’s no helping you. But Americans always know best, right? Even when you don’t.

R210 if you care to educate yourself (doubtful) try reading up on the Treaty of Union (1706) and the Acts of Union (1707). You might learn something (again, doubtful).

R190, if only they had access to a great number of other properties where they could put up the out-of-towners when they arrive.

I know. Yet somehow, they struggle along - -

Oooh, oooh can I start a bigger fight??

Using “England” as a stand in-for Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland is as offensive as using “men” as a stand-in for men and women. It’s anachronistic AND a micro-aggression. (Also it’s exhausting)

OK that’s my best Roxanne Gay at a 1970s wommin of Wales consciousness raising group impersonation. Feel free to use it to broaden this, imho somewhat played out, argument; ignore entirely or have a think about what “inclusive” language that actually obscures we allow and disallow in our usage.

Roxane Gay is very far from 1970s' feminism, r215

Saying "England" instead of UK or Britain isn't offensive or a microaggession. It's simply outdated and inaccurate.

She’s also not Welsh R216.

R213 I suspect that George has to sleep with Louis in his room when Uncle Harry and Aunt Megan visit.

[quote]Or maybe she had an ectopic pregnancy, which can be fatal and very damaging.

Yep, there's not very much as damaging as a fatality.

It's probably just "women's problems."

Why are people so insistent that Kate must be racist? Meghan has a rather tenuous relationship with the truth. She and Harry said they were in a "near-catastrophic car crash" last year, and the driver himself said they were exaggerating. Meghan heavily implied Archie wasn't made a prince at birth because of his racial heritage, even though most of the Queen's other great-grandchildren (all of whom are white) weren't given titles at all. She said a South African cast member of the Lion King compared his country's reaction to her marriage to the release of Mandela; the film's only South African cast member said he'd never met her. She's not the most reliable source in the world.

People who are insistent that Kate is a racist are resistant to the idea that Meghan's relationship with the truth is almost as distant as Trump's. In fact, like deplorables, they are resistant to the idea that their beloved has any imperfections at all, and determined that anyone who thinks she has is a racist.

Why do R211 and R212 keep omitting Canada? Australia? New Zealand? You’re insulting the people of those countries. You’re 18th century “Acts” are an incomplete reference. Don’t they teach you anything anymore. We all here learned it as kids —we, the dumb North Americans.

Your*

King of England is also racist because it glorifies the place behind centuries of imperliaist upvotes.

Fwiw, on one of the UK's mainstream, nationally broadcast morning shows, their current events/gossip person, who is himself Black, said that he is convinced that who the Sussexes are referring to about asking about the skin color of Archie is neither Kate nor Charles.

He said he has a source in BP, who would be in a position to know, who told him who it is who asked that, but he would not say their name on the air.

NOBODY ASKED ABOUT THE SKIN COLOR OF ARCHIE.

STOP REPEATING THE LIE.

R226 - yes, it's generally agreed that Meghan named Charles and Kate. I think their names were even published in an Italian version of Omid Scobie's book. The question is whether Meghan is telling the truth.

R228 “The question is whether Meghan is telling the truth.”

That usually is the question, and the answer is that she’s usually not.

I might have asked about the skin color of Archie if I were a member of the royal family. It’s not something I would ask about as a “regular” person, but they are a family and a firm. A firm that is selling an image. Given that and their timeline of centuries, I’d definitely be asking, “Hey, do we think the kids are going to come across as multiracial or will they look just as white as the rest of us?” And I’d have been hoping the answer would be “multiracial.”

How could someone NOT ask that? The question was probably asked, that doesn’t mean it was racist. It doesn’t mean Meghan wasn’t hurt by it, either. She definitely tried to weaponize the comment in this specific instance, but shouldn’t she be allowed to say she feels upset by her treatment? Maybe her husband’s family didn’t treat her badly directly, but it seems like she perceived a failure to recognize the racist element in the treatment she received by the public and the tabloid press. Maybe she is right. A broken clock and all.

I think it’s nuts (and, yes, racist) to try and claim that she deserves all the bad press she’s gotten or that none of the criticism or judgement of her is racially motivated. The problem is that it’s impossible to draw the line at where it changes from classist to racist. I remember thinking, “HER?!” And I’d like to think it was entirely because she was a divorced cable soap actress. But she’s also an attractive graduate of a very good school with a lot of hustle. If she was white would my reaction have been entirely the same? I certainly didn’t think, “But she’s black,” but did it color my assessment? I hope not.

Since then she’s shown that she is extremely basic and always manages to do the wrong thing and fails to take guidance, but I didn’t know that at the time. Also, distorts the truth. But I’m not entirely sure she’s lying on purpose. It seems to both wishful thinking and a defense mechanism.

Is it ever really a question, though?

[quote]I think it’s nuts (and, yes, racist) to try and claim that she deserves all the bad press she’s gotten or that none of the criticism or judgement of her is racially motivated.

As usual, that's a minority of people. She was largely very much welcomed when she married. Her popularity has continued to decline after claiming racism. But as usual, people take advantage of the race aspect to make it seem like it's everybody and avoid discussing character and behaviour. Maya Angelou, after all.

I don’t disagree, R232. I’m just saying there was SOME racism and it’s impossible to quantify.

What does any of this after to do with Kate's surgery? This topic has nothing to do with Harry and Meghan, Kate's racism or Kate and Willam's non-marriage. But I guess you can't help yourselves. The woman had surgery for endometriosis that is more complicated than normal.

^ Yes, there was a lot of good will towards Harry & Meghan in the UK at first. There was that stupid "(Almost) Straight Outta Compton" story from the Daily Mail, but for the most press reaction to the marriage was positive. Every woman who marries into the BRF (except for Camilla) gets fawned over for a while, and then the backlash starts.

R234, this is DL. If the thread weren't disjointed as fuck, it wouldn't be a true DL thread.

r232, I do not, for one moment, think that any of Harry's immediate family, in-laws ( Kate) or QE II and Phillip were bigoted towards Markle.

And, like r230, I think that they welcomed the prospect of broadening family diversity within the Royal Family.

But, the following is something I've repeatedly written here over the last 6 or 7 years and I stand by, although it's all water under the London Bridge now:

Queen Elizabeth and her close advisors made a mistake in not issuing from BP, a well-crafted admonishment to the tabloids about the racially derogatory tone of their coverage of Markle. She presented a person apart from the usual, "Well, they all have to run the gauntlet of negative press coverage. She'll endure."

I think they needed to acknowledge themselves and issue publicly issue something that got the point across that the derogatory tone is there and is wrong.

And nobody argue to me that they couldn't have done that very effectively. Any staff that can come up with the ingenious "recollections may vary" can come up with an admonishment to the tabloids.

I agree with that, R237, and I think the fact that they didn't do that is one of the side-effects of the whole institution being so dated. They should at least have condemned that "Straight Outta Compton" story I mentioned earlier.

Other than the story straight outta Compton and some columnist's reference to "exotic" DNA, can anybody specifically cite examples of racially derogatory coverage? Because it's taken now as an article of faith as if for weeks everybody from The Times to the Mirror was using racial epithets to describe her or that the entire staff were racists. That doesn't reflect my understanding of the particular history but I try to confine myself to demonstrable fact and acknowledge that for at least five years "I feel" and "I suspect" and "I think" now pass for it.

That's the last I'm throwing in. I agree, this thread isn't about that piece of work.

There was one questionable headline in the US edition of a British paper. That warranted an extraordinary announcement from the Palace?

OK, R239 here.... I don't disagree in hindsight a message about the Compton story would have helped. Yes, a public announcement would have made the Twitter crowd happy, but they could have also had a word with the Mail and said keep this up and we will go public. Word would have gotten around media circles fast enough and probably solved the problem. It should have been handled more effectively but I have never seen anything (and could be wrong) that the consensus was keep calm and carry on. It was very early going in the relationship. Nobody even knew if it would last. How far from convention are you going to stray? It's not as straightforward as it seems in retrospect and through the prism of what we know now.

And now I'm not going to talk about that piece of work on this thread any more because she's nasty and Kate isn't.

I think this is cover for her getting her bunions fixed.

That Kaiser must be one mean bitch in real life. To keep this up, year after year. To draw on that right now. Nice person.

[quote] Evidence please, [R169] of this “swarm of governesses”. As far as I’m aware they have one nanny - Maria Borrallo - but I’m happy to be proved wrong.

Nominally, Maria is the governess, but we all know who really calls the shots.

There certainly is a King of England. And a King of Scotland. And a King of Canada. Etc.

Are you sure? I thought James McAvoy was the last king of Scotland.

Wondering if the children would have dark skin is no different from my wondering if my brother would have blond kids after he married the shiksa. Perfectly natural curiosity.

(He did, btw).

Medical term for miscarriage is “spontaneous abortion.” When a miscarriage happens but not all if the cintents are expelled it’s called a “missed abortion.” Don’t ask me how they come up with these words. When there’s a missed abortion you need “dilation and curettage” or “D&C” to make sure all contents are expelled to prevent infection.

A D&C is an outpatient procedure that abortion clinics have offered since forever. It does not require overnight stay in a hospital. It doesn’t even require a hospital. Clinics and doctor offices can do a D&C.

Only maletards would think a missed abortion (miscarriage) would require 2 weeks in a hospital.

R245, there is a United Kingdom, since 1707. England, Scotland and Wales are nations with the country that is the United Kingdom.

A nation is a group of people who share a common language, culture, history, and identity, while a country is a geographic region with its government and borders. A nation may or may not have its independent state, whereas a country is always an independent sovereign state. A nation can be defined by subjective and cultural factors, while objective and political factors define a country.

He's king in England and Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland because he is King of the United Kingdom. Now stop with your stubborn foolishness.

