King Charles’ Cancer Is Incurable, Bombshell Report Suggests

After they announced that the whole family was getting together at Sandringham for Christmas, I assumed Charles wouldn't make it another year.

The Daily Beast doesn't understand the meaning of a "bombshell" revelation. Now had his cancer responded well to treatment and was regarded as fully in remission...that might be a bombshell.

Doesn't it always take around a decade or so before oncologists say with some certainty that the cancer has been cured? At least the kind that spread prior to treatment. So this is all just technical distinction.

Still, it's good news that he won't die of cancer, means he'll hang around for some time.

Paywall

The whole family always gets together at Sandringham for Christmas, R1.

Is the Daily Beast reliable? Not being sarcastic, I know nothing about it (and I don't trust Google on this sort of thing).

Sadly, I think he will still be Charles The Brief.

He’s wealthy, he’s the King, but he’s always had terrible luck. He’s just sort of a flop. Nothing special and the poor guy is following a tough act.

I wish it had been Anne. She’s got moxie and unlike her Aunt, doesn’t seem like a complete bitch.

I'm ready, and so is the future King Henry IX!

[quote]The report, by the respected royal writer and associate editor of the U.K. Daily Telegraph, Camilla Tominey, also claimed that Charles will never move into Buckingham Palace due to his health struggles.

More twisted bullshit. It had been known for many years that Charles didn't like Buckingham Palace as a residence and never intended to move in once he became king. Besides, why would "health struggles" preclude him from moving into Buckingham Palace, which could easily be adapted to his needs? He still works from the palace.

Doctors never say that cancer is cured, or that it can be. They'll dance around "remission" and similar words, but no one ever says it is cured or that they can cure it.

r6 Not even remotely. Royal family leaks come from purposeful tips to the press authorised by the family member or their handlers. Or leaks from staff that the press pay for. Neither of those parties are likely running to spill the beans to an American online news site when the Mail and Sun are right there and offer larger readership and bigger pay-outs.

No one has ever liked living in Buckingham Palace. It's cold and too large.

It only became a royal primary residence because an 18 year-old Queen Victoria wanted to live apart from her mother (who lived in Kensington Palace) when she assumed the throne. She then spent as much time as she could at her other palaces as she got older and realized how uncomfortable Buck House is.

Thank you, R11.

[quote] Royal family leaks come from purposeful tips to the press authorised by the family member or their handlers. Or leaks from staff that the press pay for. Neither of those parties are likely running to spill the beans to an American online news site when the Mail and Sun are right there and offer larger readership and bigger pay-outs.

Didn't this news come originally from a reporter with the Daily Telegraph?

Incurable Wanker

It's amazing that no one has leaked the type of cancer Charles has.

r14 Yes but the Telegraphs article is on should Charles and Harry make up and just briefly mentions the King has cancer but isn't going to die of it and doesn't want to move into Buckingham palace as a random offhand . DB and Celebitchys more sensational pot stirring take on reading that is "shock news king dead by 2027!". I suppose the equivalent opposite example would be like if a New York Times article on Trumps mental decline getting reposted in The Critic or something as "Trump imminently dead from aggressive Alzheimer's" (we can only hope).

Can I have his stuff?

If he will die “with” but not “of” his cancer, then he has lymphoma.

[quote] It's amazing that no one has leaked the type of cancer Charles has.

My guess is now prostate cancer because men often die with it, not from it.

[quote]My guess is now prostate cancer because men often die with it, not from it.

That's what I thought, as well.

After a certain age, they usually don't aggressively treat it to try to cure it because the cure can be almost worse than the disease from what I've heard.

Not 100% true, R10. Colon cancer, for instance, if it is removed via surgery before any spread gets labeled as “cured.” Though I know that is not what Charles has.

It’s that thing by his rectum. Duh

Does it not seem a little wrong for them not to clearly state what he has? He is the head of state. Saying someone has cancer but refusing to state the type just seems unnecessarily mysterious. For what reason?

