King Charles Diagnosed With Cancer (theguardian.com) 173
The king has been diagnosed with cancer, Buckingham Palace has announced. The Guardian: The diagnosis was made recently while Charles underwent treatment at the London Clinic for a benign enlarged prostate. In a statement, Buckingham Palace said: "During the king's recent hospital procedure for benign prostate enlargement, a separate issue of concern was noted. Subsequent diagnostic tests have identified a form of cancer. His majesty has today commenced a schedule of regular treatments, during which time he has been advised by doctors to postpone public-facing duties. Throughout this period, his majesty will continue to undertake state business and official paperwork as usual. The king is grateful to his medical team for their swift intervention, which was made possible thanks to his recent hospital procedure. He remains wholly positive about his treatment and looks forward to returning to full public duty as soon as possible."
News for Nerds (Score:3, Insightful)
Anway...
News for IT Crowds. (Score:2)
Oh no!
Rather ironic I was forced to channel none other than Maurice 'Da Brit' Moss with that one, mate.
Missing context from summary (Score:4, Informative)
It is understood that the diagnosis is not of prostate cancer, as some might have incorrectly assumed in light of his separate diagnosis of benign prostate enlargement.
Kind of an important detail is that what type of cancer isn't announced, but it's not prostate cancer. Which isn't great news, since prostate cancer is usually you die with but not from.
Re: (Score:2)
One can guess it is some type of blood cancer, say leukemia or lymphoma.
That is probably why it was discovered recently, when he went in to get blood tests before the prostate procedure (most likely Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia BPH).
Also, this is why he is getting treatment in sessions, not surgery. Maybe chemotherapy, or ev
Re: Missing context from summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Other reasonable guesses would seem to be colon cancer or bladder cancer. Iâ(TM)d guess *not*, leukaemia since usually the first treatment there is surgical - removal of the spleen. Itâ(TM)s also fairly common for cancers not to be treated surgically at all, or if they are, to be treated with chemo/radiotherapy first to shrink the tumor and make its margin better defined before surgery removes the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
Good points ...
I also forgot about immunotherapy.
Some cancers are now treated with that as a first line.
Because of British tabloids, we will hear soon what it might be.
Re: Missing context from summary (Score:2)
Re: Missing context from summary (Score:3)
Doubt it. Like most alternative medicine proponents, as soon as something serious comes along hes off down a proper hospital for standard treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
Doubt it. Like most alternative medicine proponents, as soon as something serious comes along hes off down a proper hospital for standard treatment.
Steve Jobs sadly was an exception. Spent nine months trying to cure his cancer with a vegan diet and acupuncture, before agreeing to surgery. RIP.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The crown cause cancer! (Score:2)
The crown cause cancer!
Re: (Score:2)
Heavy metal poisoning?
Empathy? (Score:5, Insightful)
The lack of empathy in the comments so far that someone has cancer is terrifying. Are you forgetting he's also a person? Are you going to say the same things if your best friend, your mom, that coworker you don't really care about either way, gets cancer?
Re: Empathy? (Score:2)
While yes it's terrifying it's the fate for a large fraction of all elderly people. This is considered "normal". Most elderly people don't get to enjoy expensive parties and celebrations of ones birthright title on taxpayer funds though.
Re: (Score:2)
While yes it's terrifying it's the fate for a large fraction of all elderly people.
Not really. Everybody dies of something. Cancer rates are going up mostly because we have been so successful at eliminating the other causes of death. So more people are living to old age, and then, finally, cancer gets them.
Hopefully, cancer rates will go up even more in the future.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cancer rates are going up mostly because we have been so successful at eliminating the other causes of death.
Well, there's that & the fact that we're polluting our environment, i.e. water, land, air, & food, at unprecedented rates. We produce billions of tonnes of carcinogens every year that end up in landfill, farmland, lakes, rivers, the sea, & the air we breathe.
Re:Empathy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you forgetting he's also a person?
I sympathize with Charles Windsor. But I sympathize with randos hit by cancer who'll be let down by an underfunded NHS more.
Charles Windsor, unlike his subjects, will get top-notch treatment and will have the best chance of surviving his cancer without having lifted a finger and done a day's work in his life. I'm sorry, but I have a harder time feeling empathy for him.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
without having lifted a finger and done a day's work in his life
I imagine he has had to go to many more boring ceremonies than you have.
