The Charles III Years + cancer diagnosis (1 Viewer)

gggggg said:
Yeah my grandad had bladder cancer for 20 years before he died, just needed semi regular appointments for a SCRAPING… not pleasant but it gave him a couple of decades
Click to expand...
Exactly the same for my uncle, although he didn't live as long. Think he had about 7 or 8 years from diagnosis in his late 70s.
 
VoR said:
I guess it depends what it is, but don't some cancers live in elderly men for years with relatively little ill-effect anyway?

I'm sure I read once ages ago that Ian McKellan had a form of cancer but it was non-aggressive enough that it made more sense to monitor it than to treat it, given his age.
Click to expand...

When my father was diagnosed with prostate cancer, he was given the option of just monitoring it but he turned that down, figuring that if they had to do something 15 years down the line, he wouldn't be as fit to deal with it (he was 60 at the time, he's now 77). As it was, he had it removed but the recovery process was quite long so I could see what he meant.
 
That's interesting. I always just assume most cancer = surgery and chemo. Although I guess at a certain age it's not worth putting yourself through that.
 
Rachey said:
That's interesting. I always just assume most cancer = surgery and chemo. Although I guess at a certain age it's not worth putting yourself through that.
Click to expand...

I know somebody who has a cancer in her stomach (I think that’s what she said) that she will live with for the rest of her life. They give her bouts of chemo to reduce its size every now and then I believe but she’s lived with it for about 5 years.

So much cancer is slow burning inside people. I had cancer for at least two years before it was diagnosed (and only really had symptoms for a year) - and probably could have lived with it for a number of years more before it killed me as it was growing slowly.
 
Quite an interesting constitutional conundrum, especially as we are in an election year (probably). I guess he/we will have to see how incapacitated he is by his treatment.

Or are we going to get a repeat of 1974 when the Queen Mother and Margaret had to dissolve parliament when Ted Heath called the snap election, as QEII was on a state visit somewhere.
 
cwej said:
I know somebody who has a cancer in her stomach (I think that’s what she said) that she will live with for the rest of her life. They give her bouts of chemo to reduce its size every now and then I believe but she’s lived with it for about 5 years.

So much cancer is slow burning inside people. I had cancer for at least two years before it was diagnosed (and only really had symptoms for a year) - and probably could have lived with it for a number of years more before it killed me as it was growing slowly.
Click to expand...
Interesting. So your friend will just live forever with this slow growing cancer and every single often have chemo? I'm guessing it will have an impact on how long she lives tho?

And yours would have got to a point where it wasn't treatable I assume?

Sorry for the questions. You don't have to answer them if it's too hard.
 
Christian said:
Quite an interesting constitutional conundrum, especially as we are in an election year (probably). I guess he/we will have to see how incapacitated he is by his treatment.

Or are we going to get a repeat of 1974 when the Queen Mother and Margaret had to dissolve parliament when Ted Heath called the snap election, as QEII was on a state visit somewhere.
Click to expand...
Fortunately they had the wherewithal to pass an Act of Parliament to add the Princess Royal and the Duke of Edinburgh as spare counsellors of state.

I’d be more worried about if the King is ill and there’s a hung parliament after the election.
 
GinAg (39) said:
What would be the issue?
Click to expand...
His only real job is to dismiss and appoint prime ministers. Usually majority governments make the choice obvious. Otherwise parties can usually be relied upon to decide amongst themselves and keep the palace out of having to make a difficult decision, but I wouldn’t put anything past this government - they may try to cling on.
 
Madíson said:
His only real job is to dismiss and appoint prime ministers. Usually majority governments make the choice obvious. Otherwise parties can usually be relied upon to decide amongst themselves and keep the palace out of having to make a difficult decision, but I wouldn’t put anything past this government - they may try to cling on.
Click to expand...
I figure William is probably trained on such issues. I doubt they'd go to Prince Edward for matters of state.