Feels like they're scripting a high-drama series. No one knows what he has, or how bad it is, or when he may die - STAY TUNED for more episodes!

And I do feel sorry for the guy - waiting his whole life to be King at an old age and gets handed THIS. I have a feeling he hasn't experienced a lot of joy in life - seriously. If your main sense of joy comes from Camilla, I mean - c'mon.

Bombshell? More like water is wet.

[quote] Does it not seem a little wrong for them not to clearly state what he has? He is the head of state.

To me this seems alright for a head of state with mostly ceremonial duties. I don't think it's relevant to positively know the exact ailing, how seriously it progressed etc. It's not that he is the only one who can cut a ribbon.

I would find it relevant if the actual governing individual was ill, like the UK PM or the US or French president. If they cannot do their job properly anymore - that's crucial.

R26 - but they've already leaked that he is sick and has cancer, so why the mystery about the exact type? To avoid questions about it? He's going to get questions about his health anyway.

His role is paid for by the taxpayers. And God knows we know more embarrassing details about their private lives and recorded conversations than we should - him wanting to be Camilla tampon or some crap years ago.

Why not just say the type of cancer?

[quote] His role is paid for by the taxpayers.

My employer doesn't need to know what type of cancer I have. I would think his doesn't either.

Speaking for myself, I don’t need to know. If he were a president or prime minister, the discussion would be who takes over in the event but we already know that.

Charles has lived a charmed life, regardless of his time on the chair. He was never going to have the reign his mother had. He's getting the best of care. What else can you ask for in life? At least the monarchy won't die on his watch, so the family will count that as a win.

Whatever the case, it's too bad & I can't help but wonder if they're putting this out there because his time is short (whatever is going to do him in). It seems very unfair after a lifetime of waiting that he has so little time on the throne. It also may explain the weird behavior of the Harkles in that they're looking to cut a deal with the BRF before Dad goes toes up.

Life is not fair..,

Lots of cancers are slow growing when you are older. As long as it doesn't kill him, I don't think it's that bad. You can have prostate cancer and die at 90 from a stroke. It's the quality of life that matters.

He's had a very nice life, done a lot, seen a lot, very lucky fella

One would think bringing your family closer together would = a better quality of life.

Not in some circles…where a grudge is a thing to behold forever…

Depends on the family, R34. That's the sort of language poor people use to console themselves that the rich have it so much worse.

nobody lives forever...

R4, here is an archived link to the Daily Beast article.

[quote] Is the Daily Beast reliable? Not being sarcastic, I know nothing about it (and I don't trust Google on this sort of thing).

The Daily Beast is very credible, and its Founding Editor is British society reporter, Tina Brown.

Tina wrote for the Tatler and for The Sunday Telegraph, before she started The Daily Beast.

Tina/DB is also a frequent guest on MSNBC's Morning Joe, whenever it comes to reporting news about the UK.

[italic]It has been characterized as a "high-end tabloid" by Noah Shachtman, the site's editor-in-chief from 2018 to 2021. In a 2015 interview, former editor-in-chief John Avlon described the Beast's editorial approach: "We seek out scoops, scandals, and stories about secret worlds; we love confronting bullies, bigots, and hypocrites." In 2018, Avlon described the Beast's "strike zone" as "politics, pop culture, and power".

The Daily Beast began publishing on October 6, 2008. Its founding editor was Tina Brown, a former editor of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker as well as the short-lived Talk magazine. The name of the site was taken from a fictional newspaper in Evelyn Waugh's novel Scoop.

In 2010, The Daily Beast merged with the magazine Newsweek creating a combined company, The Newsweek Daily Beast Company. The merger ended in 2013, when Daily Beast owner IAC sold Newsweek to IBT Media, owner of the International Business Times. Brown stepped down as editor in September 2013.

