Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

Charles cancer update

329 replies

PrettyFlyforaMaiTai · 20/12/2024 06:34

Charles’ cancer treatment will continue into next year

”his treatment has been moving in a positive direction and as a managed condition the treatment cycle will continue into next year" according to palace sources.

I don’t mean to be a negative Nelly but this doesn’t seem as positive as they’re trying to make out.

news.sky.com/story/kings-cancer-treatment-will-continue-into-next-year-sky-news-understands-13276684

OP posts:
taxguru · 20/12/2024 11:07

Meaningless to speculate without knowing exactly what type of cancer he has.

My OH has a cancer which is incurable but treatable with permanent chemotherapy, so he's always on treatment, he's been on treatment for six years now, initially injections, then infusions and now chemotherapy in tablet form.

Without some miracle in cancer treatment, he'll continue to be on chemotherapy for as long as it's working.

I believe The Queen herself was also on long term chemotherapy for cancer too!

lolly792 · 20/12/2024 11:15

taxguru · 20/12/2024 11:07

Meaningless to speculate without knowing exactly what type of cancer he has.

My OH has a cancer which is incurable but treatable with permanent chemotherapy, so he's always on treatment, he's been on treatment for six years now, initially injections, then infusions and now chemotherapy in tablet form.

Without some miracle in cancer treatment, he'll continue to be on chemotherapy for as long as it's working.

I believe The Queen herself was also on long term chemotherapy for cancer too!

I presume you mean Queen Elizabeth, not the current Queen?

Either way, not sure why you think you know that they've been on long term chemo.

SunnyValemin · 20/12/2024 11:24

fedup33 · 20/12/2024 08:27

Sorry you have been through this. I think you are right. In a totally non bitchy way, I think Catherine looks terrible. Sorry but I do.

Show quote history

Think before you say ignorant things like this. I've had chemo this year. I'm in my 30s and look like I'm in my 40s now. I'll take that over being dead though. Who cares what Catherine looks like, she's been through chemo and deserves a bit of kindness, it's fucking brutal

DowntonNabby · 20/12/2024 11:26

taxguru · 20/12/2024 11:07

Meaningless to speculate without knowing exactly what type of cancer he has.

My OH has a cancer which is incurable but treatable with permanent chemotherapy, so he's always on treatment, he's been on treatment for six years now, initially injections, then infusions and now chemotherapy in tablet form.

Without some miracle in cancer treatment, he'll continue to be on chemotherapy for as long as it's working.

I believe The Queen herself was also on long term chemotherapy for cancer too!

Exactly. My DH had a blood cancer that was treatable but not curable. He took chemo in tablet form, once a day. He's off the tablets for the moment, because he's technically in remission, but he's not cured and never will be, so it is classed as a managed condition.

Kirbert2 · 20/12/2024 11:34

It doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s got stage 4 cancer and it’s incurable. He could have a low grade cancer which responds slowly to chemo etc so the treatment plan will be much longer.

My son had high grade non Hodgkin’s lymphoma, very aggressive and very fast growing but more responsive to chemotherapy so he he had 12 weeks of treatment which was enough to get him into remission.

BellissimoGecko · 20/12/2024 11:48

Over40Overdating · 20/12/2024 10:41

The tone of comments on Catherine’s looks are bonkers. I am not a royalist and would happily see the lot of them in the tower but to talk about a woman who has had major surgery and aggressive chemo in the last few months as haggard, as if that is some kind of moral failing, is disgusting. What should she look like?

On another thread, a cancer survivor who had cosmetic treatments to address the damage chemo did to her has been called vain and accused - by a woman proclaiming to be a feminist - of supporting the pornification of women, for caring about her appearance.

Women cannot fucking win when it comes to how we look even when we are cheating death.

When I was undergoing chemo I was mocked for having moon face, for growing excess hair and told it was ‘a pity you put on so much weight. You had a nice figure before this and you’ll never get it back’. As if the joy of being alive when I was told I would likely die was now marred by being ‘fat’ because I’d gone from size 10 to size 14.

Charles may be King but he has a right to privacy when it comes to his body and his treatment. Even if he announced it tomorrow it wouldn’t stop speculation. People would regurgitate facts and figures and previous case of the same disease with countdowns and predictions and the ins and outs of what was happening to his body, and poring over his appearance for signs of decline. Having cancer is bad enough without that level of intrusion.

Whatever else the monarchy owes us, the gory details of their bodily functions is not one of those things.

Hear, hear!

BellissimoGecko · 20/12/2024 11:50

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

But that doesn't matter.

The RF don't owe us details of their private medical conditions. Don't be so silly and unrealistic.