That reminds me of another childhood trauma. I found my mother’s medical records in a closet and they said she’d had a spontaneous abortion before I was born, but I didn’t understand that meant miscarriage. I thought she’d had an elective abortion which made me wonder if my birth later that year was a “mistake.” I was a troubled child.

[quote]The question is whether Meghan is telling the truth.

This is not a question. If Meghan's lips are moving, she's lying.

I don't think that's accurate, R251. Sometimes she's complaining.

[quote]He's king in England and Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland because he is King of the United Kingdom. Now stop with your stubborn foolishness

Actually, I suspect that is wrong. He is likely King of each nation within the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth independently. I know there is a separate Scottish coronation. Do you imagine if the United Kingdom were to dissolve, Charles would automatically cease to be King of England, King of Scotland, etc? No.

[quote]Queen Elizabeth and her close advisors made a mistake in not issuing from BP, a well-crafted admonishment to the tabloids about the racially derogatory tone of their coverage of Markle. She presented a person apart from the usual, "Well, they all have to run the gauntlet of negative press coverage. She'll endure."

Why did she need to be given special treatment from the Palace that no other woman who has married into the family has received? Because she's one-quarter black? Get out of here with that. That's the very definition of racism, saying that she needs to be treated differently because of her ethnicity. And she was allegedly an actress, so she of all people should have been fully experienced in dealing with the press and tabloids before marrying in.

Nothing says I don't know what I'm talking about like I suspect. There is no Scottish constitution since union. I know that if the United Kingdom were to dissolve Scotland would write a constitution, settling the matter of head of state.

[quote] Because she's one-quarter black?

Well, yes.

Unprecedented (unless you count Queen Charlotte) and, as we have seen, politically explosive.

R249. That’s why that the big world organization for peace seated in NYC is called the UNITED COUNTRIES. Amirite?

“A nation is a group of people who share a common language, culture, history, and identity, while a country is a geographic region with its government and borders.”

So what does that make Puerto Rico? It meets both definitions but is treated as neither of those. Hmmm R249.

Back to the topic at hand. Take this with the biggest grain of salt you have. I’m not familiar with the website but they say she was taken to the hospital on Dec. 28 (which coincides with the video on X) and has had serious complications.

Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten are legally defined as countries, yet they are part of a kingdom…

We could go on and on with other examples…your post is 💩249.

Tell me, R253, if Georgia or Tennessee or Vermont were to secede from the Union next week, would Biden automatically be President? No, because constitutionally he is President of the United States, not each state. Just as Charles is king of the United Kingdom, which is the union of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England.

R250, I remember reading about a spontaenous abortion when I was a teenager and thinking it meant the mother had chosen to have an abortion on a whim.

So if the UK dissolves, Scotland has no King?

I'm going to have an abortion and I CAN'T WAIT!

The UK can constitutionally dissolve.

The USA cannot constitutionally dissolve.

Individual states in the US don’t have a President, so the comparison makes no sense.

The only people I've ever heard say "Queen/King of England" are Americans.

[quote] The USA cannot constitutionally dissolve.

Debatable.

The royal family is part of the British constitutional system. The Queen knows that being part of a public institution means that she couldn’t be seen criticising the press for criticising the family The Queen lived with this even though she, unlike Meghan, had no choice in being an object of public criticism or ridicule. You can’t be no a public servant in a democracy ( even if you are an involuntary one) without letting people saying whatever they please about you.

Because the Queen was old for so long and became an almost untouchable institution, people forget all the criticism and ridicule she received. She just lived with it even though she never asked to be a public figure. Meghan had the opportunity from the beginning to live as a private citizen with her husband had she wished.

“…that she couldn’t be seen criticising the press for criticising the family…”

What bullshit. It’s been done many, many times. Fool.

And learn to spell the word criticize.

R270. Haha. Idiot.

Is R270 writing a parody of stupid and provincial Americans or a genuine moron?

Victoria famously wrote a letter to Melbourne about the Bedchamber Plot where she referred to herself as "the queen of England":

[quote]"The Queen of England will not resort to such trickery."

So none of the Crown, BP or the BRF has ever publicly criticized the press. Okayyy

So the above article stated that she was indeed admitted to the hospital on Dec 28th after feeling under after Christmas and that something went wrong post-op. This is serious y’all.

Queen Victoria also referred to herself as "the Queen of England" when she refused to have her favorite daughter, the Princess Royal, marry the heir to the Prussian throne in Berlin rather than in London:

"Whatever may be the usual practice of Prussian Princes, it is not every day that one marries the eldest daughter of the Queen of England"

It’s an AI Spanish to English article ….i think you might discount it….

R274. There has been criticism of press conduct, such as intrusion into privacy, not requests that the press not comment negatively on the family. Since you say”okay”, I assume you can readily list examples where the palace asked that the press stop criticising the family?

[quote]Wondering if the children would have dark skin is no different from my wondering if my brother would have blond kids

Yes because anti-blonde bigotry is easily on par with anti-African racism. Remember when the British sold blondes as part of the triangle trade? It was awful the way blondes were treated as property rather than human beings.

I’m not your Google…I like how you now redefine your statement, to try to fit reality. 👏🏼

Your emoji is appropriate, R260, because you are talking out of your ass.

"[bold]Since 10 October 2010, Curaçao has been an autonomous country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands [/bold], like Aruba and St Maarten in the Caribbean and the Netherlands in Europe."

Find proof Scotland or Wales is an autonomous country. You can't. Because they aren't. Following devolution in 1998, Westminster granted Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland limited authority to legislate, over areas including health and social care, education and training, local government and housing, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, the environment and planning, tourism, sport and heritage and economic development and internal transport.

The UK government, led by the prime minister in Downing Street, is responsible for [italic]national[/italic] policy on all powers which have not been devolved - known usually as "reserved powers". The main areas which are reserved to Westminster are:

The constitution (that's the head of state bit)

Defence and national security

Drug policy

Foreign policy

Immigration and citizenship

Energy

Social security (devolved in Northern Ireland and partly in Scotland)

Pensions

Most forms of tax (but not in Scotland and with exceptions in Wales)

gov.uk: "Those three legislatures can only pass primary and secondary laws in devolved (or “transferred” in the case of Northern Ireland) areas, with “reserved” matters (or reserved and “excepted” in NI) remaining the responsibility of Westminster. The UK Parliament can still legislate in devolved areas, but, under the Sewel Convention, does “not normally” do so without the explicit consent of the relevant devolved body.

Under the UK constitutional tradition of “parliamentary sovereignty” devolution is, in theory, reversible, and the devolved institutions products of UK statute."

He is not king of Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland because none of those are independent countries. He is king of Canada and Australia and everywhere else you've an independent realm with its own constitution.

Give it up. You're wrong. Walk away with some dignity. Which I'd suggest you Google.

R276, that surprises me. I wonder why Queen Victoria phrased it like that. It just sounds wrong to me.

I do is not redefine at all. I clearly said exactly the same thing in my original post. Thanks for acknowledging you are talking stupid nonsense.

R281. Learn to read. Go back to the R249 post allegedly telling us the difference between a nation and a country. My reference to Aruba etc. showed that post was factually incorrect. Bye now …

[quote]I wonder why Queen Victoria phrased it like that.

Because back then, within the United Kingdom, the great and the good generally thought and acted as if England was all that mattered, home of the great thinkers, legislators, leaders and aristocrats and Scotland and Wales were home of rubes, peasants and the ignorant. The English of Victoria's day were the Americans of now. They thought they were all that mattered and had the political and economic and historic heft to pull it off. The sun never set on the British empire. The Welsh and Scottish independence movements didn't emerge just because somebody woke up one morning and thought "I've got an idea...."

R277, I agree, which is why I said take the article with a big grain of salt. But it was a high-ranked article on Google when I searched for “what is wrong with Kate,” and it mentions that Dec. 28 date. But I thought it interesting, and a distraction from the other stuff that has taken over the thread. Honestly, folks, I really enjoy most of the tangents on DL, but the thread has veered into pretty meaningless discussions and rehashes. I’m still interested in what happened with Kate, is there anything else anyone has dug up to continue the conversation?

Woman: And who are you?

King Arthur: I am Arthur, King of the United Kingdom .

Woman: King of the who?

King Arthur: King of the United Kingdom.

Woman: Who are the United Kingdomers?

King Arthur: We all are. We are all United Kingdomers. And I am your king.

Woman: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.

^Monty Python, gotta love it! Holy Grail still makes me laugh all these years later.

Nice try, R284. But you're wrong about everything else and you look a fool. But you're used to that.

Denis—There’s some lovely filth down here!

Here’s the timeline:

Christmas - She fell ill

Dec 28th - She was taken to the hospital as someone mentioned they saw security escorting a royal to the hospital

Mid January - The palace announced planned surgery for whatever that was discovered on Dec 28th

Post-op complications requiring 2 weeks stay

All royal engagements postpone until Easter

Please, girls, stop fighting! Mom and dad are tired of listening to you, and we only have one bottle of vodka to split between us.

Also, R284, you need to understand. Aruba, Curacao and St. Martin all have their own constitutions, following the dissolution of the Dutch Antilles. Your example is analogous to Canada or Australia, which are independent and self-governing in all matters. Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland are not. I'm done. You're wrong.

R235, the "(Almost) Straight Outta Compton" story was written by an American in LA for the US edition of the online Daily Mail. It was a case of American racism, not British racism.

That looks correct, r291. So… based on that, perhaps she had a miscarriage on the 28th and the doctors thought she didn’t need a D&C. She returned mid-January because there were still remnants of the fetus in her uterus.

Hah DL doctors, does this make sense?

Sorry, is that "timeline" theory or are you taking it as gospel? Because it's got more holes in it than the side of the Titanic.

Woman: And who are you?

