William & Kate 3

[DalmatianCat]

2 hours ago, viii said:

To be morbidly honest, I don't think we'll have much time to really see how Charles will be as King. He won't have a 70 year reign like his mother did. He'll be lucky if he gets 15, I think. 

And even though he appears to be in good health for 75, it still can’t compare with the stamina his mother had for several decades in her prime.

[just_ordinary]

I don’t think people would be happy with a Queen Anne for long. Her no-nonsense attitude can be plain rude at times. This comes across rather well if you are not actually the top dog. She can play this off as quirkiness but we all know that the wind blows differently if you are on top. Just look at how people got their knickers in a twist because Charles dared to be annoyed about lot actually being able to sign a document because the table space was too small and the pen was leaking- going over the signature and his hand- which means getting other stuff dirty. Can you imagine Anne in that scenario? The biting remark? And as a woman her behaviour would probably be even more of a “problem”. 
I think Anne and Charles both have qualities that suit the Crown but as humans they are also flawed and have shortcomings. Anne would have gotten on with the job but I think she is pretty happy not to have to reign herself in but just riding the wave of popularity for a change, going on as she likes and having herself and her children out of the public eye a bit more.

I say this as someone that likes Anne. Her snobbish snottiness is way more likable to me than false friendliness. But I am probably not in the majority.

Edited January 12 by just_ordinary

[viii]

As someone who dislikes Anne, I agree that she wouldn't have made a very popular queen over all. 

[Jackie3]

9 hours ago, viii said:

To be morbidly honest, I don't think we'll have much time to really see how Charles will be as King. He won't have a 70 year reign like his mother did. He'll be lucky if he gets 15, I think. 

If he lives as long has his mom, William will be in his mid-60's when he ascends the throne. And so will George, if this pattern continues. 

[Jackie3]

If William ascended the throne now, the public could go nuts with fantasy narratives about him, Kate and the children. 

• Watch how he looks at her so lovingly. . . 
• Charlotte is the boss, the next princess royal. . . 
• Little Louis is the cheeky prince. . .
• They are hands-on parents, despite being royal. . . 

OTOH, it would be great optics for the British monarchy if they had a King and Queen with young children. 

Otherwise, what do you have? A billionaire husband and wife, living in luxury, raising 3 of the world's richest children, all waiting for grandpa to die. Those aren't the kind of optics that make you feel connected to them. But if William had a job (being king) it would change those optics dramatically.

Edited January 13 by Jackie3

[Ozlsn]

On 1/13/2024 at 1:18 AM, treehugger said:

@DalmatianCat thank you for the correction.  I totally messed up the order in my head. There would never have been a Queen Anne. 

Yeah me too - I started to say oldest girl then had a brain moment. Only girl as well, so not sure if that was my head was originally going with that sentence. (Should probably have had coffee first.) I still think the expectations placed on Anne were greater than those put on her younger brothers.

I suspect it wouldn't matter who the monarch was, the media would have found something to harp on in a way that QE2 didn't have to deal with.

On 1/13/2024 at 4:32 AM, viii said:

To be morbidly honest, I don't think we'll have much time to really see how Charles will be as King. He won't have a 70 year reign like his mother did. He'll be lucky if he gets 15, I think. 

And also is likely to reign in what appear to be becoming challenging times, which may help (if he manages to be seen as a uniting figurehead) or hinder him.  I agree, 15 to maybe 25 max years, which is enough time to make some impact but obviously not as much as the two most recent Queens had.

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, Ozlsn said:

And also is likely to reign in what appear to be becoming challenging times, which may help (if he manages to be seen as a uniting figurehead) or hinder him.  I agree, 15 to maybe 25 max years, which is enough time to make some impact but obviously not as much as the two most recent Queens had.

If Charles remains on the throne for 25 years, William will ascent at 67. Another elderly king. Another man who waits around for almost a lifetime to start his work.

[klein_roeschen]

13 hours ago, Ozlsn said:

And also is likely to reign in what appear to be becoming challenging times, which may help (if he manages to be seen as a uniting figurehead) or hinder him.  I agree, 15 to maybe 25 max years, which is enough time to make some impact but obviously not as much as the two most recent Queens had.

Or he could follow Margarethe of Denmarks example and retire in a few years when Williams kids a older. Very, very unlikely since Charles had to wait so many years to become king, but not totally of the books. I could see something like a dementia or alzheimer diagnosis considering stepping down to save him from suffering it in public and to garantee a smother sucsession instead of a regency should he be unable.

And another thought that entered my mind after listening to a history podcast on my commute. While we discuss the ages of heirs like William and how old they are when they will be crowned. But looking at places like Spain or the Netherlands, they have very young heiresses to the throne. I'm curious what would happen if the spanish or dutch king sudently die and their young daughters are now faced with being queen before they finished their university education or being a legal adult themselfes?

Edited January 14 by klein_roeschen

[tabitha2]

If they are not of age a regent will be appointed. As for education well they could bend the usual rules and still have a regent or the heiress’s  just have to deal with it and shoulder the throne with the assist of their various councils, other parent and family. 