WalterdelaMare · 20/12/2024 11:59

People are nuts. Kate looks the picture of health. I can’t see one thing about her recent appearances that indicate otherwise.

MyrtlethePurpleTurtle · 20/12/2024 12:18

Ozgirl75 · 20/12/2024 07:19

My dad has cancer at the moment, a bad one (mesothelioma) but they’ve told him it isn’t curable but is manageable for a “number of years” with immunotherapy and he is the same age as the King. I’m not saying the king has this (I doubt he worked with asbestos after all) but I’m just saying that even the most serious cancer can be managed for some time with treatment. His immunotherapy also continues for a while and he won’t lose his hair, plus he has no side effects so maybe the king is having this type of treatment.

"even the most serious cancer can be managed for some time with treatment"

please can I adjust this too

"even some of the most serious cancers can be managed for some time with treatment" ?

JuliaSmith · 20/12/2024 12:41

There has been NO official update.
Not as far as I can see.

The Palace has not issued a statement.

The source of this thread is a feature by Sky who refer to a 'palace source'.

Meaningless.

sloecat · 20/12/2024 12:43

ekk100 · 20/12/2024 07:03

Prostate cancers can be extremely slow growing, if it's managed well people generally die 'with' prostate cancer, not 'of' it. I'm assuming it's something like that. Maybe a bit of ongoing radio/chemo therapy and regular checks.

Prostate cancer is the second highest cause of death with cancer in men. Around 12,000 a year die from it. I lost a friend to it. Yes, lots of men have slow growing ones they may die ‘with instead of’ but given Charles’ age and the fact he’s had publicised treatment makes me think is isn’t a slow growing one. A little bit of research on the net tells you treatment can extend from 1-3 years so it seems there is nothing exceptional about his treatment. One needs to be careful about spouting things like ‘slow growing cancers and dying with it’ because men are notoriously slow to see a doctor and to tell people they can afford to leave seeing a doctor or having treatment is dangerous. We need to encourage men to get things checked out. 12,000 men is too many.

Andthebellsringout · 20/12/2024 12:44

If Johnson was privvy to the Queen's illness and wrote about it in his book he really is a massive massive turd.

HagathaChristi · 20/12/2024 12:45

This is when they become just like the rest of us. I have always thought that no amount of money or privilege can compare with things like good health. At the moment I am a millionaire.

fgsistwbotp · 20/12/2024 12:46

Petrasings · 20/12/2024 07:32

Are you always so astonishingly rude? We were told it was pancreatic yes.

Show quote history

Who told you that?
How ridiculous coming on here and claiming you were told he has pancreatic cancer without indicating what your source is.
Either it's complete bollocks and some random rumour you've heard on the internet or you do have some kind of connection to the Royal Family (employee etc), in which case it's an absolute disgrace that you've posted this confidential information about Charles' health on here.

Efacsen · 20/12/2024 12:49

sloecat · 20/12/2024 12:43

Prostate cancer is the second highest cause of death with cancer in men. Around 12,000 a year die from it. I lost a friend to it. Yes, lots of men have slow growing ones they may die ‘with instead of’ but given Charles’ age and the fact he’s had publicised treatment makes me think is isn’t a slow growing one. A little bit of research on the net tells you treatment can extend from 1-3 years so it seems there is nothing exceptional about his treatment. One needs to be careful about spouting things like ‘slow growing cancers and dying with it’ because men are notoriously slow to see a doctor and to tell people they can afford to leave seeing a doctor or having treatment is dangerous. We need to encourage men to get things checked out. 12,000 men is too many.

Edited
Show quote history

IDK but aren't the men who 'die with it as opposed to of it' a different older demographic ie men in their 80s and 90s?

My friend who died of prostate cancer was in his late 50s and died quite soon after diagnosis

sloecat · 20/12/2024 12:53

sloecat · 20/12/2024 12:43

Prostate cancer is the second highest cause of death with cancer in men. Around 12,000 a year die from it. I lost a friend to it. Yes, lots of men have slow growing ones they may die ‘with instead of’ but given Charles’ age and the fact he’s had publicised treatment makes me think is isn’t a slow growing one. A little bit of research on the net tells you treatment can extend from 1-3 years so it seems there is nothing exceptional about his treatment. One needs to be careful about spouting things like ‘slow growing cancers and dying with it’ because men are notoriously slow to see a doctor and to tell people they can afford to leave seeing a doctor or having treatment is dangerous. We need to encourage men to get things checked out. 12,000 men is too many.

Edited
Show quote history

Too late to edit my own post but I don’t assume Charles has PC and tried to change my post . I don’t think we’ve been told but was answering other’s speculation.