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. Windsor is a big supporter of homeopathic treatments for his horses. I am curious as to what kind of top notch treatment he will choose for himself.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you forgetting he's also a person?
I sympathize with Charles Windsor. But I sympathize with randos hit by cancer who'll be let down by an underfunded NHS more.
Charles Windsor, unlike his subjects, will get top-notch treatment and will have the best chance of surviving his cancer without having lifted a finger and done a day's work in his life. I'm sorry, but I have a harder time feeling empathy for him.
As rich folks go, I have more empathy for the royals than typical hereditary wealth.
The job is basically endless functions, speeches, ceremonies, meet & greets, etc. All the while never looking bored, always acting nice, and never causing a scene and certainly not a scandal. I don't know the actual daily schedule, but as jobs go I'm not sure it's all that great (particularly since he's just got promoted at 75 while most folks would be long retired).
And that embarrassing thing you did in your youth? If y
Re:Empathy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like all royals, Charles served several tours of duty in the military.
His service was on a missile cruiser. He later trained and worked as an RAF helicopter pilot. He has also worked on a farm. Exactly how much hard labour he did farming is unclear, but that's true of most farm owners. It's hard to criticise Charles for doing the same as everyone else.
OK, his life as been primarily in diplomatic duties (which is still work, just not heavy work), but it's clear that it's unfair to say he had never done any work at all.
The British Royals pride themselves on actually holding real jobs for part of their lives and spending that time as genuine equals.
If you want people who have never worked in their life, you want to look at the House of Commons, not Windsor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody else could have had the best education money can buy, be mediocre anyway, get into the best university in the country, and be protected from any actual harm as an RAF pilot.
Let me get this straight: you think that the leader of a country (even if only titular) should NOT go to the best schools, and SHOULD be put in harm's way? Given that the monarchy is a hereditary position, and the probable succession order is known well in advance, you want NOT to prepare and protect them as best as possible? Seriously?
I guess that means you're in favor of disbanding the Secret Service detail of the President of the United states, too.
Re: (Score:2)
"Let me get this straight: you think that the leader of a country (even if only titular) should NOT go to the best schools, and SHOULD be put in harm's way?"
Well if you put it like that, yes. Turning the future ruler into a privileged twit might not be the best strategy. Say military service as four years as enlisted infantry or navy, then college while using the NHS with the lower class. Then another four years of busting ass in warehouse or on a farm actually doing the work also under the tender care of t
Re: (Score:2)
To each his own. I want my leaders to be the best and the brightest. I want my leaders to have a top-notch education, not bottom-third just because of some misguided romantic ideal that they need to have felt the pain of the masses in order to be in touch with them. I want them to have the very best tutors. I want my leaders to be brilliant. Geniuses. To have vast levels of expertise in multiple fields.
The US hasn't had that for a few decades, with the possible exceptions of Obama and Carter, but neit
Re: (Score:3)
I think his objection isn't to the leader of a country getting security, but to the leader being unelected and hereditary, and getting the best education and opportunities on that basis.
Sure, the reverse is usually true, that the people with the best education and opportunities become leaders of their country. But at least that's more meritocratic, because the leader doesn't always come from the wealthy class. Whereas under a monarchy, it does, by definition.
The even bigger problem with the British royals i
Re: (Score:2)
President is a position that is earned through winning an election. Being king is hereditary.
I think he should be treated as an ordinary citizen of the UK, no preferential treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
Relatively safe is hard to judge, as Britain wasn't at war with anyone at the time, making all jobs in the military relatively safe.
We can best judge the perspective by looking at William (search and rescue pilot who certainly did dangerous jobs), Harry (whose unit saw frontline action and he was not given any extra protection), Andrew (who is a right pillock and probably a sex offender, but in terms of military service was in the Falkland's War), and Elizabeth (who was an ambulance driver/mechanic in Londo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One thing you absolutely don't do is ever draw attention to high status figures on the front line. The official story is that he was treated the same as everyone else and had no security detail to avoid the unit becoming a target. It's perfectly plausible and nobody has contradicted that claim.
(They've contradicted a LOT of other claims by Harry, but not that one. Be as cynical as you like about the stuff nobody else believes, but this is one claim that has stood scrutiny.)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that this was modded "troll" for pointing out some factual information.
Royalists are weird. They don't like reality, they want their king to be some kind of fairly tale. He's not, he's a man like any other, only born into a life of privilege that is frankly offensive in the modern world.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody else could have had the best education money can buy, be mediocre anyway, get into the best university in the country, and be protected from any actual harm as an RAF pilot.
