Kate, Princess of Wales - not seen this year.

atypical_boro said:
Well, there have been some funny comments on the thread tbf. But yes, it would be a big concern if she is suffering from the 'lifestyle'. And also makes a lot of sense as to why they'd be so desperate to keep it a secret.
Click to expand...
Well for what it's worth, which probably ain't much, when I heard that she'd been in the 'ozzy for an 'abdominal operation' and wouldn't be seen until after Easter my first thought was that she'd had a hysterectomy because I've heard that expression used euphemistically for that procedure before, that it's not uncommon, and that it takes quite a bit of getting over as I've known women who have been through it. But that's all a bit rational for most who seem either fiercely royalist or equally fiercely anti- and I'm neither.
 
Capybara said:
Well for what it's worth, which probably ain't much, when I heard that she'd been in the 'ozzy for an 'abdominal operation' and wouldn't be seen until after Easter my first thought was that she'd had a hysterectomy because I've heard that expression used euphemistically for that procedure before, that it's not uncommon, and that it takes quite a bit of getting over as I've known women who have been through it. But that's all a bit rational for most who seem either fiercely royalist or equally fiercely anti- and I'm neither.
Click to expand...
Meghan would've been something something something different.
 
atypical_boro said:
Well, there have been some funny comments on the thread tbf. But yes, it would be a big concern if she is suffering from the 'lifestyle'. And also makes a lot of sense as to why they'd be so desperate to keep it a secret.
Click to expand...
I agree and said the same earlier but apparently I’m fiercely anti-royal and therefore incapable of being objective
 
AytonMews said:
Is it? Why? It’s none of your business
Click to expand...
If my Heads of State/rulers, or future Heads of State/rulers, are perpetrating patterns of behaviour that are causing their partners to experience patterns of serious mental health conditions to the detriment of their physical health, then that's a serious breach of the public's trust I'd say, and very much all of our business. The last one ended up dead, I'd prefer this one to avoid that fate.
 
Capybara said:
Well for what it's worth, which probably ain't much, when I heard that she'd been in the 'ozzy for an 'abdominal operation' and wouldn't be seen until after Easter my first thought was that she'd had a hysterectomy because I've heard that expression used euphemistically for that procedure before, that it's not uncommon, and that it takes quite a bit of getting over as I've known women who have been through it. But that's all a bit rational for most who seem either fiercely royalist or equally fiercely anti- and I'm neither.
Click to expand...
Well as I say, given that these rumours exist and are widely known, I think the palace dropped a ******* by sending out a photo of her (doctored or otherwise) without her wedding rings on. That was my original point and my only point really. Hardly pours cold water on the flames, does it?
 
Can't have it both ways can you? The country grinds to a halt for their weddings, coronations and deaths.

They attend all sorts of public engagements, sponsor products, their face is on all our money.

We're supposed to bow and scrape, wave flags at them and be "honoured" to be bestowed with honours from them.

They live a ridiculously privileged life, some of it funded by the taxpayer.

To then complain about "privacy" is a bit rich then surely? Particularly because the whole charade works by actively encouraging their "subjects" to be obsessed with their lives.
 
festa5 said:
To then complain about "privacy" is a bit rich then surely? Particularly because the whole charade works by actively encouraging their "subjects" to be obsessed with their lives.
Click to expand...
Nail on the head mate.

But of course Royalists will be defensive when there are question marks around their conduct that could easily lead to public opinion swaying against them. The 'privacy' defence is hilarious, they're not members of the public, they're apparently our rulers!
 
Capybara said:
Well for what it's worth, which probably ain't much, when I heard that she'd been in the 'ozzy for an 'abdominal operation' and wouldn't be seen until after Easter my first thought was that she'd had a hysterectomy because I've heard that expression used euphemistically for that procedure before, that it's not uncommon, and that it takes quite a bit of getting over as I've known women who have been through it. But that's all a bit rational for most who seem either fiercely royalist or equally fiercely anti- and I'm neither.
Click to expand...
Spot on ref hysterectomy - it’s not uncommon in young women and it’s horrible to go through and recover from.

We just go round in circles tho don’t we - if it’s a hysterectomy they could have called it just that ……. instead of talking in riddles.
 
BoroMart said:
Yes the Rose Hanbury story has been going for several years, and of course royal princes and kings have been reknowned for having a wife and a lover. It's almost tradition.

I'm not sure that is the cause of all this though.

Another rumour that has done the rounds, particularly in foreign press is that she has battled with bulimia. It was something I didn't really pay any attention to as an internet rumour. However she was last year twice seen with two bandaged fingers twice a couple of months apart. One of the tell tale signs of bulimia is the skin on the fingers used to induce vomit becomes damaged because of the regular stomach acid. Of course her recent hospitalisation is for an abdominal operation, and bulimic people have issues with abdomen because of the reflux and often require operations to resolve the damage caused. Those two bits of evidence align with that theory.....but of course it's hardly a smoking gun. But would also align with wanting to keep her out of the public eye for a while.

I'd need far more evidence to believe that theory though but it's more plausible than held against her will etc.
Click to expand...
I take little or no interest in the lives of these people, but sometimes you can't actually avoid it. For what it's worth, I've thought she's looked unhealthily thin in all the photos I've seen for years. I reckon Mart's bulimia suggestion is the most sensible I've seen, but doesn't excuse in any way the Royal's attempts to make everything in the garden seem rosy (or Rosie ..... see what I did there ;) )
 
1finny said:
Spot on ref hysterectomy - it’s not uncommon in young women and it’s horrible to go through and recover from.

We just go round in circles tho don’t we - if it’s a hysterectomy they could have called it just that ……. instead of talking in riddles.
Click to expand...
They have to accept that speculation will continue until the truth (or a believable adaptation of it) is published.

It would be different, of course, if they were a beacon of integrity to the extent that the entire British public wouldn't dream of questioning their morals. But various members of the institution have only themselves to blame for that not being the case. And they still make people kneel before them.
 
festa5 said:
Can't have it both ways can you? The country grinds to a halt for their weddings, coronations and deaths.

They attend all sorts of public engagements, sponsor products, their face is on all our money.

We're supposed to bow and scrape, wave flags at them and be "honoured" to be bestowed with honours from them.

They live a ridiculously privileged life, some of it funded by the taxpayer.

To then complain about "privacy" is a bit rich then surely? Particularly because the whole charade works by actively encouraging their "subjects" to be obsessed with their lives.
Click to expand...
Have any of us ever had to bow and scrape for any royalty?
 
AytonMews said:
She should have the right to decide whether she wants the details of any illness made public or kept private.

I don’t know why anyone would want to take that choice away from her.
Click to expand...
Sounds abit like what some in here are saying she already put through by her own family

But they also want to take any lasting privacy away from her but that is a good thing apparently 🤨 confused much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top