Pianoaholic · 20/12/2024 12:54

TaggieO · 20/12/2024 07:39

10 years. And he’s still here. That’s pretty great. My dad had aggressive cancer that killed him in 3 months. I’d take a decade any day.

im sorry your dad is unwell but the fact remains that some cancers have much better outcomes than others, and prostate cancer is one of the best cancers for long term survival rates and non-invasive treatments. I’m sorry if that upsets you, but it is fact. I hope your dad has the best Christmas possible, in the circumstances. Has your mum got access to all the respite options available?

Show quote history

I haven't read the full thread yet, but wanted to comment that prostate cancer can be aggressive, and if it has spread beyond the prostate, cannot be cured.
My DF passed away from it at 74, diagnosed at 70, in 2019. He was relatively OK for the first 2 years post diagnosis, but went downhill after, and chemo was no longer effective. He went on an early, first drugs trial at royal Marsden, but unfortunately this was unsuccessful.
It does seem to be a myth that is a 'good' cancer to get, it may be worse if people are diagnosed younger.

Kirbert2 · 20/12/2024 12:59

Pianoaholic · 20/12/2024 12:54

I haven't read the full thread yet, but wanted to comment that prostate cancer can be aggressive, and if it has spread beyond the prostate, cannot be cured.
My DF passed away from it at 74, diagnosed at 70, in 2019. He was relatively OK for the first 2 years post diagnosis, but went downhill after, and chemo was no longer effective. He went on an early, first drugs trial at royal Marsden, but unfortunately this was unsuccessful.
It does seem to be a myth that is a 'good' cancer to get, it may be worse if people are diagnosed younger.

Show quote history

I hate the whole ‘good’ cancer thing anyway. I understand the intentions when people use it but I still hate it.

My son had a ‘good’ cancer where the outcome is favourable and I’m obviously so happy he’s in remission and will hopefully stay that way but he’s been through hell this year and is still in hospital almost 10 months later due to complications from this ‘good’ cancer.

Pianoaholic · 20/12/2024 13:00

Sorry to hear that@Kirbert2

LoafofSellotape · 20/12/2024 13:05

I agree about the good cancel narrative. It comes across as very flippant. There isn't any good cancer as far as I'm concerned ,it's all shit.

MrsFinkelstein · 20/12/2024 13:07

sloecat · 20/12/2024 12:43

Prostate cancer is the second highest cause of death with cancer in men. Around 12,000 a year die from it. I lost a friend to it. Yes, lots of men have slow growing ones they may die ‘with instead of’ but given Charles’ age and the fact he’s had publicised treatment makes me think is isn’t a slow growing one. A little bit of research on the net tells you treatment can extend from 1-3 years so it seems there is nothing exceptional about his treatment. One needs to be careful about spouting things like ‘slow growing cancers and dying with it’ because men are notoriously slow to see a doctor and to tell people they can afford to leave seeing a doctor or having treatment is dangerous. We need to encourage men to get things checked out. 12,000 men is too many.

Edited
Show quote history

BP made an official statement saying Charles did not have prostate cancer.

Flopsythebunny · 20/12/2024 13:07

Petrasings · 20/12/2024 07:32

Are you always so astonishingly rude? We were told it was pancreatic yes.

Show quote history

Who told you?

MrsFinkelstein · 20/12/2024 13:07

Andthebellsringout · 20/12/2024 12:44

If Johnson was privvy to the Queen's illness and wrote about it in his book he really is a massive massive turd.

Does anyone actually think he isn't a massive massive turd?

Kirbert2 · 20/12/2024 13:10

LoafofSellotape · 20/12/2024 13:05

I agree about the good cancel narrative. It comes across as very flippant. There isn't any good cancer as far as I'm concerned ,it's all shit.

Healthcare professionals can be just as bad for saying it too. It had my son in PICU for 7 weeks and still I was told it’s a good cancer to have.

MyrtlethePurpleTurtle · 20/12/2024 13:13

Kirbert2 · 20/12/2024 12:59

I hate the whole ‘good’ cancer thing anyway. I understand the intentions when people use it but I still hate it.

My son had a ‘good’ cancer where the outcome is favourable and I’m obviously so happy he’s in remission and will hopefully stay that way but he’s been through hell this year and is still in hospital almost 10 months later due to complications from this ‘good’ cancer.

Edited
Show quote history

I had kidney cancer and refer to it as a 'good cancer'. Which (generally speaking), it is. (And also saves people's faces crumpling and stops people trying to hug me )

Swipe left for the next trending thread