Although being ill with cancer doesn't stop you sending emails or making phone calls.
 
It’s highly unlikely the monarch would actually get pulled into it. The Crown and the civil service would hammer something out. God forbid the royal family actually have to understand or do anything difficult.
 
GinAg (39) said:
I figure William is probably trained on such issues. I doubt they'd go to Prince Edward for matters of state.
Click to expand...
But first they’d have no choice but to declare William regent under the Regency Act. Appointment of a Prime Minister is one of the few things that can’t be delegated to a counsellor of state.
 
Rachey said:
Interesting. So your friend will just live forever with this slow growing cancer and every single often have chemo? I'm guessing it will have an impact on how long she lives tho?

And yours would have got to a point where it wasn't treatable I assume?

Sorry for the questions. You don't have to answer them if it's too hard.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was lucky to be diagnosed - you need to catch it before it spreads. It had spread from my anal canal to the lymph nodes so it was the beginnings of Stage 3 cancer - much later then it becomes very dangerous.
 
GinAg (39) said:
Lung cancer causes it apparently.
Click to expand...

Really? That is a terrible cancer to suffer from, not that any are great. Does he smoke?

Do we know why they don’t state what type of cancer he is suffering from?
 
Rita said:
Really? That is a terrible cancer to suffer from, not that any are great. Does he smoke?

Do we know why they don’t state what type of cancer he is suffering from?
Click to expand...
None of our fucking business!
 
I’m sure they’d have said if it was terminal.
 
GinAg (39) said:
None of our fucking business!
Click to expand...

Of course it is. The UK tax payers money pays for him and his wretched family so if he chooses to continue with the luxury life he has become accustomed to and play King then he should reveal all.
 
Soldi said:
I’m sure they’d have said if it was terminal.
Click to expand...

I’m not so sure. The Queen was clearly dying for a good while before she physically gave up the ghost and they were always very cryptic about it.
 
Rita said:
Of course it is. The UK tax payers money pays for him and his wretched family so if he chooses to continue with the luxury life he has become accustomed to and play King then he should reveal all.
Click to expand...
He is allowed a private life!

This is progress from the Queen. Pretty sure she had cancer in her last 18 months, but nothing was said.
 
GinAg (39) said:
He is allowed a private life!

This is progress from the Queen. Pretty sure she had cancer in her last 18 months, but nothing was said.
Click to expand...
Why reveal he has it in the first place then? He could just say he is unwell like his mother did.
Yep, I would say she had cancer too for sure.
 
GinAg (39) said:
Literally his choice, how much or how little he reveals. I'm curious, but it's up to him really.
Click to expand...

Most will be interested. Especially when BBC News stated it wasn’t prostate cancer. Most will then think, well WHAT IS IT?
 
I reckon he’s a GONER.

They wouldn’t have said anything if it was an EASY FIX.
 
Kratz said:
Slamming the coffin LID! :D
Click to expand...
1000009915.jpg
 
Maybe they announced it because Charles wants it to be known how important it is for all men to have a cheeky finger up the wossname every now and then. Prince William offered to front the campaign, but they were sceptical of his motivations.
 
Have we seen the rumours that Evil Kate may or may not be in a COMA?
 
Rita said:
Of course it is. The UK tax payers money pays for him and his wretched family so if he chooses to continue with the luxury life he has become accustomed to and play King then he should reveal all.
Click to expand...

I don't wish cancer on anyone but he's lucky to have access to the best care out there. This morning my colleague who is having treatment for bowel cancer totally broke down crying because of the pain he's in. Broke my heart that he's having to go through that, he's pretty much on his own too. I wish he had access to the care the King will have.
 
:(

I hate how this has led to another round of reporting of his ENLARGED PROSTATE

I had been trying so hard to forget
 
The statement doesn't say anything like "and he is expected to make a full recovery" so he's probably fucked. Certainly, he will probably not be the active King his mother was at that age.

I wonder if evil Katherine is taking advice on the Regency act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom