45 minutes

[portocristo]

So Harry flew for 11 hours and then spoke to his father for 45 minutes ? Charles then bobbed to Sandringham by helicopter and Harry checked into a hotel. I mean wouldn't you think Harry would have gone to Sandringham with Charles maybe ?

The late Queen died because she was very old. She may well have had cancer along with other ailments but that is not necessarily what killed her. Cancer is not uncommon in very old people. So she may well have died with cancer but not of it. Given that she was still walking around two days before she died, it’s unlikely. There was nothing to be gained by telling us that the Queen had cancer. And we don’t actual know she had cancer. No one has said so definitively.

It's now widely accepted that our late queen died of cancer. We had no idea.

It's also wild that she managed to conceal her treatment and still made somewhat regular public appearances. They only cancelled a few due to mobility issues. However that leads to the idea that her treatment was possibly palliative and designed to give her the longest quality of life rather than actually cure it. Not an oncologist but this makes most sense for someone diagnosed after 90. What's the point of putting a very elderly patient through aggressive chemo or surgery.

In Charles case it sounds like they're going for the standard treatment and aiming for total remission. Also makes sense because at 75 he could potentially be King for a solid 10 years, if not 15. So they had to issue a statement because any absences due to treatment would be more obvious.

Does it ever occur to you lot that Harry would not be welcome for dinner?!

You all seem to acknowledge how he has burnt his bridges with the family, yet simultaneously think he should rock up for a cosy family dinner?

Expecting to be welcomed back into the family for an intimate dinner, to support his ill father, would surely be a grand example of 'making it all about him.' Expecting everyone to suffer how they really feel about his presence, to welcome him, and forcing everyone to accept a tense and awkward dinner at an already challenging time.

Really, a quick visit to his Dad in a neutral location seems to me to be a mature decision of someone who knows he is not welcome, but still wants to make a gesture of support to his Father.

Cmon now it was completely obvious she’d cancer, Christ senior oncologists stated it before she died, especially with the pic with liz truss and her hand bruising. She didn’t die of old age and just happened to have cancer. She died of cancer. And happened to be old.

We can agree to disagree I find a dinner with his father, at a time that suited his father, and in a location that did ie sandringham would have been fine, it’s just food, likely take an hour to 90 mins max.

its not some Valentine’s Day thing, and sandringham is as neutral as Clarence. They didn’t meet down terminal five.

Bodies wear out when they are very old. We are not designed to live to that age. We succumb more easily to things like cancer. I didn’t say she didn’t have cancer. She would not have lived forever if she had not had cancer. She was very very old. Only four years from a century. So the fact that she had cancer is not relevant. She died because she was very old and her body succumbed to a disease. The King is not so old and will probably respond to treatment. We don’t need to know exactly what diseases the Queen had when she died. She may have had several. But she was old. Old people die

edited typos

Of course it’s relevant she had cancer. Do you just not like to think if it and just prefer to think she died in her sleep of old age or something?

Maybe he did, prior to flying out - we have absolutely no way of knowing, do we?

My father did, at 94, his body gradually shut down over 2-3 weeks and he faded away.

He had diabetes towards the end of his life, but that didn't kill him, and no other illness or medical condition. His body was just worn out.

I was meaning as an adult like the royal central website says

I mean wouldn't you think Harry would have gone to Sandringham with Charles maybe ?

They're two people we don't know, who have a lifestyle and background we also don't know; we have no fucking clue what seems normal or appropriate to them. And I'm not really sure why anyone would care.

Do you just not like to think if it and just prefer to think she died in her sleep of old age or something?

Which was probably what happened - she might have had a minor stroke during that last night and that was the thing that finished it. Or she just quietly slipped away. She'd done her duty with the change of PM's and had enough, she could hand over. She was reported as saying in 2022 that she couldn't wait to go, all her friends were dying.

People do die just of old age, my GM for one. And HM was 96. Pretty good way to go, IMO.

So everyone here is saying if they didn’t have the means they wouldn’t go and see their parent immediately if they were diagnosed with cancer?

very bizarre even if it was to chat for 45 mins. Seeing them in person matters.

illness in old age is fickle and things happen in an instant.

my nan went in for kidney stones and we never saw her alive again.

Adult or not, he's still not the next in line of succession.

It's now widely accepted that our late queen died of cancer. We had no idea.

So what? What difference does it make to anyone what she died of? Given that she was 94, it's pretty much a moot point what actually finished her off.

“Who can be regent?

In its most simple interpretation, the Regency Act says that the next adult in the line of succession is regent providing they a British subject and resident in the United Kingdom. So in the case of King Charles III needing a regent, The Prince of Wales would step in. However, should Prince William or his children need a regent, the role would pass to The Duke of Sussex”

No, but knowing she had cancer won’t make any difference to the fact that she died. Or that she would probably have died within a couple of years anyway because she was old. She had clearly become frail. Frailty is a genuine condition which she clearly had as well. She was obviously being kept as comfortable as possible so I don’t think she suffered excessively because of whatever diseases she had so why should I care what was wrong with her? As pp have said, it was unlikely that the Queen would have received aggressive cancer treatment due to her great age Which is why her age was a major factor in her actually dying with or from any disease. The King, on the other hand, is much younger so aggressive treatment is more appropriate. As cancer treatments tend to have obvious side effects, it is appropriate that we know he is undergoing them

No they can appoint a working royal,

why are people protecting William and Charles out and Harry taking over, let’s face it, it will never ever happen.

Trouble is, how can you trust Harry now? Both Charles and Catherine have illnesses they want to keep secret (to some degree) and Harry and Meghan have top form for being foolishly indiscreet and unrestrainedly vengeful in their indiscretions. I wouldn't want either of them within a mile tbh. I don't think there is ever any coming back from that.

Exactly this. If the RF want their private life kept private Harry would be the last person they would want to spend time with. There's not many people that they can truly confide in, Harry is definitely not one of them. That must be a bitter pill to swallow.

Unfortunately cancer has been quite present in the royal family.

Prince Charles has cancer,
His mother, the Queen had cancer (multiple myeloma),
His grandfather, King George VI died of cancer of the lung,
His grandmother, the Queen Mother, was treated for both cancer of the breast and cancer of the colon
His great uncle, the Duke of Windsor died of cancer of the throat.

In all these previous cases, the public was not told about it until after their deaths. So without coming to any conclusions, it's worth noting the family genes are not good when it comes to cancer.

Also worth noting that Charles has chosen not to say which cancer he has, which is curious, given he was prepared to say he was being investigated for prostate cancer. Why would he say one and not the other?

I’m on the outs with my folks. When my dad had a stroke, I drove many hours to see him for less than an hour. Then I checked myself into a shit hotel.

I couldn’t give fewer fucks about Harry but honestly, this means fuck all.

Also worth noting that Charles has chosen not to say which cancer he has, which is curious, given he was prepared to say he was being investigated for prostate cancer. Why would he say one and not the other?

Perhaps he'd like some time to come to terms with the diagnosis and what treatment he's going to have and the prognosis before he puts his health issues out there for all the ghouls to slaver over? or perhaps he thinks there's at least ONE thing he'd prefer to keep private for as long as he can?

George VI and the Duke of Windsor were heavy smokers. And we don't know the Queen had multiple myeloma, it's widely said but not confirmed. And frankly, the older you are the more likely you are to get at least one cancer, whoever your family.