That's exactly what very rich people do. Probably not the latter, since why on earth would a very rich kid go into the RAF? Funnily enough, they never seem (the rich kids) to end up in Engineering Science, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Maths, Computer Science and a variety of others. PPE's there for a reason you know.
I would have more empathy... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The lack of empathy in the comments so far that someone has cancer is terrifying. Are you forgetting he's also a person? Are you going to say the same things if your best friend, your mom, that coworker you don't really care about either way, gets cancer?
But the thing is the royal family have long forgotten that any of their "subjects" are actually a person. King Charles, for example, tends not to speak to anyone without some power, money, or noble title. He and his family have for centuries dismissed anyone else as not really a person, but an asset. His claim to King descends from his family once having owned a number of "souls" (serfs) who came included with lands they purchased or conquered in war.
So it's hard to shed tears for someone who, by virt
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a ridiculous comment.
Millions of people you've never met nor heard of have cancer right now.
To say you have empathy directly for them is very odd indeed.
You may have empathy in a general sense - for me, it was my Mom, who passed away nearly 8 years back due to cancer.
But empathy for King Charles? Nope. None. I don't know him.
What I do know is he's going to get the best treatment that money can buy, which is more than probably 99% of the rest of the people can get, in the country where he is king.
Re: (Score:2)
And no, I don't have empathy specifically for any one specific person.
But I also don't go posting about how I don't care about them. That's the difference. This comment section is full of people bordering on the Nazi line of "They're not really people".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The lack of empathy in the comments so far that someone has cancer is terrifying. Are you forgetting he's also a person? Are you going to say the same things if your best friend, your mom, that coworker you don't really care about either way, gets cancer?
He's a king in a country that's been lambasted as one of the greatest perpetuators of colonization, and people are fed up with that shit. The de-personification of those we aren't fond of is hardly a new precedent. I don't much like it either, but most of us in America have watched our politicians literally screaming that they want the other side to die in public for well over a generation now. It's no wonder so many of us can't tap into the empathy centers anymore.
I've lost family and friends to various ca
Lots of people who need recovery (Score:3)
Hurt people hurt people. The lucky ones will wake up to this before they die.
Re: (Score:2)
Where was the Slashdot story when my grand pa got Cancer ?
Sorry if I don't care about your "king" when you didn't care about my Grand pa.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not British. He's not my king. And for what it's worth you have my condolences.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you going to say the same things if your best friend
No, I care about my friend.
your mom
My mom already died of cancer, where were you having some empathy?
that coworker you don't really care about either way
Now you get the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is about the King. The question of the implications of this situation for country and the role of the monarchy are entirely reasonable. There is an individual underneath all of that baggage, but you likely wouldn't be discussing him or having empathy for him, were it not for the baggage.
In the end, this is quite bad news for the country; if he dies, we have just spent tens of millions putting a hat on his head, and will no doubt be expected to spend tens of millions burying him. That's the sort
Re: (Score:2)
In the end, this is quite bad news for the country; if he dies, we have just spent tens of millions putting a hat on his head, and will no doubt be expected to spend tens of millions burying him. That's the sort of price that could pay for a lot of cancer care.
Then you'll spend tens of millions more putting a hat on William's head. But at least he's not an old man, so he stands a chance of hanging around for a while. And it's possible that his approach to the monarchy will be less 'old school' than Charlie's.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, unfortunately we probably will. But, he will probably be more popular that the incumbent and so will probably cost the country more.
Re: Empathy? (Score:2)
"if he dies, we have just spent tens of millions putting a hat on his head,"
Good, you deserve it. What a fucking clown show.
Re: (Score:3)
I find having empathy for everyone and everything no matter how remote or obscure renders people incapable of challenging really bad ideas. Some spectacularly bad ones have popped up in the past 50 - 70 years, and yet people still support these brain-dead causes -- because it feels good. Then they can brag about it to their friends. "Oh, I support this cause, and you should too, if you cared about x"
It's the same old guilt-trip mothers across time have used to get their kids to do what the kids didn't wa
Re: (Score:2)
Are you forgetting he's also a person?