King Charles: I am Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of My other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

Woman: King of the who?

King Arthur: King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of My other Realms and Territories

Woman: Who are the United Kingdomers of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

King Arthur: We all are. We are all United Kingdomers. And I am your king.

Woman: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.

Seems rather cumbersome.

Would that require weeks in the hospital, r295?

R249 ‘s purported distinction between what is a nation vs. what is a country remains factually incorrect. Roger and out? Good.

I am guessing that bowel surgery going wrong is far more likely that a pregnancy-related surgery going wrong. I think it’s more likely to go wrong and it’s more likely to go wrong in a way that would necessitate an extended hospital stay and recovery. Also, if she got sick December 28 and it was pregnancy related they probably would have done the surgery then, not weeks later. But a long-term bowel condition they might have done a longer evaluation or tried to manage without surgery first.

So she had a miscarriage consequential enough to ship her from Sandringham to London for care, rather than a local hospital, but the medical team in London may or may not have done a D&C, a fifteen minute procedure?

There's no confirmation she was in that convoy or it even arrived at the hospital.

What about the wig? There's a clue in that, docs, for sure.

It's cancer, regardless of their denial.

It’s not a tumor!

[quote]It's cancer, regardless of their denial.

I wonder who William's next wife will be

Can you get cancer of the hair?

The wig fits with IBD, R304. It can cause weight loss and hair loss, possibly sporadically.

Does it seem like a very good idea for the monarchy to lie about cancer?

Did she wear a wig very often?

If William outlives Kate, I wouldn't be surprised if he never remarries and will serve as King without a Queen.

Oh, for sure he'll have a steady bed partner(s), but, I can see him not wanting the trouble of acclimating somebody to the duties and having to referee the relationship between whoever she would be and the children.

Oh please, Rose has already has her China pattern picked out.

He can sneak them in and out wearing wigs. Or maybe make them wear Kate wigs and pretend he's fucking her.

Yes, her China pattern is MekMukChuNuffing.

R311, it seems very likely that she has worn extensions for a while and in September 2023 she wore something that seemed like a full wig. The style was referred to as curtain bangs and there is a DL thread on it. I wouldn’t have thought anything of the extensions, but the wig was odd so now it seems possible (not saying probable) that the extensions might have been due to hair loss.

R303, you’re right. There’s very little we have to go on. We’re not even sure that the Dec. 28 trip was to the hospital, or if it was security escorting a royal. Does anyone know if the person recording the Dec. 28 video mentioned then that it seemed to be coming from Sandringham and going to a hospital. If they posted it around that date, it seems that it might be true.

September. Yet her hair looked so natural at Christmas. You'd think it would be the kind of thing that would worsen over time. Funny eh? But then again considering might, likely, seemed, seems, possible... I can definitely see why we're treating it as established fact. Thanks, R316.

This thread reveals two things about the average DLer...

1) You know your European royalty

2) You haven't a clue about the female body....

Hard to tell, r318. Her hat covers her hairline, which is the best place to determine if it’s a wig. In any case, she did look fabulous and healthy at Christmas.

Thank for a little sanity and realism, R317. Look I get the desire to speculate but it troubles me how speculation morphs into accepted fact.

So just to be clear, between the wig photo and her operation for cancer no matter what they say after the flashing light trip from Sandringham to London, any time we could see her hairline there were or there weren't any other definite wig sightings?

I'm getting it now, yeah.

r124 then she went back and had another special needs kid. Royals are really full of themselves.

I disagree, r254.

It's not a matter of the Queen treating Markle differently.

It's a matter of requesting and yes, admonishing the press to be mindful of avoiding any negative connotations related to race when covering Markle.

By all means tabloids, go after Markle's unlikability, her poor taste in clothes, her social climbing, whatever. All of that can be done, but don't base it on her being biracial or allude to that.

I stand by my post at r237.

Markle's particular demographic realities, and assets, made her distinct from any other woman who married into the Royal family. Given that, it called for a different approach by BP, at least once.

It would have been the right thing to do AND it would have been something to counter with when the Sussexes raised the issue after they bolted.

That's right, I forgot. Also established fact Sophie's second is autistic.

Wasn't he also a Ripper suspect?

Proof of wig, please.

In a wig?

r129 what does looking well at Christmas even mean? She had on a coat so she was covered up. She wears extentiosn and partial wigs, so we don't know if her hair was thinning out. She wears loads of makeup, no shade, it's the current style, but it can hide a lot.

There was little to no way if skeletal Kate was any more or less healthy than normal at Christmas with the Hollywood level glam squad she uses to get herself together for royal events.

She was looking terribly thin and saggy during the coronation rehearsal.. I think she still looks beautiful, but Kate clearly has an "on" and "off" look where her team uses every trick in the book to make her look great great at engagements, just like movie stars on red carpets.

Side Note: William has great skin, very few wrinkles.

R328 I'd say well looks a lot like this, if you're open minded enough to actually see it and stop making up what you like to suit your theory.

This is anyone's definition of a well woman.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

At least she's smiling in R329's photos.

Diana would be giving side eye to the paps and anything else she could do to make out she was in a hostage situation.

r189 cut the bullshit about that cottage. They don't have live in staff because the home is right next to Windsor Castle, you know, the place with a mountain of live-in staff. This is all a technicality, but they are just pulling staff from Windsor.

You all are crazy to really sit up and think that William and Kate are cooking, cleaning, and picking up their kids from school. They may do some of this, but they are the same entitled royal, me, me, me, me, me, folks as everyone else in that family.

I like your peasanty resentment, R332. Shouldn't you be on the Grauniad board?

I definitely think she started wearing a wig in September and the first few times it looked really obvious. I figured maybe she was giving her hair a rest from extensions or had lost too much hair to support them.

But at the R330 link her hairline looks pretty normal in early December.

r221 why do you feel the need to defend Kate. She is free to defend herself, and even has a PR team to help draft her statement. The palace is happy to correct the record when needed. Meghan isn't the one that called out Kate by name. A writter did that, just like British writters write loads of things, true and false, about all of the royals.

r259 couldn't be all that bad since William, with his shiny new sport car, has only visited her once. The paps are camped outside of her hospital. So either their marriage is ovah, or he's an asshole, or it's not that serious.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[quote]So either their marriage is ovah, or he's an asshole

Two things can be true at the same time.

r312 William would bring out a new girlfireidn within 1.5 years of her death. He'll have a new queen well before Charles croaks. If he doesn't find a wife, then he's leaving the female duties to his young daughter, which wouldn't be right.

I'm sure one of the blondes he hangs with on private vacations will gladly be his next wife.

The entire BRF is diseased!

A nation weeps. Or is it: A country weeps?

R335, I'm just saying why I don't consider Meghan a reliable source. Maybe Kate is racist - who knows? None of us know what the BRF are like behind the scenes. But I'd take anything Meghan says with a pinch of salt.

Yeah, this thread has veered from the topic of the medical condition of Kate, but, I'm rolling with that and, besides, nobody here knows a damn thing about it anyway.

Speaking of William as King, how on Satan's, God's or Gaia's Green Earth will seating arrangements at Charles funeral be organized?

Obviously, and assuming both William and Harry are still alive, they'll have to be seated apart. Markle won't attend, so she doesn't have to be considered.

R332, are you saying that there are several nannies to William and Kate's kids living in Windsor Castle?

Since the Queen departed and there is no royal in residence, I doubt there are that many cooks and housekeepers at Windsor. Can you explain how the dinner works though? Is it prepared in Windsor Castle just for William, Kate and the kids and then driven down to Adelaide Cottage? What about breakfast?

Just by looking at how Kate and her kids interact it's obvious that they are very close and she is very involved with them. What the heck is this insane need of yours to trash a mother and insist that she has little engagement with her children, when all the evidence is to the contrary?

r342 why wouldn't Meghan and their kids attend Charles' funeral. She attended the Queens. She won't be pregnant again. She'll be there to support her husband whose just lost a father. You guys are really weird forgetting how complicated family drama can be and how funerals bring people together.

I think Harry will be seated in the front row with William's crew, plus Camilla. Just like with Queen Elizabeth's funeral where her kids sat in more primary seats, despite Harry and William outranking Anne, Andrew, and Edward.

Kids and spouses come first. So in the front row, King William, Queen Catherine, Queen Camilla, Prince Harry, and Princess Meghan. Kids in the second row, Anne, Andrew, Edward off to a third row.

Princess Meghan?

[quote]R221 She and Harry said they were in a "near-catastrophic car crash" last year, and the driver himself said they were exaggerating.

Mmmhmmm… I bet he told his insurance company that, too.

Probably his fifth offense.

Meghan attended the Queen's funeral just because she happened to be in the country when the Queen died, r344. I wonder what would have happened if she and Harry had been in the States at the time. She would have been in a dilemma - whether to go and have to mingle with Harry's family and be polite to them but at least be able to gather some content for her next Netflix show, or whether to come up with some excuse about having to stay to look after the kids while Harry went alone.

Let's not forget, Harry and Meghan had no intention during their trip to the UK to make the effort to visit his frail, ill and very old grandmother.

"Probably"? Based on what?

You're just using hyperbole to be melodramatic, aren't you?

[quote]A writter did that, just like British writters write loads of things, true and false, about all of the royals.

And remind me, which writer was that?

r347 they already visited the Queen recently. You can't just show up at the queen's door, you need to be invited.

Meghan cared for the queen and in all their statements, they had only nice things to say about Elizabeth and Phillip. That was teh same from the Oprah interview till today, M&H have never said a negative word about the former Queen.

Meghan will support Harry at the King's funeral. You all are crazy to think otherwise because you see her some demon or something.