John Avlon, an American journalist and political commentator as well as a CNN contributor, was the site's editor-in-chief and managing director from 2013 to 2018.

In September 2014, The Daily Beast reached a new record of 21 million unique visitors – a 60% year-over-year increase in readers, accompanied by a 300% increase in the overall size of its social media community.

In May 2018, Avlon departed from the Beast to become full-time Senior Political Analyst and anchor at CNN. Avlon was succeeded by executive editor Noah Shachtman.

In March 2017, former chief strategy and product officer Mike Dyer left for Intel. In May 2017, Heather Dietrick was appointed president and publisher. In July 2021, Shachtman announced that he'd be moving from the Beast to Rolling Stone and that he would be succeeded by Tracy Connor.

In January 2023, it was reported by The New York Times that IAC chairman Barry Diller was considering a sale of The Daily Beast. In June 2023, however, Diller publicly acknowledged that he had ended talks to sell The Daily Beast, stating that it is "not for sale."[/italic]

[quote]My employer doesn't need to know what type of cancer I have. I would think his doesn't either.

He's is not employed by the people, he is the ruler of you the subjects, historically speaking that is.

Did we ever find out what type of cancer Kate has/had?

I never cared for him. Hapless is the word I'd use.

I just remember reading that when he travels, he travels with his living room or something absurd like that

And his toilet seat and childhood teddy bear. Seriously.

I know, NY Post, but still.

[Quote] More twisted bullshit.

I’d wager this same person responds to stories about Meghan doing charity work that she’s a wicked selfish evil creature who’s just doing it for publicity and praise.

Interesting the parallels in the lives of Charles & Joe Biden. They waited a lifetime to achieve the holy grail, but when their time came it was too old late.

R8 That’s fine, dear. The two previous presumptive HenryIX did not make it either. And yours is hardly a Queenly name.

You know nothing of The Prince’s Trust (NOW the King’s Trust, then, R7, when you say that he’s a flop and nothing special?

You’re American, aren’t you?

Since its inception in 1976 by the then Prince of Wales, funded by him, the Trust has:

Helped more than 1,000,000 11-30 year olds turn their lives around

Created 125,000 entrepreneurs

Provided business support to more than 395,000 people in the UK

It has subsidiaries in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and USA.

Some “flop”. Sometimes it’s best to say nothing when you don’t know what you’re talking about, R7, rather than risk making a fool of yourself as you have done.

Thanks for the education, R40. It’s always handy to have an American to educate the rest of us on the British system of Government. FYI he reigns, not rules x there is a difference. It has been over a century since the UK Sovereign ruled, hence thevconcept of the constitutional monarchy. The use of the term “subject” was replaced with “citizen” over forty years ago.

But do go on, sharing your wisdom. It’s good for a laugh.

I'm sure the stress with Harry doesn't help.

what stress? People like him don't stress about nothing.

Billy the Basher looking for work.

Disease = dis-ease

Charles' health will clear up once he gets over his bitterness toward Harry, and repairs the bridge he himself burned via racist remarks.

R46, Meghan doesn't do charity work.

They're not saying exactly what cancer Charles has because that would lead to even more endless speculation about how long he has left, how long he may have had it, how it could metastasise, what treatment he's having, when he's having it, with evermore made-up nonsense, complete rubbish, everyone having their own personal opinion because their great-uncle died of it, more rubbish articles like this one from the Daily Beast, etc. Every time Charles is seen in public there'd be endless drivel about how he looks today, has he had a setback, what day his last treatment was.

[quote]Interesting the parallels in the lives of Charles & Joe Biden. They waited a lifetime to achieve the holy grail, but when their time came it was too old late.

Hu? Not even remotely close. Biden actually achieved his goal through hard work, decades serving the public with time in office and re-elected many times as a senator, VP and President, not some silly antiquated powerless royal inheritance. By all accounts Biden was one of United States most successful and beloved Presidents. He just was too old to run for a second term. Unlike a King, its not a job you are born into and get to keep it for life no matter how good or bad you are at that job.