A person? As far as I recall he is a monarch. Someone who has never had to struggle with anything a day in his life, gifted entire countries at birth. He is about to literally have his face on every bit of paper (plastic these days) I keep in my pocket. No I have no empathy for him. That doesn't mean I would say the same things if it happened to a *real* person. Not all people are seen in the same way by everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
It sucks that he has cancer.
But the King is also 75 years old. It's kind of expected. It's like we wouldn't be surprised if we found out he couldn't pass a mental acuity test. It's sad, but not a tragedy.
Now, if they announced that Princess Kate had cancer, that would be something newsworthy. And then you'd see an outpouring of grief. I'm not wishing that on her, by the way. I'm just using it as an example.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's debatable that he's a person.
Re:Empathy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the disdain that Charles shows for us that makes it hard to have empathy for him. His mum at least had the good sense to hide her feelings and not get involved with anything, but Charles has been outspoken for many years.
I hope he recovers quickly because no human being deserves to suffer cancer, but knowing how little he cares for me makes it hard to have any particular empathy for him.
Re: (Score:2)
How are those two statements connected? I think having some nerds in charge would save many more lives than our current crop of leaders who are wrecking the planet and cutting life-saving funding all while "feeling sorry" for their victims.
Re: (Score:2)
With that said, news on the royal family of Britain has been on the regular news channels all day. It's general news and in abundance. I come to Slashdot to read about the progress of curing cancer... not who has it.
My usual emotional state these days is not a lack of empathy, but merely disappointment.
Re: (Score:2)
The British royals don't choose that life, they're born & groomed into it. They're pretty much livestock, bred for succession.
The real issue in the UK is The Crown (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]). It's a powerful organisation that's above the law & it's used by rich & powerful people to subvert democracy for personal gain, & I mean a lot of personal gain. 40% of the world's "dark money" is handled
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Did you seriously just say that there are ways a person stops being a person - while still alive?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
There are all sorts of times when being a public figure loses you things granted to normal people. Fortunately for most public figures they have enough wealth and power to de facto grant all sorts of things denied to the rabble.
Re: (Score:2)
These are literal members of the ruling class, in this case someone who directly participated in some of the worst excesses of colonialism (and still do if you're paying attention). Someone who routinely campaigns for Austerity for everyone but themselves.
But a mean old man who's be directly involved in loads of terrible things and done zero with his privilege to make the world a better place beyond the usual "thoughts & prayers" B.S.?
Charles is a particularly nasty example of this. For decades, if someone died without a will, all their assets were transferred to his personal bank accounts. Basically, this piece of scum profits both off the lives of ordinary English people - and their deaths, too.
Re: Empathy? (Score:2)
Whoops meant to write "you" not "we" there.
You have very slightly more democracy than we do. Brexit proved that.
Re: Empathy? (Score:2)
No, a lot more. Our MPs dont get their seats based on who's got the most money to stand. And the PM has to be a member of parliament, not some random rich guy who fancies a power trip for his retirement meaning most of your presidents are borderline senile pensioners.
King Chuck (Score:3)
Elizabeth saved the crown in the UK. In addition to saving it from obsolescence by simultaneously conducting herself with saint-like dignity and adapting the crown to the modern world, she also outlived Charles's extended adolescence, giving him the 70+ years he needed to learn how to not shit all over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite a few people were convinced ol' Liz did what she could to outlive Charlie so he wouldn't get to be king, to save the crown.
Well, she almost made it. Almost.
Re: (Score:2)
Her upbringing involved driving ambulances in London in World War 2, dodging bomb craters and bombs designed to kill rescue teams.
Her skills at motoring were routinely used to terrify visiting dignitaries into stunned silence, as were her skills at cleaning, assembling, and firing heavy machine guns.
I'm a little surprised her sons went off the rails as much as they did. She was quite capable of dealing with troublemakers from the rooftops of Windsor, if she'd wanted to, and they were well aware of that.
Church of England (Score:2)
King Charles the 3rd is also the head of the Church of England (equivalent to Pope).
Maybe he made God mad?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see...
Fucked the maid
Leading to events that killed the Princess (ex-Princess?)
Disapproved or certain genetic additions to the bloodline
Made the maid Queen
At least 3 of those things are probably against what Charles' God would like to see. King Charles was not touched by a noodly appendage.
Re: (Score:2)
The former Bishop of Durham, the late David Jenkins, said the virgin birth was a fairy tale and said of the resurrection that God didn't play conjuring tricks with boxes of bones.
The Church of England isn't exactly the most religious of organisations.