"despite Harry and William outranking Anne, Andrew, and Edward." - How did Harry "outrank" the Queen's own children at their mother's funeral, r344? They were even seated in order of age, rather than according to some kind of "rank" (i.e. with Andrew at the end).

There is no such person as "Princess Meghan" and never will be.

[quote]Markle won't attend, so she doesn't have to be considered.

She'll be divorced by then.

[quote]Yeah, this thread has veered from the topic of the medical condition of Kate

This thread veered from that into the opposite of fanfic about R10.

What do you call it? Sickfic?

[R221] She and Harry said they were in a "near-catastrophic car crash" last year, and the driver himself said they were exaggerating.

The mayor of New York, no stranger to controversy himself, laughed on live TV when asked to confirm their version of the near-catastrophe...

r351 you are clearly dense. Harry and William outrank every one of Charles' siblings and their cousins. How can you be on a royal forum and need that to be explained? I also said, that children take precedence which is why Anne, Andrew, and Edward where seated where they were at Liz's funeral. I made the point you are trying to make, which is at funerals, kids (and widows) get prime seating.

Harry and Meghan will be in the front row next to the Dowager Queen or next to Kate or their kids. But they will be up there, just like Andrew, Anne, and Edward at Liz's funeral.

Right - now that you’ve all diagnosed Kate with cancer and had her fitted with a colostomy bag, then killed her and are lining up a new wife for William, you’ve killed off King Charles and are planning his funeral seating arrangements.

Crazy.

[quote]R230 I might have asked about the skin color of Archie if I were a member of the royal family…How could someone NOT ask that?

Are you kidding? I cannot even imagine what my sister’s reaction would be if she were pregnant with a bi racial fetus, and I asked what color she thought it would be.

The eventual answer would probably be, “It appears it matters to you,” as she straighten something on the table with embarrassment for me.

[quote] None of us know what the BRF are like behind the scenes

I do, love.

[quote]But at the [R330] link her hairline looks pretty normal in early December.

Remind me, how does that then work with thinning hair due to ongoing illness that hospitalizes you in January?

I just know there's a theory. Please help me along.

Or, and it just occurred to me, are we going with the pregnancy theory now so she can have her own hair back?

R356, you forgot, she's faking it and you said nothing about her wig wearing hair loss. Come on, man, keep up. When's the next meeting of the Bilderbergs anyway?

[quote]R247 Wondering if the children would have dark skin is no different from my wondering if my brother would have blond kids after he married the shiksa.

Perhaps. But you don’t VOICE it.

What you on about, r350? Harry was the Queen's grandson, of course he could visit her if he wanted to as her grandson (which is not the same as him making demands to corner her alone to discuss "arrangements"). Do you really think if he called up and said "Granny, I'm in the UK, I'd love to pop up and visit you since I've got the chance" she'd have refused? Especially at Balmoral, which was a place for family holiday and get togethers and not business.

Meghan only fake "cared" for the Queen, because she knows there is loads of cultural cachet associated with the Queen and if she tried bitching about the Queen she'd turn everyone against her (even more than she already has). Besides, she also needs to claim some connection to royalty because she's not getting much from Harry. The reality is that Meghan caused much sorrow for the Queen, and in her final years too. I bet in future years she's going to pretend that she always admired William.

[quote]Do you really think if he called up and said "Granny, I'm in the UK, I'd love to pop up and visit you since I've got the chance" she'd have refused?

Well she did. Mind you it was to avoid flying solo during the Sandringham shakedown.

r359 women wearing extensions keep them in for months or weeks at a time, depending on the rate of hair growth. So her hair looking good in December doesn't mean much. Hell, JLo has very thin hair, but you wouldn't know it because of her hair systems. The Kardashians all use hair pieces or wigs to obtain full rich hair.

Hair systems have become an art-form again. Kates' hair thickness changes between events which tells me she is getting tracks put in.

Did she, r364? Did she tell you that?

r356 has me LOL!

So true, but sometimes that's a feature of the DL, not a bug.

Markle couldn't even muster the balls to attend KC's Coronation. I'd give it even money that, if she's still married to Harry, she won't attend Charles funeral.

A variable would be if Kate is dead. If she is, then I think Markle leans towards attending, but there will be a mutual understanding that William and Sussexes will not have any interaction.

Could Kate have been inducing her own abortion, and something went wrong?

r363 you are taking this way to personally but in short, none of them could just see the queen whenever they wanted. Perhaps, her kids had that level of access, but not her grandchildren. Harry even mentioned how he and Liz had separate, off the books, conversation to coordinate his visit to her prior to one of the Invictus Games. The Queen wasn't a normal grandmother, she was an institution, with staff that restricted her access.

Even Charles mentioned having to schedule meetings with the queen growing up, working on her schedule, as determined by her staff.

So no, Harry, nor Eugenie, nor Kate, nor Sophie could just waltz into Windsor for unannounced visits. I mean, physically they could, but it's simply not done in that family.

Can you explain how Harry "outranked" the Queen's own children at their mother's funeral, r344? Harry doesn't outrank anyone. Stop confusing the conventions of the order of succession with some kind of "rank". If you want to talk about rank in practical, working royal terms, Anne, Edward and even Sophie outrank Harry. Catherine most definitely outranks him, as do her children. Even at his father's coronation, Harry wasn't at the front. His "rank" is wearing a rented off-the-rail suit and being obscured by Anne's feather, making polite chat with his cousin's husband. Harry is way down the rank, and it's all his own doing.

He will may sit in the front row at Charles' funeral simply because it's his father's funeral, but he will be even further at the back at William's coronation (if he attends) than he was at Charles'.

R369, I never suggested that Harry should have just waltzed up to Balmoral, but he was scheduled to be in the UK and Europe for a long enough visit. He could have arranged to go and visit his ill and dying grandmother whom he was unlikely ever to see again, if he (and the caring Meghan) truly cared about her. Anne was up there anyway, so she would have made sure he didn't try and clever tricks.

"You're just using hyperbole to be melodramatic, aren't you?"

It's what we do best!

At r363, I agree with r369 on the first paragraph. I think Tina Brown mentions in her book "The Palace Papers" (I recommend it) that even her children have to penciled in on her schedule to see her.

But I'm in square, firm agreement with r363 on their 2nd paragraph.

I believe the report in that latest book on KC that will soon be released. It reports that QE II was not pleased, nor ever granted permission nor gave her blessing to the Sussexes to name their daughter Lilibet. The Sussexes informed her of it, and that was that.

The Sussexes branded their baby with that name, plain and simple. They did it because they needed to remind the world of their connection to the Royal Family and if they had to compromise a private, used-by-immediate-family-only name to do it, so be it.

Why didn't they name their daughter Doria Frances Elizabeth? That would have honored Meghan's African American mother and Diana with elegant, subtle, allusion.

Nope. That's not what they did. And QE II was understandably livid.

R350. The late Queen

I don't think it matters, whether she told me or not, R366, because I know she was wearing a wig in a wheelchair motorcade to have her colostomy bag fixed.

But don't mind me, Valentine Low, of The Times: In a bid to speed up matters, Harry arranged to meet with the Queen alone before he left for Canada.

However, the message was apparently conveyed to him that the Queen had been “confused” about her diary and was no longer available.

According to the book, Harry was “incensed”, believing this to be untrue and that it was the courtiers who had intercepted such a meeting, because they feared it was “an attempt to pick the Queen off” before more formal talks with the wider family commenced.

“There was a danger that a private conversation could be interpreted very differently by two people,” a royal source claimed.

[quote]Could Kate have been inducing her own abortion, and something went wrong?

This feels right to me. I suspect she was probably using diluted wig glue.

r370 then you explain the rank, because despite the seating arrangements, Harry, as son of the monarch, will always outrank Charles' siblings. How does he not outrank them? If these were the days of strict bowing and precedence, Anne, Andrew, and Edward would always have to bow to Harry and Meghan (when Harry is present). The old rules are on their last leg, so today none of that matters. But, Harry does outrank the others in order of precedence. You can see such things matter during the state banquet precessions which don't have Anne walking before William, etc.

I know you hate him, but he is only of only two children of the sovereign. No one, in their right mind would have ever pretended that Margaret or her children outranked any of QEII children. Acting new because you hate Harry does you no favors. Yes, working royals are given special treatment, but that doesn't mean they out rank Harry. Rank was determined by blood relation to the king and your place in the pecking order of the line of ascension.

What does rank really mean today? Whatever the sovereign says it means. Harry wasn't seating up front at the coronation. Okay, not the first time a king to push aside one of his sons. Many Princes of Wales famously had testy relations with their kings, not to mention other wayward sons and daughters. Some kings basically banished a prince from court in all but name. But no one would ever pretend they lost rank, just because they lost favor with the monarch.

A wig?!

I believe they named the kid Lilibet in retaliation for not being able to use "Sussex Royal". You took our name away, we will take yours.

Well, that worked out really well for them.

Who gives a fuck about a kid's name? She's some California princess, not a big deal.

That’s so out of context you’ve reversed the meaning, R357. I specifically said I would NOT ask that question as a “regular” person, but might have asked if I were a member of the royal family.

I’m not a member of the royal family, in case that wasn’t clear to you.

[quote] [R347] they already visited the Queen recently. You can't just show up at the queen's door, you need to be invited.

It can't be that recently, unless you're talking about Camilla. Elizabeth II has been dead for more than a year.

So self-abortion gone wrong is the current thinking?

Not a good week for this family.

R332, William and Kate do drop off and pick up their kids from school. I have friends who have children at Lambrook. One of W&K almost always does the transporting. They are very hands on. And also have a lot of household help. Both things can be true.

Oh that’s too bad about Fergy.

They drive back and forth for 10 minutes, twice a day. That’s dedication! Do they make funnel cakes and cupcakes for the PTA meeting?