My guess is that he has bladder cancer. I suspect he'd rather not have endless articles about whether he may or may not still have his bladder, how does his body now expel urine, etc etc etc. If not bladder, it might be another "embarassing" type of cancer (anal, etc). Frankly I have no need to know don't think anyone else needs to know either. I would imagine this was the same situation with Catherine - who needs the press writing about a colostomy bag, or loss of uterus (no more heirs!), etc. I don't blame either of them for not disclosing.

No parallel with Joe Biden, r47. Biden covered up both his cancer and his mental decline. While Biden may have finally achieved his lifelong goal when it was too late for him, I doubt Charles wanted his mother to die or was desperately waiting to be king. It was going to happen one day, and his life was full and effective beforehand too. Charles also has a good few years left.

I'm not sure where r57 gets the idea that Biden was one of the most successful and beloved presidents, but Biden wasn't necessarily too old to run again, but he was too impaired to run again, despite insisting on staying in the race until the very last minute when he was forced out. As a result, he made it much harder for his successor as Democratic candidate to do well in the elections.

r59, actually Biden WAS too old to run for President. Men over the age of 80 should not be running for President. No matter how vigorous they appear to be, from an actuarial viewpoint they are long past the average age for male deaths in this country. (77) . IF a man makes it to 80, he's much more likely to have a heart event, a prostate cancer event, a broken hip event. Minor strokes are a daily possibility. The risk of developing dementia and/or Alzheimers goes up drastically. Serious skin cancers pop up frequently at that age. Doctor visits would be a monthly event, and a yearly hospitalization would be a likely possibility. Being President of the US is a stressful job. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the job itself represents a health risk, which only increases for someone already old.

I supported Biden's policies, which were good for the nation. I would have voted for him had he run, only because of Trump. But I was not excited about the possibility. Nor was any person that I spoke to about it during the spring of 2024.

We have another old man in office now. Whethe'r he's in the throes of dementia I can't say, but his megalomania has ramped up considerably, and no one has been able to restrain him. Trump will be 79 in a few weeks. It's evident at times that he's struggling to summon the energy to appear in command in public. I suspect that he's kept well-supplied with stimulants. But those come with their own sets of problems and side effects.

R52, he can't abide when a signing doesn't go smoothly.

Biden had 4 good years, that's all any President in the US can hope for. 8 years is a bonus, but many have only served one term. It's irrelevant weather he had it in him to make it another 4. He was going to only serve one term until Trump surprised everyone by wanting to run again right after losing to him. The point is he worked hard to get there and he actually did it. It wasn't handed to him. When Biden won the election he go more of the popular votes than ANY other president in history. That's why I say he was successful and well liked. And his record of accomplishment like bringing the country out of Covid, uniting both parties for a 1 Trillion infrastructure bill, creation of the CHIPS act, getting ALL American troops out of a 20 year war with Afghanistan, reducing child poverty in the states by a record 50% and handing over the most successful economy in it's history, rebuilding our relationship with foreign nations including facilitating NATO to be even stronger than before he took office.

What has King Charles done by comparison? Just status quo from what the Queen had already accomplished.

Biden had about two good years, r62, after that he started declining pretty obviously. His unpopularity is reflected in Kamala's loss and Trump's win.

R62, why are you comparing an executive president with a non-political head of state? Biden and Charles had different roles and were not doing the same job. I'd suggest that the fact that a country such as the United Kingdom, which is riddled with fracture lines, is actually fairly cohesive, unified and not polarised as the US is is precisely because we have an apolitical constitutional monarchy as a unifying institution. We in the UK are very grateful that our head of state is not passing laws and doing politics. We have a prime minister, government and parliament for that.

To those of you desperate to prove the superiority of the system of Government and of the position and powers of the American Head of State - this probably isn’t the right time to try and present your country as some shining beacon of democracy.

