Bread and circuses
If you choose to live a public life and put out press releases all the time about stuff including this medical issue then it hard for me to see that we cannot speculate further. If they were living privately it would be different IMO
Not that I really care at all - it was just a throwaway comment
Wish them well, but folk's health problems are not news.
The remarkable thing is not what may or may not be physically wrong with any of them, but that frankly anyone cares.
Yes, I also can't figure out why anyone cares about the Royal family. Oh, wait a minute, yes I can.
I imagine if you are in favour of having a Royal family at all you would be interested in the current one's health. And as someone who is very much against the concept of a Royal family I'm also interested as their very expensive pampered lifestyle (which in order to qualify for you have to be squeezed out of the right vagina or marry someone who was squeezed out of the right vagina) serves to highlight just how unfair society has become in the UK, particularly when it comes to healthcare.
But yes, if you are neither for or against the monarchy then I guess you wouldn't have much interest in the goings on.
Although if you have no interest in the monarchy then what are you doing on this thread?
They couldn't go into a normal NHS hospital for several reasons, one huge one being that they'll be children there and you couldn't have Randy Andy visiting and putting all those young children at risk. He'd then have to give each one 12 million quid for never meeting them.
I'm sure they will be fine with their gifted wealth, palaces etc etc.
They should be torn apart for their latest harbouring of an abuser of young women/children and paying one of them off while still claiming he's never met her. Only the Royal family could get away with this kind of crap in plain sight of the world. Carry on waving your flags people, that'll make everything ok.
If you choose to live a public life
Arguable point for the Royal family, I don't think Charles, William, or young George chose it, did they? I think the UK royal family must be in that group of world-celebrities that have stuff written/photos taken of them regardless of whether if they chose to try to live as private citizens.
Arguable point for the Royal family, I don’t think Charles, William, or young George chose it, did they?
Yep, one of the things that sucks about being a kid is you have very little say in what goes on in your life. Not even if you are Royal.
If their parents have a problem with that they know what they need to do.
And if the kids themselves have a problem with that they know what they need to do as soon as they turn 18.
Charles and William seem to be cool with it. Guess we'll just have to see what George decides.
they could just renounce the whole thing and live quietly.
I'm not sure they could[ live as private citizens]. I think regardless of whether they want to live as a private citizens that the press would just leave them to it. I think they're like the group of celebrities that includes Britney, or Swift the press would camp outside their houses 24/7 JIC.
The difference is they are exceptional leadership figure<br /><br />
Really. Are you sure about that. I don’t see any leadership coming from the windsors. Lots of hot air but no actual action. Don’t forget that this surgery will have been performed by an nhs surgeon moonlighting at his second job often when they should be seeing nhs patients.
Of course they could. they could just renounce the whole thing and live quietly. They deliberately feed the press. Bread and circuses
I know Harry didn’t do a great job of just quietly saying “this is not for me, please leave me alone” but given the hassle he gets when he’s not even renouncing a right to the throne I don’t think William could simply walk away and live quietly. If he did does that mean his son becomes heir? Not easy to imagine how you’d square that circle. Or does he cut the whole line off then and it pops back to Harry!
@Brucewee I’ve said multiple times in this thread Im very much not a monarchist. But I don’t see how it helps my republic thinking to know if she’s having a hysterectomy or any other medical procedure. Charlie’s prostrate might vaguely be relevant as he’s actually king, so if he dies it causes some minor disruption for us all - but it seems to be a fairly routine op for a man of his age with no unusual threat to life so again I can’t see it helps any republican argument either. So, explain it for me, cos I’m obviously being thick how does knowing there is anything happening make any difference to a republican?
Don’t forget that this surgery will have been performed by an nhs surgeon moonlighting at his second job often when they should be seeing nhs patients.
Moonlighting usually suggest the main employer is not aware - that’s a misrepresentation of the situation. The nhs could just pay the surgeons their fair market rate (on the international arena) and provide them with good conditions and tools and they would soon stop the urge to deal with the hoity toity in pompus hotel/hospitals! Alternatively they could cover the costs of training for a degree in medicine (and the registrar exams etc which the nhs don’t pay for) and then have some legitimate “payback” claim for some period of time. I’m not sure the NHS has ever got it’s model right, they’ve done an amazing job of convincing the public that we are all in it together but the people we have most contact with (GPs) are mostly private contractors, the doctors are not that far off the model pre-NHS of doing some private work to pay the bills and some work for the public good to further your career/knowledge/assuage guilt…
So, explain it for me, cos I’m obviously being thick how does knowing there is anything happening make any difference to a republican?
I didn't say it helped you as a republican. If you have a dog in this fight then I don't see how the story isn't of interest.