[quote]r386 So self-abortion gone wrong is the current thinking?

What are the laws there? Couldn’t she get one legally?

It’s amazing that a princess would be going through the same thing as an unmarried teen in Iowa. Something has to change.

Here's one scenario: She has heavy periods. They do a test and discover fibroids in her uterus. They recommend a procedure called an ablation to remove the fibroids. It's a simple, outpatient procedure and you need to rest for a couple of days. But the ablation goes wrong and the uterus is damaged. So they they do a temporary fix, and schedule her for major surgery. A hysterectomy. That's why it's being kept private. The ectopic pregnancy is another legitimate area of speculation. But it also ends with a hysterectomy. Now understand that this would be an especially big deal for Catherine because she is very much into having more kids. I suspect she may have hoped for just one more before closing up shop permanently.

Scenario #2: She has chronic debilitating GI problems. Colon. She had to get part of her intestine removed and will wear a colostomy bag until her colon heals.

Does she drink? Maybe this has something to do with her liver?

My understanding in regards to the temporary colostomy bag (but I could be wrong because I was heavily benzo’ed when they were explaining it to me and then they canceled that surgery two hours before it was scheduled) is that they wait at least three months before doing the follow up surgery to re-attach so that would be more like a six month timeline until the resumption of duties with the two bowel surgeries I’d think.

[quote]Does she drink? Maybe this has something to do with her liver?

It’s possible that she may have chronic pancreatitis, and may have needed endoscopic procedures to place bile duct stents. She may have also needed her gallbladder removed if that was the cause of the problem. Sometimes people with pancreatitis cannot eat anything at all and may need IV nutrition while the pancreas heals. That could all require a couple weeks of hospitalization.

I don’t know…it’s another possible scenario.

[quote]I’m not your Google…I like how you now redefine your statement, to try to fit reality. 👏🏼

When you find yourself in a hole, don’t try to dig yourself out of it.

And sneering when you’re wrong is the worst look of all.

Blah blah….left behind dozens of posts ago. Zzzz

If she wears a colostomy bag for six months, will that require incessant flared skirts? She might not like that.

Via Deuxmoi: "A source shared, 'She's ben dealing with stomach-related issues for most of her adult life. So, she's having a medical procedure done where they're going to remove parts of colon/bowl that are cause for concern." Aside from the lack of mention of a colostomy bag, this sounds a lot like what R390 said.

Given the self-induced abortion theory, maybe she didn't want to try and pass off another baby as William's. I mean there is no way in hell Louis is William's kid. But I don't blame her, it's not like William isn't fucking around on her.

R375, they really are beating a dead horse. Harry and Meghan are only relevant because of the circumstances of his birth. She was a moderately successful American actress, but since her marriage to him she has a very high opinion of herself...she was a supporting actress on a Cable TV show. The marriage pushed her into grander circles, and they both have acquired a degree of entitlement completely out of proportion to what they actually can produce, now that they are outside the "Firm."

He is a complete dolt. She better go back to acting to support their lavish lifestyle.

Mayrlife resort in Austria where Fergie is recuperating is quite nice. Don't get me wrong I hope she recovers but I wonder how she or Andrew affords this kind of place.

Most colectomies/sigmoidectomies (bowel re-sections) do not result in even temporary colostomy bags.

[quote]Most colectomies/sigmoidectomies (bowel re-sections) do not result in even temporary colostomy bags.

Especially if it’s not cancer-related as they are claiming.

I feel these things need to be discussed.

This is not a female problem it’s a serious life threatening illness that is keeping her in the hospital this long.

Whatever surgery she had went very wrong and this happens daily but I’m sure the royal family never expected it happen to one of their own and that’s why they had to release a statement. If the kids have not been taken to visit her I interpret that as she is not able to communicate with them so why bother to take them.

[quote] This is not a female problem it’s a serious life threatening illness that is keeping her in the hospital this long.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Women can die of gynecological problems.

“Not able to communicate” with her children, R404? Are you suggesting that she’s comatose on top of all the other conjectures?

The body can only take so many abortions.

Kate was reckless. Now she’s paying the price.

I see that the Celebitchy and RoyalDish crew have arrived.

I don't want to start rumors, but I heard it's terminal.

The temporary colostomy is done when a resection must be done because of septic shock, but the bowel is too inflamed at that time to successfully heal. I don’t think she had a temporary colostomy since my understanding is that would be six months out of commission. Three months is standard for a “no bag” resection.

So she was doing a self-induced abortion with a wire hanger and had been drinking to dull the pain of her IBS, so she went up too far, perforated her uterus, and nicked her colon, which required a hysterectomy and a colon resection, after which she stroked out and is now comatose on machines.

Do I have that right?

I'm about to have a bowel resection in March, Elderlez, and my surgeons and doctors have said I'll be only out of commission for two weeks after the surgery, and that in six weeks I should be back to normal entirely.

No, 411 you missed the part where she shaved off her hair in honor of Sinead O’Connor and was the. forced to wear bad wigs chosen by the Duchess of Sussex and the Hanbury mistress.

Sounds like Kate is a messy bitch!

R412 good luck! I was back to work in six weeks over the objection of the short term leave people who authorized three months. Take the three months if you need it, i didn’t have full strength until then. You might feel the outline of your outline of your internal stoma for even longer. It’s weird, but OK.

[quote]r411 So she was doing a self-induced abortion with a wire hanger and had been drinking to dull the pain of her IBS, so she went up too far, perforated her uterus, and nicked her colon, which required a hysterectomy and a colon resection, after which she stroked out and is now comatose on machines. Do I have that right?

Well, that’s what the police are working with, anyway.

I don’t imagine it was a wire hanger, though. She’d have to sneak one onto the grounds. But there are antique hatpins and even long sabers around the palaces, just there for the taking.

It may be that something elaborate (like an intricately carved and engraved saber) wasn’t disinfected properly, and that’s where it all started to go wrong.

It’s all very sad.

The colon-surgery theories sound most plausible to me, and I wonder if adhesions were the complication, requiring resection. Or perhaps she caught a serious hospital-acquired infection, such as one of the drug-resistant ones.

R411: Nope. You forgot the wig.

Not funny but it's what I heard as well, R416.

Her system might be in shock because the hospital forced her to eat (?)

It wasn't a sword or a hatpin, it was the Koh-i-Noor. She shoved it up there and the curse consumed her.

Plus there's the diplomatic incident because India also now claims her severed uterus.

[quote]He is a complete dolt. She better go back to acting to support their lavish lifestyle.

If her low IQ Celebitches think we're bad, wait until the reviews come in from paid critics.

Her only acting talent is faux-victim, R422.

Can I have her willie?

No one gives a rats arse about old ladies innards.

I thought the hospital she appeared to have been taken to on 12/28 was different than the hospital she is in now. No evidence of a transfer?

If her kids haven't been there it may be because she has an IV and all kinds of bells and whistles, and she may be heavily sedated, not comatose. it's very jarring for your loved ones to see you in such a state. Especially since she is a vigorous athletic type. The other thing to know is that people talk about being overweight a lot, but if you get real sick, and you lose a few pounds you are OK whereas if you are already rail thin and you lose even more wait it weakens you and puts a strain on your heart.

Yeah I don’t think she wants her kids to see the current state she’s in that would traumatize them. That may be the reason why they haven’t seen their mother.

Or maybe they went in via a private entrance and the paps didn’t see? They only caught William leaving not arriving.

If she has a serious infection she might be in isolation, where you aren't allowed visitors or the #/time spent with them is very, very limited.

[quote] She better go back to acting to support their lavish lifestyle.

Acting in a revival of my hit show, "Sssyuitsss"!

R431 maybe the hospital rules are keeping the kids away. Kids go to school and they pickup every germ known to mankind. So the hospital may not want the kids to come yet because of flu or COVID or whatever.

No kids allowed.

^ Children: for the safety of our patients, we do not permit any children or babies to visit. Any special requests for children to visit must be approved by the Matrons. If approved, children must be accompanied by a responsible adult who will look after them throughout the visit.

Hmmm... do you suppose Matron says yes?

It’s like the kids have just… moved on.

OK, so Kate was pregnant, and like Rosemary's Baby, the fetus was causing her hair to fall out.

Meanwhile, William was fucking his mistress constantly, and they dared Kate to shave her head and wear a wig in tribute to Sinead O'Connor.

So Kate wore a wig, but the fetus was so unruly she had to do a self-induced abortion with a wire hanger. She had been drinking to dull the pain of her IBS, so she went up too far, perforated her uterus, and nicked her colon, which required a hysterectomy and a colon resection, after which she stroked out and is now comatose on machines.

Is that the story so far?

You forgot the colostomy bag, R437. Do keep up.

It would be ironical if she had to live out her remaining years in a sterile bubble as many have complained that living in the public eye is akin to living life in a sterile bubble.

There is no such word as ironical, the term is ironic.

[quote] There is no such person as "Princess Meghan" and never will be.

I remember one of the youtube ghouls, Lady C or River, saying that if they got a divorce, Meghan would then be the Princess Henry.

Ugh. Would she want to be? Probably.

If this is a the result of a long-standing colon condition and she has a good recovery she could end up in Diana at her peak territory in terms of popularity. The big criticism of her has been laziness. But she’s been sick. It would also put the anorexia / bulimia rumors to rest.

I thought this was interesting... a doctor who routinely writes the Daily Mail (which is why I didn't link) describing what sounds like pretty minor abdominal surgery for a garden variety ailment, done by laparoscope. It may be what ails Kate is being somewhat overstated in terms of the seriousness of the condition being treated?

"Abdominal surgery is serious. Of course, there’s always someone who will tell you how they had a hysterectomy in their lunch break, or their appendix removed while on the school run. But in reality we should all be taking a leaf out of Kate’s book and convalescing properly.

