Social media leaking news of POW hysterectomy

[CupOfCoffeeandaPineappleChunk]

It goes without saying its only her business, however I found it odd that whilst 'doomscrolling' from sleeplessness I came across a couple of posts from US news sites claiming they had news obtained from 'Palace sources' posted onto SM.

We all know that KP is somewhat leaky but over something like this? (I suppose Maybe if the price was right?)
Or is it just speculation passed off as the truth?
Or, are US news sources avowed to publish info that uk ones aren't?

I'm not particularly interested in what she's had done, surgery is unpleasant, full stop, But I'm just wondering if there's a reason the story is in US but not uk news-if it even real ( which seems slightly unlikely I would think, but then you never know about anyone personal life).
Just found out odd and curious as to the whys

Seriously, who cares?

it’s no-one else’s business, really, is it?

The only time private medical information of anyone in the RF should be shared is when there's a constitutional reason to do so. So that basically means only for the monarch.

Otherwise it's at the patient's discretion.

We are their employers? Ah well, I'd like to make them redundant and wind down the company, thank you very much 😉.

Why do you “care” re other posters happiness? You don’t - so why comment

We arnt her boss

I'm sure the prime minister knows what the issue is

I totally agree that everyone has a right to keep their medical history private BUT if we, representing the man or woman in the street, couldn’t do our job for some reason, we would have to give an explanation to our bosses, and co-workers would enquire and we would have to give them a certain amount of info, and we would have to offer proof in the form of medical certificates etc to HR etc
No we don't owe our co-workers explanations and we don't have to give co-workers information to satisfy their curiosity.

We need to communicate with the relevant people in our workplace and a sick note will provide the workplace with a reason for absence.The relevant people will have the information they need to make plans (eg tell the team that Terry is off and it's likely he'll be off for a month).

Normal immediate co-workers would probably say they hope it's nothing serious and hope Terry is better soon. Then they'd leave it unless they were close enough to contact him directly.

Very few colleagues would be moaning that they need to know why he's off,
and complaining that HR haven't given enough details for them to pour over, and even fewer would be doing it over a colleague in a different team they've never met.

Very few colleagues would be moaning that they need to know why he's off,
and complaining that HR haven't given enough details for them to pour over, and even fewer would be doing it over a colleague in a different team they've never met.

I agree with that. Work wise it would be unlikely to happen.

In regards to the RF, l now think people wanting to know, or feeling that for whatever reason they should know, highlights the parasocial relationship some people have for royal family members. I think people are encouraged to feel that they have some sort of relationship with the RF. Certainly, I believe the media encourages it.

I’m not sure we should be criticising people for having feelings that they are encouraged to have for the RF. I remember when the Queen died, papers were encouraging us to feel like the nation’s granny had died. Many people expressed it that way. Many did not, and objected to labelling her as such for a number of different reasons.

That’s the best response to one of my posts ever! As a former convent girl I thank you.

BrittleVeneers
I see your point, but I'm not sure the parasocial relationship for most people extends into the details of their private life. Most people I know, royalist or otherwise, seem to have a fairly neutral understanding that the royal family have public duties, share some moments with the public, but their private lives are theirs.

The "but we NEED to know details, of course everyone is going to be concerned, I'm worried sick about Kate" is a particular type of royal fan and has echoes of people wailing after Diana's passing and acting like they knew her personally vs expressing sadness and shock someone has passed in those circumstances.
If anything the last few decades, including the situation with the poor nurse who took her life following people chasing for information, should be nudging the general public to take a step back and get some emotional boundaries in place.

Because that’s the lovely kind of person I am. Posters’ happiness is my goal in life.

I think you are stretching my point rather to fit your argument! Where did I say that colleagues would be moaning that HR hadn’t given them enough info? I did not say that at all!

I said that someone who had time off from a job owing to ill health would owe their employers an explanation and we the people are technically the employers of the RF - they are in our service - as our tax money pays for them. That was my main point.

The institution of the monarchy has made their private family business our business by opening up their private occasions to us in order to maintain its relevance. I agree it’s horrible for the individuals concerned. But once you do that, it’s naieve to think that people will only be interested in the good and positive things.

I would go as far as to say we have a right to know that they are physically capable of doing the job for which they are allowed so much privilege (Charles and Camilla and now KM) also if they are morally sound enough (eg Andrew). That doesn’t involve giving out details but it does mean a certain degree of openness.

And I totally agree that all this soupy nonsense about the late Queen being the nation’s grandmother is ludicrous and detestable, as is prurient speculation about their health conditions

in the press and on sm, but the institution of the monarchy must know that the media juggernaut is simply out to make money by writing this rubbish and they need to handle it accordingly and not by selling one another down the river and trading stories.

I think you are stretching my point rather to fit your argument! Where did I say that colleagues would be moaning that HR hadn’t given them enough info? I did not say that at all!
I'm not saying you said that. I'm challenging the claim that we owe our co-workers explanation, which is what was said up thread.

The announcement that Kate is having surgery and will be away from duties for a set period of time is comparable to HR/manger saying "Sarah is off and will be back to her duties in a month". Both are reasonable.

As you say, it would be unacceptable for colleagues to be bitching that HR haven't given them more information about a colleague who was off sick.