If the story wasn't reported in the papers I wouldn't give it a second thought. But it was and so I did.
This is one of those weird situations that only really come about when you try to apply the ethics and moralities of 1000 years ago to today where it is possible to be both the perpetrator and the victim. The Royals are every bit as much a victim of the monarchy (and the thinking that goes along with that) as the rest of us are. Probably more so.
You don't think the specifics should be talked about. Well, I'm sorry, but tough shit, they are going to be talked about. And you are just as guilty as the rest of us by jumping into a thread that is discussing this issue, even if it was only to say you think we shouldn't be discussing it.
Like I said, the Royals are the victims of the very institution they embody. I feel sorry for them and angry towards them at the same time.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has complicated feelings about this (and I also think you have a point that it's distasteful to talk about people's specific health problems when they have chosen not to share the details) but the best way to work through conflicting emotions is to discuss them. And honestly, the Royals are not normal people even by celebrity standards (or rather, they are normal people who find themselves in extraordinary circumstances) and so part of that is that their lives are public property in a way no other celebrities are.
If you don't like that then can I suggest you take no further part in the discussion so the rest of us can figure things out for ourselves?
I didn’t say it helped you as a republican. If you have a dog in this fight then I don’t see how the story isn’t of interest.
You still aren't really explaining why "with a dog in the fight" its interesting to both know she was getting surgery AND speculate on the type
If the story wasn’t reported in the papers I wouldn’t give it a second thought. But it was and so I did.
Similarly. But other than thinking it slightly odd that the details were sparse I didn't feel a need to make up my own interpretation of the facts. Someone, possibly Catherine herself, chose to limit the information that was shared.
The Royals are every bit as much a victim of the monarchy (and the thinking that goes along with that) as the rest of us are. Probably more so.
I totally agree with you there.
You don’t think the specifics should be talked about. Well, I’m sorry, but tough shit, they are going to be talked about.
Well the actual specifics aren't going to be talked about. People are going to speculate about them. Then justify why they should speculate because they are not normal people, and its in the public interest. But actually it makes zero difference to the public if she's having a hysterectomy or has has a long term bowel issue and getting a colostomy bag.
And you are just as guilty as the rest of us by jumping into a thread that is discussing this issue, even if it was only to say you think we shouldn’t be discussing it.
No - I'm not saying people shouldn't talk about her being in hospital. I'm questioning what the point can possibly be of speculating what the medical procedure was. Why can that possibly matter to anyone?
Like I said, the Royals are the victims of the very institution they embody. I feel sorry for them and angry towards them at the same time.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who has complicated feelings about this (and I also think you have a point that it’s distasteful to talk about people’s specific health problems when they have chosen not to share the details) but the best way to work through conflicting emotions is to discuss them.
Well you say that - but then you close with basically saying "if you don't agree with me don't post again!":
If you don’t like that then can I suggest you take no further part in the discussion so the rest of us can figure things out for ourselves?
We don't know how long Kate's procedure has been in the planning, or why she's been frugal with the details she shared. I'm pretty open about most of my body and its faulty bits, but not everyone is, and coming to terms with a problem is something many people find hard. Doing it under the scrutiny of the watching media is unlikely to be easier. So I'm firmly of the view that I can dislike the institution, recognise that the individuals didn't create the institutions themselves but they have more influence than most on how to fix the issues, and at the same time still see that the intricacies of someones reproductive organs, digestive tract and the rest of their abdomen are their own business.
Well you say that – but then you close with basically saying “if you don’t agree with me don’t post again!”:
If you're just here to say, 'Stop talking about it' then I think there's nothing wrong with telling you not posting on the thread is a better way of achieving that outcome than starting a side debate on the ethics of speculating.
We don’t know how long Kate’s procedure has been in the planning, or why she’s been frugal with the details she shared. I’m pretty open about most of my body and its faulty bits, but not everyone is, and coming to terms with a problem is something many people find hard. Doing it under the scrutiny of the watching media is unlikely to be easier. So I’m firmly of the view that I can dislike the institution, recognise that the individuals didn’t create the institutions themselves but they have more influence than most on how to fix the issues, and at the same time still see that the intricacies of someones reproductive organs, digestive tract and the rest of their abdomen are their own business.
I remember last time I was signed off sick my boss was on the phone to me trying to find out what was wrong with me under the guise of 'accommodating my needs'.
He was just being a nosy ****. I'd already told him when I was most likely going to be back and that no amount of accommodating was going to get me back any quicker.
So yeah, partially we're just being nosy ****s with one of our employees (we're paying her wages, after all). At least we aren't phoning her up in bed trying to find out what exactly is wrong with her like us normies have to put up with.