I, too, have recently had abdominal surgery — like Kate, in a private hospital — and, looking back, wish I’d appreciated how major my operation was and taken the time needed to recover.

Mine was for a hernia, which isn’t life-threatening — it’s where a part of the bowel protrudes through a weak spot in the abdominal muscles into the groin — although the surgeon was worried it might become strangulated (where the bowel loses blood supply and dies).

I had keyhole surgery, which I erroneously thought meant the process would be minor. I’ve worked in surgery and really should have known better. My surgeon tried to explain it simply meant the scars would be small, but the operation itself was still serious, even though I’d only be in hospital for a day or so. Ha! How I dismissed his warnings.

By coincidence, two of my neighbours had similar operations. I’d bumped into one only a week after he was discharged and he was out for a jog. How serious can it really be? I asked myself. I’ll be up and running around the next day.

I was mistaken. The operation involved dissecting the muscles from my belly button into my groin, pulling the wayward bowel back into place and sewing a mesh in place to patch up the holes.

I was so sure I’d be fighting fit after the op I arranged to meet friends for lunch the very next day and told work I’d do a few calls and only needed a couple days off before I’d be back in person.

The moment I woke up from the anaesthetic, I realised this had been a mistake.

While some have the operation as a day case, everyone is different. Due to complications, I ended up staying in hospital for two days and unfortunately went into urinary retention (meaning I couldn’t pee) and it took six weeks before my bladder went back to normal.

But what I’d failed to appreciate was that the pain, discomfort and tenderness meant I could hardly walk for a week. And when I did, the discomfort was such that I couldn’t walk upright.

I had to wear loose tracksuits for three weeks. I usually wear smart trousers to work which would have been too uncomfortable. Just the thought still makes me wince, let alone the fact that without my usual uniform — my armour, if you will, that gives us the courage to face the world — I felt on the back foot.

Heaven help me if I’d been royalty like Kate whose every outfit is scrutinised!

On the surgeon’s insistence I had to call work and explain that, in fact, I’d have to take a few weeks off — and he banned me from the gym for six months. Six months! He made me promise to spend a full three weeks resting at home, which I dutifully did and when I returned to work, I was surprised at how tired and weak I felt.

Interestingly, shortly afterwards, I bumped into the neighbour who’d been so gung-ho when I met him jogging straight after his operation. He looked sheepish. He’d burst his stitches and had had to go back into hospital just after I’d seen him.

I'm sorry for posting R433.

I don't want to deprive anyone of the self-care that comes from detecting her nicked internal organs following the hysterectomy needed because of the self-induced abortion due to IBS related hair loss. Anyway, we won't know until she's out of the coma and off life support.

[quote]There is no such word as ironical, the term is ironic.

Not a particularly egregious distinction on this thread.

That’s pretty much it, r437, but you forgot to mention the whole thing was planned and put in motion by Charlotte who will be taking charge a bit earlier than expected.

[quote]If [William] doesn't find a wife, then he's leaving the female duties to his young daughter, which wouldn't be right.

When we in the Firm require the moral philosophising of our subjects, rest assured we will ask.

R443 TL, DR: I was too lazy to educate myself on the very basics of a typical hernia repair, which made life more difficult for myself.

If I recall correctly, the poster who originally brought to our attention the little convoy on December 28, which was back in Part 1, said it appeared to be headed for King Edward VII Hospital. Dataloungers had already said that was the hospital most commonly favoured by Royals.

My speculation is therefore that Kate WAS taken to KE VII on 28 December, and that most likely they said she was OK and sent her home, whereas she very much wasn't. That therefore when she needed to be readmitted they skipped that hospital and went to the London Clinic, where she is today. If that happened, it's possible something went from urgent to really bad news (in the same way that an appendix can go from inflamed and needing to be removed to bursting and causing sepsis if it's neglected--looking at you, Colbert).

Misdiagnosed pancreatitis would be a very bad one, as would a bowel condition that ultimately resulted in the bowel bursting or bleeding into the abdomen, because even if the operation to fix it went well, if the numerous bacteria and viruses normally contained within the bowel were flung into the abdominal cavity in the original event, post-operative infection is a real danger. If our timeline is right she could have already had a raging infection when the operation occurred, and the operation would have made it worse, but would have been unavoidable because without it you couldn't stop the source of the infection. In this case they'd be inundating her with antibiotics and/or antivirals and hoping for the best. It would take a very long time to recover from something like that because obviously you'd be very ill to start with, but then that amount of antibiotic would destroy most of your normal defences along with the infection. They wouldn't want to be exposing her to the public until she recovered from that aspect.

BREAKING :Her pussy is beginning to smell. Hold me David!

I don’t know if I’ve ever seen so much uninformed self confident bluster in one thread before. “If” and “would” and “would” and “could” all in one sentence with a conclusion at the end is wild.

People with no medical training (or especially even with medical training) speculating on someone’s health in 2023 with no access to any information??? Shameless. And fwiw I cannot stand the whole lot of the BRF. Every last one of them.

R440 There is such a word as ignorant.

ironical in American English (aiˈrɑnɪkəl) adjective. 1. pertaining to, of the nature of, exhibiting, or characterized by irony or mockery.

[quote] People with no medical training (or especially even with medical training) speculating on someone’s health in 2023 with no access to any information??? Shameless

Yes. Isn’t it marvelous?

It’s 2024 you pompous fuck R451

R454 bahah good point. I’m jet lagged 😂😭😭😭

R451, this is a GOSSIP message board. What do you expect us to talk about?

R456 I dunno, something more intelligent, and less nasty. I know I said I can’t stand the royals, but you people claim to love them, and this kind of speculation about someone’s health when they’re clearly going through a fairly serious health crisis….to me is such a trashy exercise.

And the “if our timeline is correct” and then acting like that “if” doesn’t mean everything that comes after is totally redundant just says a lot about the mental abilities of the main group of posters here. Not a good look for the board. And yes I know I just mixed up what year it is lol so I don’t really have a leg to stand on but I did just wake up after 27hrs of traveling so I have some sort of excuse.

R451 is another one who wants notarized gossip and bitchiness.

I have no idea what exactly is causing you to dismiss my mental abilities, R457. The "If" refers to whether Kate presented at not one but two hospitals within days of each other. We have some evidence that this was the case, but not confirmation. Everything that I said after that is still plausible even if she didn't go to two hospitals, but more readily explicable if she did.

What you think "redundant" means is a whole other matter.

Trashy? On Datalounge?

Heaven forfend!

Not a good look for the board, r457? Is this your first day here?

[quote] We have some evidence that this was the case, but not confirmation.

Correct.

[quote] Everything that I said after that is still plausible

You could say any bullshit in the world you like after that and it would be “still plausible”, this is the part you’re not getting.

You sound stupid because you’ll use 20+ conditionals to setup the next sentence where you’ll use definitive language to give emphasis to your opinion as if it’s objective without any sense of how dumb that is. You know nothing about this case. There are umpteen different versions of what could be happening to her, and you have no access to that information nor any specific knowledge of the case. The only people that do are her, her family and her doctors. None of whom are either volunteering information (her and her family) or in a position to volunteer that information (her doctors and nurses). That is what what you said is redundant. And sorry to use you as an example (there are so many worse in the thread) but you were the most recent when I commented and I was lazy.

R460 / R461 I don’t mind the usual trashy fairly harmless speculation about people’s relationships or work drama or whatever have you, but medical speculation has always been unappealing to me, especially when it seems like it’s serious.

“You people?”

And you want us to be more intelligent?

R457, and worse, the adoption of cooked up theory as established fact and the thing rolls on and on.

Case in point, the snippet of footage of a convoy in London on December 28th - near a hospital where royals have received treatment but not the hospital where the operation was scheduled and completed before the announcement all was not well. There's no proof she was in it. There's no proof it arrived at the hospital. Could it have been a VIP convoy headed elsewhere? Of course it could. But it's now close to accepted fact Kate was rushed to hospital in London on December 28th.

You think of DL as peopled by more smart than your average message board but when they start playing doctor on the internet they may as well be Reddit or Celebitchy. It's quite disappointing. And why do I say our angry medics asked? To challenge your lunacy and because it's fun to take the piss out of you. And come on, don't block... if your theories are that good they can withstand people who think you're full of fantastic shit.

[quote]If our timeline is right she could have already had a raging infection when the operation occurred, and the operation would have made it worse, but would have been unavoidable because without it you couldn't stop the source of the infection.

If your timeline is right there was no need for scheduled surgery, which this was. But, of course, they're lying about that. Because they always lie when something doesn't fit with the theory, right?

R458, this isn't gossip. This is conspiracy theories and like all conspiracy theories you sound like barking mad morons.

[quote]The "If" refers to whether Kate presented at not one but two hospitals within days of each other.

December 28th and January 17th.

Is 21 days - which is three weeks by my calculation - really presenting "within days"? You tell me.

We are well aware that we are inside a speculative bubble in a dark room.

We are not pretending to be journalists.

Relax

R463 there is nothing wrong with “you prople” in a casual context like this (I’m not writing my thesis), I was referring to a specific group of commenters within this thread so voila.

You continue to be an absolutely waste of space as per usual.

[quote]So Kate wore a wig, but the fetus was so unruly she had to do a self-induced abortion with a wire hanger. She had been drinking to dull the pain of her IBS, so she went up too far, perforated her uterus, and nicked her colon, which required a hysterectomy and a colon resection, after which she stroked out and is now comatose on machines.

For those of us who got us to this point, honest question, what are you trying to accomplish with these theories and how does it make you feel?

Also, what is your level of education?

*people

wow I need to sleep.

[quote]We are well aware that we are inside a speculative bubble in a dark room.

Doesn't really seem that way, to be honest.