Just a thought.

Joni Ernst has Charles’s number!

This isn't about what country is better, someone posted above that both men were basically the same, in decline too late to enjoy their success. So whoever started that WAS comparing a monarchy to the leader of the US. The main point being, President Biden DID ENJOY his last 4 years in office because it's something he worked for and achieved. Not the same as being born into the role of King, There is a factor that involves a sense of accomplishment that the latter does not have.

So he'll die of old age before he dies of cancer... Sounds like someone needed some sympathy and good Press.

Apart from The King’s Trust, R66 - not that you would know about that.

Yeah - Charles sat around for seventy years doing nothing.

Check out the link below if you are to educate yourself before shooting your American mouth off but be warned, there are many words and facts.

I once bought a classical CD, which he painted the cover of. He's not bad...the proceeds were donated to charity

People who say "Charles has done nothing all his life" are idiot Americans - and ones who sympathise with Markle at that - who have absolutely no idea what goes in in day-to-day life in the UK. At least now with social media it's easier for them to follow a lot of what Charles, William and other working royals do, so there's no excuse.

P.S. Not all Americans are idiots by any means, but this is a certain type of ignorant individual.

Oh dear! What a pity! Never mind!

[quote]My guess is that he has bladder cancer.

Ahem, back discussion about King Charles; you may be right about the bladder cancer. My dad actually has some form of bladder cancer (recurring nodules, or some such thing) that they manage with treatment, but because it tends to come back, he's not exactly "cured." I hope that is the case besides an obsession about the next time he has to pee (and what old person doesn't obsess about that), he's mostly fine. Whatever the case, I hope in whatever time he has he can use it to deal with troublesome issues like his pervy brother and his wayward son as I think Wills is going to already have a lot on his plate.

The King's Trust? You must be joking🤣 WEAK. That's pretty much a hands off, no work required entity, he's just the figure head of that. I would be embarrassed to brag about that if I were King. It's the very LEAST he could do. Bill Gates has probably done more with his money and that's AFTER he created technology the entire planet uses and benefits from. A retirement hobby.

The question is will they be able to keep him alive long enough that he dies from something else before the cancer kills him. He's old and very lucky to have lived this long.

R73 clearly has no idea what the role of a king or the heir to the monarchy is.

R75 clearly has no idea what an accomplishment it is to win a Presidency of the most powerful nation in the world vs inheritance of power.

[quote]The report, by the respected royal writer and associate editor of the U.K. Daily Telegraph, Camilla Tominey,

She's a dumb, gormless cunt, who truly has the face she deserves. She's a mouthpiece for the royals, and is delighted to spread their lies about Harry & Meghan in exchange for positive articles about the royals. Her paper, has been Charles favorite paper to leak to since 1982

The Daily Beast is a half tabloid, half real news. But their royal and celebrity stuff is pure tabloid. Half their articles about royalty are wrong. Tina Brown hasn't been associated with them in over a decade. The rest of the articles are mostly legit, but the royal articles are along the lines of any of the British tabloids, and that's to say it's bullshit. A lot of times they simply rewrite other articles that have appeared in the British press. They're just like every other tabloid in that respect.

Charles said he had prostate cancer. It probably did spread to his bladder. He doesn't want to move into Buckingham Palace. He's never, ever wanted to move there. He could live to be 100 and never move into there. She's probably right about this. Her paper is Charles favorite newspaper. He regularly has his staff call them and leak info about Harry & Meghan. And the fact that he & the rest of the royals most certainly do spill to the tabloids on almost a daily basis (in exchange for good press for themselves) was revealed during Harry's last court case against the tabloids (which he won). The editor of the Mirror testified under oath that the royals are the #1 sources for the articles bashing Harry & Meghan and their staff are the #2 sources. This is why 2 of these pieces of shit have cancer. They're a bunch of damned liars, on such an outrageous level that's beyond average liars. What a pathetic family. These are very bad people.