Off topic ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm up to speed on this story because it's everywhere. I care. It's newsworthy.
This is the camel's nose and objections will hopefully prevent articles like LINDSAY LOHAN BACK IN REHAB!!
Re: (Score:2)
Being a triple cancer survivor, I sympathise with anyone who has got cancer, royalty or poor.
But I agree that this piece of news is not "news for nerds", and does not belong on Slashdot.
dead or near dead within 5 years of old betty (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Prostate cancer is rarely fatal, it is almost always slow enough something else age-related will get you first.
Re: (Score:2)
This probably isn't prostate cancer. For most prostate cancers the treatment is "watchful waiting".
Almost every older man has prostate cancer (Score:2)
Long live the King! (Score:2)
Long live the King!
return as soon as possible (Score:2)
My Dad and Maternal Gramps had Prostate cancer (Score:2)
And many in my family had cancer as well (liver, limphona non-hudgins, GIT).
My family is very active in cancer related activities. If you go and see the past presidents of the cancer society in my home state (in Venezuela) part of it is a Who's Who of my family, and close friends of my family. If I reminded in my home state, you can bet your ass my face would be on that wall as well.
So, I feel it very much for King charles, and hope his cancer goen into remission, and he dies of old age, while in his sleep,
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't think I am legally allowed to care (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Americans are legally allowed to feel sorry for a sick figurehead leader of an ally.
In fact since thoughtcrimes have yet to be implemented, Americans are legally allowed to feel sorry for anyone!
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't we rebel against that crown?
No. We rebelled against taxes on our tea.
At the time, Americans had no philosophical objection to monarchies, and there were proposals to make George Washington our king.
Newburgh Letter [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't we rebel against that crown?
No. We rebelled against taxes on our tea.
At the time, Americans had no philosophical objection to monarchies, and there were proposals to make George Washington our king.
Newburgh Letter [wikipedia.org]
Absolutely inaccurate! It was proposed by a small faction of people, including just one person in the letter you cite that George Washington become king, but Washington himself disdained it. At the time, a robust post-Enlightenment political movement was taking place and founding fathers such as Benjamin Franklin, James Madison etc, who were greatly influenced by Montesquieu and his theory of separation of powers. The founding fathers' core ideal was to setup the proper structure of government to preve
Re:I don't think I am legally allowed to care (Score:4, Insightful)
The founding fathers' core ideal was to setup the proper structure of government to prevent tyranny; monarchy is diametrically opposed to that ideal.
They kept most of the same institutions, reform rather than revolution. The King, who already had very limited power in the UK, was replaced with a president who was supposed to be even more minor, with true power resting in the legislature.
Since then, the king became even less influential, while the US president gained dramatic new powers and importance, so that congress is seen as secondary. Recent presidents of both parties have increasingly ruled by executive order, instead of by law.
What would the founding fathers have thought of this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'm in favor of a "constitutional monarch". I think the monarch should be allowed to cancel any law that's over 20 years old, and to refuse to allow any new legislation to become law. And that the successor of the current monarch should be chosen by a vote from among the 20 people who are both over 27 years old and most closely related to the current monarch using an instant-recount method. The only other duty/power of the monarch would be public appearances and speeches, and to be able to avoi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It has indeed always amazed me how
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, never saw the sense in the constant stream of news about royals...especially in United States media.
Then you're probably also missing out on royals conspiracy theories about robots and vampires and plots to take over America [marieclaire.com] . . . this time for realzorz!
Re: (Score:2)
William has three children, all of whom are ahead of Harry in line. The world will almost certainly be spared the existence of King Harry.
Re: (Score:2)
No we didn't. We just wrapped the "prime minister" job up in words and called it President. The US president is more a a monarch than the King of Britain.
Re: (Score:3)
Most democratic governments are under the 5th-Republic French style constitution, in which the President has more power than the President of the United States style of constitution
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fixing the second chamber would do a lot more than having the PM as head of state.
Re: (Score:2)
It gets a lot of comments. There are quite a few people in the UK who still care about the monarchy.
This is the country that gave itself Brexit, remember. Toxic nostalgia and delusions of grandeur.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority no longer support Brexit, an it's frankly arguable that they ever did. 62% of people support the monarchy, with a further 11% as "don't know" giving currently about 2 to 1 against an elected head of state.
I'm sure there's some correlation, but dismissing every Royalist as deluded brexiteers is not supported by the numbers.