[quote] what are you trying to accomplish with these theories

Laughter.

Well, mission accomplished, R474.

OP, isn't it about time to start thread III? God forbid somebody beats you to the thrill.

Thanks, but I didn’t write it. However, unlike some people, I can recognize sarcasm.

I blocked R451 and now half the posts in this thread are missing.

Oh, God, the one thing worse than recipe king is back for the day.

R478 is lying. That was my first post in this thread. Go ahead check. How embarrassing.

Don't sweat it, R480. R478 has obvious mental health issues. Terrible presence on the board. No wit, no insight, just manifestations of what's wrong with him.

We're talking about a crime. You must think on a different level, like the BRF does. We're through the looking glass. White is black. And black is white. Maybe Kate is just what she said she was. A patsy.

Girls, girls, if you don’t like gossiping about Kate, there are a couple of thousand of other DL threads that would welcome your “wit.”

R481 Sylvia is a great contributor to DL. I think maybe this isn’t the board for you. You’re a tad too sensitive, hon.

R484 that commenter (SF) just barefaced lied about my posting on this thread for some reason. And it’s not like you can’t check that for yourself to see if it’s true or not. Weird behaviour. Is that what you’d call a great contribution? It’s not a lack of sensitivity on anyone’s part it’s just pointing out that he’s fucking nuts.

R484, I'll take the toughest any day. I tangled LeeAnne Devette. What I don't stomach is the stupid, the mentally ill or the weak. So have a think, hon, before you give me any advice.

Also, where'd ya get the idea anybody cares what you think?

Thanks for proving my point, r485/r486. It’s rare that someone just completely and utterly proves another person’s post. A tad too sensitive for DL.

Btw you tangled with LeeAnne Devette? THE LeeAnne Devette?? Tell us all about it!

R488 I don’t think.

Pointing out that someone is lying ≠ being too sensitive. This is fairly straightforward.

R480 That’s funny. You might want to speak to Muriel because someone’s messing with your account - R480 is the tenth post under the same account used to post R480.

Are you saying you’re not R480 but responding as 480?

R490 I’m saying that the post that 478 mentioned (451) was my first post on this thread. Not my only post. Since then I have posted 10 comments. That poster said I had contributed half the posts on this thread. 10/490 is not 50% lol. “First post” ≠ “only post”. By the time 478 posted I had only posted 6 posts. Are you following? Jesus.

Ironical was used a very long time ago. It’s been outdated for at least a hundred years. Do a search of its frequency of use vs. ironic.

Final judgment: ironical is not considered a correct word choice

r492, for what insane reason do you think we would ever accept you rather than the dictionary as deciding the final judgment?

Merriam-Webster says "ironical" is less common that "ironic" but it does not consider it either archaic or obsolete. It is thus perfectly acceptable.

This is moronical.

Yes, you are at that, r494.

It is less common because it is not used any more. QED

it does not consider it either archaic or obsolete… Where does it say that at the link? Did you make that up?

Frequency of use ⤵️⬇️

I'm really questioning two things. Re. the fact there haven't been any pictures of the kids visiting, I feel we're not even sure they're really her kids. And second, has anybody here ever been to that hospital? I suspect may not even exist. My gut tells me she was in that convoy, but they were on there way to an emergency extension appointment and that's why it never arrived at the other hospital.

[quote]Could Kate have been inducing her own abortion, and something went wrong?

Where do you people come up with this shit?

R500, it's almost funny, except it's so fucking out there.

The Rapture has started and she is the first!

[quote]r442 If this is a the result of a long-standing colon condition and she has a good recovery she could end up in Diana at her peak territory in terms of popularity.

But will the People embrace ass cancer? And colostomy bags?

I have my doubts.

[quote] Could Kate have been inducing her own abortion, and something went wrong?

Abortion by flinging oneself down a flight of stairs is the best method to avoid a nasty womb infection. Silly cow should have known that!

Kate has not given an interview.

[italic]WHAT ARE THEY HIDING ? ?

R500/r501, it’s sarcasm. That’s why it’s “out there.”

Has anyone checked the cabins?

England started insisting on being called UK after they lost India, and accelerated their demands to be called UK after all the other former colonies bolted. When The British empire collapsed, the English decided they needed to ape the new world superpower - the United States - and call themselves The United Kingdom.

You’ll notice there was no “UK Army” in WW2.

As a general rule of thumb, if someone writes something on Datalounge that’s way “out there,” it is probably safest to assume that they are being sarcastic. We do have our share of lunatics, but we have far more ironicals.

Almost completely incorrect, R508.

There’s no UK Army now.

It’s called the British Army.

R508. From one American to another: you’re an idiot. The United Kingdom was created in 1801 by an Act of Union.

Oooh should we get into the nuances between United Kingdom, Great Britain and the British Isles?

I am sure THAT would be fascinating.

R511, please don't interrupt R508 when he's making shit up. We're trying to see how far this thread can actually get.

R513: “Now a warning?”

R513 seriously how elder is elder. Nobody has used the defunct ‘British isles’ for decades. And no Irish person has ever used that term. It’s never been used except by some dopey English people that don’t know any better because….well you know.

You seem irony impaired R516.

What I find fascinating about posters like R508 is that they write with such conviction about a bunch of “facts” that they pulled out of their arse, never expecting that they’ll get called on it by people who know better.

The tl;dr version of this thread is that we're no closer to having the foggiest idea what's wrong with Kate than we were last Wednesday.

The IOC lets them get away with calling their Olympic team Great Britain. I’d say that’s an insult to the Northern Irish, but then they have a choice to compete for GBR or Ireland (Republic of) at the Games.

No, but I feel certain we can make credible diagnoses with regard to the intellectual and mental health status of a lot of DLers.

We've gone from wigs to resected bowels to miscarriages to secret pregnancies to arguing about ironical and the origins of usage of "UK". Only on Datalounge.

R522, I still remember when the thread about Carrie Fisher being in intensive care turned into a discussion about the size of her father's dick.

As one does - -

R457 "I can’t stand the royals"

R525 if hating something or someone precluded someone from commenting on a thread about said thing or person, this website wouldn’t last the week.

"Oooh should we get into the nuances between United Kingdom, Great Britain and the British Isles?" - There aren't any, r513.

The people of Northern Ireland consider themselves either British or Irish, r520.

There actually are, but they are super boring R527.

I was joking about the tedious nature of the discussion, but since you apparently need educating here’s a link. About the UK vs. Great Britain. I’ll try to find a British Isles link in a minute.

This one has a nice map for this tedious topic.

R528 yes I already know that —which is why I made mention of them having an option when it comes to international sporting events.

Can someone explain the difference between England and the UK?

TIA!

Bad teeth vs. worse teeth

It’s like the difference between Russia and the USSR only the tea is in a kettle, not a samovar.

[quote]R532 Can someone explain the difference between England and the UK? TIA!

[quote]r533 Bad teeth vs. worse teeth

It’s been rumored Kate’s vagina has teeth.

Maybe she had to have an impacted molar extracted or something?

BREAKING: Palace releases new photo of Duchess of Cambridge.

Shed looks in the pink!

^ Katie is a gusty lady.

Is she out of the coma yet?

I just watched the episode of The Crown that introduces her. I didn’t know she stalked William so aggressively. The show blames her mother, but it was Catherine’s life. My admiration for her has gone up tremendously. Well done, you. I can see where Charlotte gets her nerve. Now get up! We love you.

It's The Crown. You still don't know anything. You may as well watch The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement.

I hope she comes out of the hospital with a set of bazooms that shoot lazer beams.

Fembot Catherine!

Can’t imagine the show made up that she changed universities, and delayed a year to wind up in his class. Of course it might have been a coincidence.

What happens if she doesn't make it? Will the kids have to walk behind her casket? How long does William wait to start publicly dating? Where would the funeral be?

Re r530–Who do those Manx think they are?

Those manxes are minxes.

So what would cause her to be hospitalized for two weeks? She doesn't look like a drug addict or alcoholic. Eating disorder? Suicide attempt?

She’s fairly intelligent, according to Wikipedia. It says she was accepted to University of Edinburgh but took a gap year instead and then enrolled at St. Andrew. She had excellent grades there. It’s anyone’s guess what her motives were, but they did line up perfectly with meeting William.

It looks like she’s still in the hospital, so it def is serious.

I suspect she's got the same thing as Lloyd Austin. I feel it's the same time frame so my gut tells me that's it.

I didn’t realize people believe everything that is presented in television dramatizations.

It's the dropsy.

But, R549, there was music.

R549. It's the fact that people aren't taught the real facts in school anymore, and they don't read, so what they get on TV is their "truth."

[quote] suspect she's got the same thing as Lloyd Austin. I feel it's the same time frame so my gut tells me that's it.

Prostate cancer? Interesting theory.

R539, are you that dumb? The Crown is fiction. It even invented a fictional girlfriend for William (played by Tilda Swinton's daughter) to invent drama that never existed.

Is there a link to the original source that claimed Kate switched to St Andrews after learning that William was going there?

[QUOTE]Those manxes are minxes.

Not if they're cats.

They aren’t UK cats for sure!

Yes, the Crown is fiction, but it’s not complete fiction. They can speculate about what is not known, but they don’t make up facts that are are inconsistent with what is known.

[quote] However, it is true that Kate switched from the University of Edinburgh to St. Andrews. Jasper Selwyn, the careers advisor at Middleton’s boarding school, told Nicholl she was originally accepted at the former university. A switch may not have been as strategic as The Crown implies, she wrote: “When the news was announced in 2000 that Prince William would be spending his university years at the small Scottish university of St. Andrews, Kate suddenly bailed out of Edinburgh University 50 miles away and reapplied at St. Andrews. Andrew Neil, a former rector at St. Andrews, told me it is not uncommon for students to apply for both universities and decide at the last minute, often depending on where friends are going.”