I'll never forget that Charles hired a PR expert named Marc Bolland to sell out teenaged Prince William & Prince Harry for YEARS and YEARS, all in exchange for positive articles about camilla parker bowles. Marc gave very personal information (including the fact that Harry got caught smoking pot) to the press for positive articles about camilla. What a piece of shit. And Marc Bolland has ADMITTED all of that.

Charles deserves everything he gets. He's human garbage. So is that cunt that he married. She's spilled to the tabloids just as bad as charles & Diana did. But has escaped the press calling her out on it.

Only the Daily Beast would assert that Camille Tominey is "respected." Hahaha

I don’t like Meghan or Harry, but I’ve come to believe the gist of what you are claiming, R77.

I’ve been semi-successful in wearing myself off the dirty secret pleasure of the Daily Mail, but it’s not because I’ve improved myself or exercised discipline. It’s that their coverage of Meghan is so bizarrely over the top critical. It’s just not fun and snarky anymore. It’s stupid.

[quote] The King's Trust? You must be joking. WEAK.

You know, r73, this was your opportunity to rise above the DL stereotype and not sink to troll status. Insisting on an opinion is not a sign of strength. Acknowledging a flaw is. You could have said something like "Thank you for your post. I learned something." You didn't even have to change your overall opinion on King Charles. You just could have acknowledged that your statement had some flaws that made you adjust your point of view a little bit. That's all. No major change, just an adjustment.

The Daily Mail has turned into a right-wing rag that requires payment to read half their articles now.

R76 clearly has no idea what he's talking about if he thinks being a constitutional monarch is "the inheritance of power" and is also dumb for trying to compare an apolitical head of state with an executive president. But thanks for underlining Trump's great accomplishment - twice!

R78, the Daily Beast is trying to spin a non-story out of one sentence Tominey said, and that was just in passing to note how Charles isn't going to die of cancer.

The DM was always a right wing rag and it’s annoying but not that difficult to read the paywalled articles in archive.ph

[quote] Check out the link below if you are to educate yourself before shooting your American mouth off but be warned, there are many words and facts.

Guess who this troll is.

Hello, Anti-American British Royal Family Troll! We wondered when you'd bring back again your bile and venom.

Can I have his stuff? (Except Camilla?)

^ I gladly welcome Tracey Ullman's Camilla to my house.

R85 just because someone disagrees with you or points out when you get something wrong, that doesn’t make them a troll. But as you believe that I am, by all means block me - that’s what the little buttons are for.

I couldn’t give a flying fuck.

The funny thing is r85, with his "guess who", seems to think he's expressing the feeling of the thread, when he couldn't be more wrong.

In any case, he's the one who fits the description of a troll, entering a thread just to bash the subject, when he knows fuck all, and deliberately being rude and irrelevant.

jolly good

I had a lady who worked for me for many years back in the 70s & 80s. Her husband had prostate cancer that was incurable but the doctors kept him alive for 25 years by inserting a pellet that contained some sort of nuclear medicine into his prostate once a year and it kept the cancer from spreading. He eventually died in his 80s of a heart attack.

R10 is correct. I’ve had cancer twice now, and not a single physician has ever used the word ‘cured’ in reference to my condition. ‘Remission’ and ‘no evidence of disease’ (NED) seem to be the standard terms.

R84 I tried that and it doesn’t work for me

There is some new thing called the Cyber Knife (dumb name I know) that an older relative I know swears has worked on prostate cancer really well for him. Better than the radiation pellets.

It's possible it is Lymphoma or some blood cancer. Then there's t he bone marrow cancer Multiple Myeloma . It's possible his cancer spread from the Prostate to elsewhere. Lots of possibilities. But thanks to research if it's caught early enough, people now can take maintenance drugs and it is a medical condition you live with.

[quote]by all means block me - that’s what the little buttons are for.

Done!