Re: Princess Kate battling cancer
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2024 3:34 am
DML wrote:Also William has still
Thought he was being overly defensive tbh.
DML wrote:Also William has still
DML wrote:Also William has still cheated on Kate.
Prototype wrote:i don't think you can be in the royal family and ever expect the same levels of privacy the average citizen can. kind of the reason harry and meghan pissed off (rightfully, imo)
Imrahil wrote:I feel there is some serious entitlement going on with all this. I'm not sure why some people think they should have revealed the cancer diagnosis earlier than they did.
Moggy wrote:Imrahil wrote:I feel there is some serious entitlement going on with all this. I'm not sure why some people think they should have revealed the cancer diagnosis earlier than they did.
With any other "celebrity", I'd agree with you. We have zero right to know anything about the private lives of actors and pop stars.
But when it comes to somebody who will be the Queen in a few years time, the right to total privacy disappears due to the the role they have.
The same would go for the Prime Minister. If you want to rule or reign over the country, then you don't get the right to keep that country in the dark over things like this.
Imrahil wrote:Moggy wrote:Imrahil wrote:I feel there is some serious entitlement going on with all this. I'm not sure why some people think they should have revealed the cancer diagnosis earlier than they did.
With any other "celebrity", I'd agree with you. We have zero right to know anything about the private lives of actors and pop stars.
But when it comes to somebody who will be the Queen in a few years time, the right to total privacy disappears due to the the role they have.
The same would go for the Prime Minister. If you want to rule or reign over the country, then you don't get the right to keep that country in the dark over things like this.
That seems like an arbitrary line in the sand to me, plus I don't agree it's the same as if it were a Prime Minister. The Royal Family don't run the country and have their finger on the nuclear button, they are representatives of a constitutional monarchy. Having some privacy when it comes to choosing the best time to reveal the extent of cancer treatment for their kids welfare doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Imrahil wrote:I feel there is some serious entitlement going on with all this...
jawa_ wrote:Yep.
noun
the fact of having a right to something.
Moggy wrote:Imrahil wrote:Moggy wrote:Imrahil wrote:I feel there is some serious entitlement going on with all this. I'm not sure why some people think they should have revealed the cancer diagnosis earlier than they did.
With any other "celebrity", I'd agree with you. We have zero right to know anything about the private lives of actors and pop stars.
But when it comes to somebody who will be the Queen in a few years time, the right to total privacy disappears due to the the role they have.
The same would go for the Prime Minister. If you want to rule or reign over the country, then you don't get the right to keep that country in the dark over things like this.
That seems like an arbitrary line in the sand to me, plus I don't agree it's the same as if it were a Prime Minister. The Royal Family don't run the country and have their finger on the nuclear button, they are representatives of a constitutional monarchy. Having some privacy when it comes to choosing the best time to reveal the extent of cancer treatment for their kids welfare doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
It's not arbitrary. They are the family that reigns over this (and other) country.
I would agree they don't have to reveal their health minutes after a diagnosis. But their position does mean it should be revealed relatively quickly and without dodgy photoshopped images pretending everything is fine.
aayl1 wrote:DML wrote:Also William has still
Thought he was being overly defensive tbh.
Imrahil wrote:Moggy wrote:Imrahil wrote:Moggy wrote:Imrahil wrote:I feel there is some serious entitlement going on with all this. I'm not sure why some people think they should have revealed the cancer diagnosis earlier than they did.
With any other "celebrity", I'd agree with you. We have zero right to know anything about the private lives of actors and pop stars.
But when it comes to somebody who will be the Queen in a few years time, the right to total privacy disappears due to the the role they have.
The same would go for the Prime Minister. If you want to rule or reign over the country, then you don't get the right to keep that country in the dark over things like this.
That seems like an arbitrary line in the sand to me, plus I don't agree it's the same as if it were a Prime Minister. The Royal Family don't run the country and have their finger on the nuclear button, they are representatives of a constitutional monarchy. Having some privacy when it comes to choosing the best time to reveal the extent of cancer treatment for their kids welfare doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
It's not arbitrary. They are the family that reigns over this (and other) country.
I would agree they don't have to reveal their health minutes after a diagnosis. But their position does mean it should be revealed relatively quickly and without dodgy photoshopped images pretending everything is fine.
Well, I think it is. I don't feel their position denies those basic rights in certain unique situations such as this when kids are involved.
I just think any situation where people are claiming any kind of right (or placing demands) over a woman's personal decision making when it comes to their children's welfare and a cancer diagnosis seems pretty backwards and non-progressive to me. It trumps any personal views on constitutional monarchy VS republic, etc.
Moggy wrote:Imrahil wrote:Moggy wrote:Imrahil wrote:Moggy wrote:Imrahil wrote:I feel there is some serious entitlement going on with all this. I'm not sure why some people think they should have revealed the cancer diagnosis earlier than they did.
With any other "celebrity", I'd agree with you. We have zero right to know anything about the private lives of actors and pop stars.
But when it comes to somebody who will be the Queen in a few years time, the right to total privacy disappears due to the the role they have.
The same would go for the Prime Minister. If you want to rule or reign over the country, then you don't get the right to keep that country in the dark over things like this.
That seems like an arbitrary line in the sand to me, plus I don't agree it's the same as if it were a Prime Minister. The Royal Family don't run the country and have their finger on the nuclear button, they are representatives of a constitutional monarchy. Having some privacy when it comes to choosing the best time to reveal the extent of cancer treatment for their kids welfare doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
It's not arbitrary. They are the family that reigns over this (and other) country.
I would agree they don't have to reveal their health minutes after a diagnosis. But their position does mean it should be revealed relatively quickly and without dodgy photoshopped images pretending everything is fine.
Well, I think it is. I don't feel their position denies those basic rights in certain unique situations such as this when kids are involved.
I just think any situation where people are claiming any kind of right (or placing demands) over a woman's personal decision making when it comes to their children's welfare and a cancer diagnosis seems pretty backwards and non-progressive to me. It trumps any personal views on constitutional monarchy VS republic, etc.
You are really going with a "think of the children!" with added "she's a woman! Be progressive!" argument here?
It's got nothing to do with her being a woman. I'd have the same opinion about Charles, William or Rishi Sunak. The role they have in the country (and the privilege that comes with it) means they forgo any right to privacy for serious health issues.
Van Foster wrote:It's also worth remembering that Kate wasn't born into that particular freak show; she chose to join it voluntarily.