[quote]Instead, Kate took a gap year. She spent some of it studying art history in Florence before heading to Chile. As it turns out, William attended the same South American program a mere few weeks earlier. Was it a coincidence or a strategy? It’s impossible to deduce. But Brown has this to say: “Kate had a Zelig-like ability to keep appearing on the edges of William’s life.

Yea. There is probably nothing in the Crown that is original to it. Everything they present has been speculated by many people previously. I’m not sure what your point. is. It is still moronic to trust anything it presents unless it is supported by well verified sources .

I could speculate you are a pedophile since that isn’t inconsistent with what is known. I could speculate the Queen Mother dined on human babies since that is not inconsistent with what is known.

Why ever cite a silly tv show as a source?

Is Nicholl as accurate as say, Robert Hardman, r558? It's rather odd for a careers advisor to divulge students' personal information to random reporters, especially at a fee-paying school like Marlborough. Not to say Kate didn't switch university, although she'd have to have needed to go through clearing for that and St Andrews is a top university that probably has very few clearing spaces, if any. I'm sure the university authorities would have been even more circumspect in the year William started there, especially with random people who hadn't even applied to the university trying to get onto William's course at the last minute. Kate would have been extremely lucky to get a last-minute place, especially as applicants to St Andrews for the year William was starting there had risen by 44%.

In any case, according to that Vogue article, Nicholl gives the impression that William went after Kate.

I find the scenario that Kate (and her mother?) plotted to trap William hilarious.

Did they know who William was? Of course. The whole planet knew who William was.

Did they know what school he would be attending? Sure. So did most of the UK and the USA and Europe, etc.

The supposed plot that "trapped" William just sounds silly. Women of all types, ages, races, nationalities, etc. had their eye on William.

As a result, he was most likely an expert at recognizing the games women played to get his attention.

To conjure the idea that he would be unwittingly "caught" implies that he would not have been long aware and wary of any and all women who he crossed paths with.

I remember around the time of the William and Kate engagement, someone asked her if she had had a poster of William on her wall. She hesitated before answering and William popped in with "Tell the truth" in a laughing way and she admitted that yes, she did.

Damn, he was really beautiful with that blond hair as a young guy. Who wouldn't want THAT picture on their wall?

[quote] Why ever cite a silly tv show as a source?

Source for what? A satirical DL post. Yes, one must be much more diligent in such a serious endeavor.

Why? Because I happened to watch the silly TV show just before I posted.

As I suspected, Kate did in fact decide to switch universities and take a gap year after William’s plans were made public. I had some confidence that the show would not make that up if it didn’t happen because it would be easily disproved.

In contrast, the show can speculate about what happened between Dodd and Diana at the Ritz the night they died, because no one knows what happened. Even if people had speculated that he proposed and she turned him down, I would not consider what the show presented as any kind of evidence.

The show made up a scene where Carol and Kate met William and Diana. It may stray near what happened but it is fanfic.

The show completely distorted the Margaret/Peter Townsend romance, making it seem like the queen and/or parliament broke them up when actually Margaret just got tired of him.

R563, wasn’t Diana long gone when Kate came into William’s life? How could they have concocted such a scene?

All of the private moments are made up. But publicly verifiable information has to be respected.

I was curious about the 1945 Ritz incident. Turns out it was based on a true story, but there is no jazz club in the basement of the Ritz. As if.

The scene took place when Catherine was 15.

The list is pretty long.

r554 there were aristocratic girlfriends of William's just before Kate. There may have been some brief overlap with one or two of them: Rose Farquhar, Olivia Hunt, and Carly Massy-Birch. The latter two were squeezes of his at St Andrews, just before he hooked up with Kate.

[quote]What happens if she doesn't make it? Will the kids have to walk behind her casket? How long does William wait to start publicly dating? Where would the funeral be?

1- they will have a semi-private royal funeral and bury her 2- probably not. Way too young 3 - A year at very minimum, more likely two. Doesn't mean he won't be catting around in private 4 - at the Abbey or more likely St. Georges/Windsor (like Prince Philip). She's not an heir or Queen Consort, so perhaps not the full-on treatment. Definitely not a state funeral. Burial at St. George's or at Frogmore.

Lola Airdale-Cavendish-Kincaid is a fictional character, r569, as were the scenes she was in.

[quote]What happens if she doesn't make it? Will the kids have to walk behind her casket? How long does William wait to start publicly dating? Where would the funeral be?

Interesting sequence.

[quote]She's not an heir or Queen Consort, so perhaps not the full-on treatment. Definitely not a state funeral. Burial at St. George's or at Frogmore.

This funeral will be bigger than Diana's.

Kate is pretty popular and the only persistent, substantial criticism of her has been her light schedule.

Hopefully she’ll have a good recovery and if she does and her illness was the result of a long-standing bowel condition that she has been powering through for 20 years she’s going to be untouchable. She’s going to eclipse Will in popularity and any real or perceived slight on his part is going to be picked apart and criticized.

Will doesn’t seem like the kind of person who will deal well with that change in power dynamic. It’s been said that Charles didn’t like Diana’s popularity. I don’t think Will minds his wife being popular or even more popular that him, up to a point. But whether he has cheated or not and whether he wants to or not, I don’t think he’s going to like the idea that now it will be viewed differently. It’s taking the option away from him and I don’t think he likes being told what he can or cannot do by circumstance or the media. He doesn’t seem like someone who responds well when their cheese gets moved.

[quote]Kate is pretty popular and the only persistent, substantial criticism of her has been her light schedule.

Which is quite unfair.

The arrangement has always been the two of them would concentrate on raising their children, ideally to produce a stable next generation. You want another Prince Andrew? The bullshitters paint it like she's by the pool tanning or shopping. Not true.

I posted part 3 and made it a royal family discussion thread, in case anyone was interested in Charles, too :). Fill this thread up first.

[QUOTE]Those manxes are minxes.

[QUOTE]]Not if they're cats.

[QUOTE]They aren’t UK cats for sure!

R556 here. I'm afraid I erred. It turns out they are UK 😸. I did a little research on Manx cats (feline lover and my godmother had a Manx when I was a kid). The breed originates from the Isle of Man! I didn't know that. So manxes *can* be minxes, but not all of them.

R575. Unfortunately, Andrew is one the Queen had the most time with. The two that turned out the most capable were the ones she was able to spend the least time with.

[quote] What happens if she doesn't make it? Will the kids have to walk behind her casket?

I doubt they will ever make the mistake again of having children in the BRF under the age of 18 walk in a cortege behind a casket in public given how negatively both William and especially Harry reacted to doing it.

Goodness, R561. Watch the video. She admits she had a poster of the Marlborough man...

This thread has gone boring.

When will Kate wheel herself onto a hospital balcony?

Anyone know if she’s still in the hospital? Bueller?

It was a fictional character r571 but one that was based on and a loose amalgamation of former actual gfs of William's. Was my point.

Have they decided to pull the plug on her yet?

Sorry, R576, but you linked back to THIS thread.

I think this is the part 3 you started:

Thanks r385 you’re right.

Oh geez, I’ll put the martini now and quit for the night. Obv. I meant r585 above.

No one criticises Kate for her supposed "light schedule", especially since she has three small kids.

And my point, r583, is that Lola Airdale-Cavendish-Kincaid was an entirely made-up character, devised solely as a plot device and for dramatic purposes.

We know she's supposed to represent William's previous girlfriends, but the representation we see is fictional - as is so much of The Crown. Anyone saying "We know from The Crown that..." is an idiot.

Is the funeral planned yet?

R588 indeed they do. William and Kate are the most criticized Royals for being lazy.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I’m surprised that word has not leaked out. It’s been a week?

All we know from The Crown is you gotta fact check everything you think you know from The Crown.

Does anybody read the silence over Kate's situation as good news?

Hanging over media is the last time Kate was in hospital a nurse wound up dead after being pranked by nosy radio hosts. So media might not want to go for two.

But is it possible media have somehow been convinced off the record that this is complicated but fine and told what's really going on. I find the silence weird. It has been a full week and there's not even a bunch of no content "Brave Kate with a week to go in hospital" tabloid bullshit. Nothing. Not even photos of William or the parents coming to see her. If they haven't been told anything I don't expect they'll stop digging. But if they had been told something I can see tools down. It's weird.

R593, People magazine has a short story about the timeline. They said people close to the family who work closely with and see Catherine regularly had no idea this was coming. Over the Christmas holidays they were at Anmer Hall and spent time socializing and going on outing s with friends and children outdoors, etc. Everything was completely normal. But then around the second week of January everything started to change schedule wise. Catherine's calendar remained tentative, up in the air, and William started re arranging his as well. I think this is a GI problem.

All of the working royals are required to file funeral plans r590. The King's is a major document, involving pre-planning with hundreds of people, it will be a State event.

If Catherine were to pass in her current role as PoW, she's notentitled to a State funeral and all of the public funding that would entail. It would be a large-scale, yet private funeral much like Diana had. Although the crowds and public interest would be large, I don't know if they'd pip for a big ceremony in London at Westminster Abbey. The kids are so young, and they've been pretty private - I'd guess William would want more privacy at St. Georges, no cameras if possible although that wish might be overruled.

If she were already gone, would they have to announce it right away? Could they wait a few days? A week?

Diana did not have a private funeral. She had a non-state funeral.

Why do people think she's going to die? Certain types of operation have a long recovery time.

R597, I'm not sure Catherine would have a state funeral even if she were Queen. She might have a ceremonial funeral, as the Queen Mother, Diana and Philip did. But, she's not going to be the head of state herself. Same with Camilla - she is Queen but not head of state, so she won't get a state funeral either.