But for some reason people who are nosy about the RF's private life feel entitled to try and suggest that the general public are like colleagues, they're entitled to details because they're ever so worried about her and/or that if it was a normal person in the workplace we'd owe our colleagues an explanation and details.

The royal family open SOME of their lives to the public as part of their role. That doesn't make the taxpayer and general public their colleagues or employers, nor does it mean that people are entitled to want details about someone's private life.

Taking the taxpayers as employers logic is flawed. Are we going to argue anyone working in the public sector should also make their health conditions public to service users to satisfy morbid curiosity and a desire for gossip?

I’ve said this before, but 54% of the population live as net takers from the state (whether they work and pay tax/NI or not). Does that entitle the other 46% the right to know their private medical details because technically they are paying for them?

The rest of the population don't get to live in palaces, wear expensive jewellery like the royal family. Even if they do claim benefits they still have to pay bills and worry about feeding themselves. You can't compare the two that is ridiculous.

It is only relevant if you take the attitude 'they are funded by us, so we have a right to their personal medical info'.

If I have to take time off medically I only have to notify HR, it is no-one else's business. Usually I would also let my manager know, as they would be responsible for supporting me at work when I return. But I am not sure whether they have an automatic right to know if I didn't give permission for them to be informed.

The idea my co-workers - or anyone else - have some sort of right to know is ridiculous.

So the idea that taxpayers have any right to know about PoW's medical info is ridiculous.

I think Diana's arrival into the family in the 1980s was the real beginning of the Royals being seen as a soap opera to entertain the great unwashed. It had all the elements - marriage break ups, secret recordings, a beautiful young wife badly wronged by her heartless husband and his wicked mistress etc etc It led to a situation where Diana's death saw people feel absolutely entitled to be 'included' in the immediate aftermath, to the extent where they effectively forced the Queen to return to London and march Diana's shocked and grieving sons out to look at the flowers in public view. Awful!

We saw a bit of that again in the past week. People highly indignant that they weren't getting their daily episode of 'Kate in Hospital' and were instead expected to mind their own business and respect her privacy.

And as for the comparisons between Camilla public announcing her hysterectomy and Kate not doing so (if it was a hysterectomy) - Camilla was 60 when she had hers so long past child bearing age, Kate is 42 so it might be a much bigger emotional issue for to come to terms with. She possibly preferred to do so without sad headlines about 'No more royal babies' etc etc. Can people not understand that?

But that’s a move of the goal posts. The argument that we should be told about the RF medical issues posited above is that they are tax payer funded. Not that they have nice things. What about those who are net takers from the state but who also have nice things and don’t have to worry about feeding themselves or paying the bills? Those people do exist.Not just benefit claimants, but people who receive their salaries as public sector workers, so entirely tax payer funded. The logical conclusion of your argument is that they too are public property.

@Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar public sector workers actually work for their salaries. I'm sure they wouldn't mind swapping places to do the "work" of the RF.

Nowhere have I said that we are entitled to know their private medical details but I do think we are entitled to know whether they are fit for work or not if that is what they are supposed to be doing on behalf of the state and that they run the risk of inviting unwelcome scrutiny when they open up personal events to public viewing.

It’s the institution itself that has created this grey area between private and public. You wouldn’t, for example, in an ordinary professional working relationship, necessarily be invited to view your colleague’s family weddings, their child’s first day at school or be party to their engagements and birthdays.

The RF have to participate in this charade to keep the monarchy relevant, so the British public form some sort of loyalty and attachment to them, and delude themselves that they know them; whether that attachment is formed out of familiarity, continuity, or affection I am not quite sure. And when they do that, they open themselves up to adulation but also curiosity. It’s as inevitable and as simple as that.

And they try their best to only show the good (eg Kate and Williams’s wedding and children) and cover up the bad (Andrew) but at some point if they only show positive aspects, they run in to a credibility issue.

This is one of the many reasons why a monarchy is anachronistic in this day and age, not to mention a bubble of psychological pain and unwanted scrutiny for the individuals and children involved.

I’m sure some of them would. So what?

OK what about those who don’t “actually work” for their taxpayer funded lives? Once again, the logical conclusion of the argument is that they should have no privacy vis a vis their medical conditions.

Kate has obviously had this surgery planned although we have no idea of the time scale. The public were not aware of anything before admission, I would suspect all other interventions have been "via the back door". That being said the pubic have no rights over the RF and they should be allowed to maintain privacy and dignity especially with health matters.

I do however wonder if the POW may come out in her own time to discuss what treatment she has required in order to highlight and support the issue.

I suspect the treatment she has received is as my mother would say....a women's issue but it's only a guess. I hope that she recovers well and the papz give her and her family time to recover and adjust to anything that may be different following the treatment

IIRC the first announcement was that she was expected to be in hospital for up to 14 days and then convalesce for a couple of months and not be back until after Easter.

I had to smile when I read the BBC text yesterday (I think it was on text) which said she'll be out 'for months'. TWO months are indeed monthS but if you choose to say 'for months', and someone chose to, you can make it sound as if she'll be recouperating until about October.

Yet here you are on social media, speculating.
The irony.