[Jackie3]

On 1/14/2024 at 7:54 AM, tabitha2 said:

If they are not of age a regent will be appointed. As for education well they could bend the usual rules and still have a regent or the heiress’s  just have to deal with it and shoulder the throne with the assist of their various councils, other parent and family. 

Maybe they could do an experiment and do without a monarch for a few years, till the young royal reaches 18. 

Does tourism fall? Does anything bad happen at all? How will the extra money be spent? 

 

Kate's work schedule for last July. She didnt work in August or early September.

 

[VGL]

Kate was admitted to hospital for planned abdominal surgery yesterday.

 

 

[prayawaythefundie]

That reads concerning. Hope she will fully recover soon.

Edited January 17 by prayawaythefundie

[tabitha2]

If it was planned then she should not have had upcoming engagements to postpone. 

Edited January 17 by tabitha2

[louisa05]

3 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

If it was planned then she should not have had upcoming engagements to postpone. 

Engagements are scheduled months out, sometimes longer. . They are not announced that early for security reasons. And I suspect planned in this context means scheduled for a newly discovered condition not brought in as an emergency patient and rushed to surgery. 

[Loveday]

20 minutes ago, prayawaythefundie said:

That reads concerning. Hope she will fully recover soon.

Yes, it is concerning. Especially as she'll be in hospital for up to two weeks, recovering. Most people go home after a few days at most, following surgery, or to rehab depending on what the surgery was for. 

Regarding her engagements, royal calendars are filled months or even a year in advance. This surgery may have been planned, but not that far back, hence the need to reorganise her engagement calendar.

I hope all goes well for her, as much for the children's sake as for hers and her husband's.

[VGL]

5 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

If it was planned then she should not have had upcoming engagements to postpone. 

I guess it depends on how long ago the engagements were planned and how long ago she was diagnosed as needing the surgery.  

[louisa05]

4 minutes ago, Loveday said:

Yes, it is concerning. Especially as she'll be in hospital for up to two weeks, recovering. Most people go home after a few days at most, following surgery, or to rehab depending on what the surgery was for. 

Regarding her engagements, royal calendars are filled months or even a year in advance. This surgery may have been planned, but not that far back, hence the need to reorganise her engagement calendar.

I hope all goes well for her, as much for the children's sake as for hers and her husband's.

The UK health system does not include insurance kicking patients out of the hospital as soon as possible regardless of their actual condition. So there is that. 

[viii]

Planned surgery just means it wasn’t emergency surgery. They could have planned it yesterday. Either way, something pretty significant for a two week stay in the hospital. 

[Loveday]

7 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

The UK health system does not include insurance kicking patients out of the hospital as soon as possible regardless of their actual condition. So there is that. 

This is true. And of course it's the Princess of Wales we're talking about here, not the average person on the national health. It still concerns me, though, that it's two weeks; even in the UK I wonder if that's the norm for abdominal surgery that's non-cancerous. I'd think several days, maybe up to a week at most. Of course, if she's paying for it herself and not using the national health, she could probably stay as long as she and the doctors wanted. Not that I know anything about UK health care except that the US system could likely learn a lot from it!🥴

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

If it was planned then she should not have had upcoming engagements to postpone. 

That is a good point.

Maybe they thought "emergency surgery" would alarm the public? Maybe a problem developed Monday and it was planned for Wednesday?

In any event, 14 days is almost unheard of around here, unless the surgery was pretty severe. I wonder if it has anything to do with her extreme thinness?

Also, 2.5 months of recovery is quite a long time, even for abdominal surgery. I dont' know anyone in the US who requires 2.5 months to recover from surgery. Surely a healthy middle-aged woman would have healed long before then?

Especially since her engagements are not physically taxing, are generally close to home, and are sometimes done via zoom. That makes me wonder if she is going through a treatment of some kind. 

Edited January 17 by Jackie3

[Lollipopgirl]

The palace have said it’s non cancerous according to Sky News so that’s good. I’m in the UK and I’ve had a few abdominal surgeries due to Crohn’s disease, both on the NHS and privately. Even in a private hospital 14 days is a long stay - I think my longest was just over a week. They’ve said she’s taking 2/3 months for recovery which again sounds a long time. Hopefully she’ll recover well, any surgery is not much fun.

[TN-peach]

In general, hospitals do not want anyone staying longer than they have to be because of the increased rate of infections.   Hospitals want to people to recover where they are more comfortable and where there are less hospital-sized germs.  Whatever surgery she is having is pretty serious with a very serious and difficult recovery if they want her in the hospital that long. 

Not a laparoscopic type of surgery but an open abdominal surgery.  My gallbladder removal was laparoscopic and it was same day surgery.  So she is having something super-serious.

[Loveday]

33 minutes ago, Lollipopgirl said:

The palace have said it’s non cancerous according to Sky News so that’s good. I’m in the UK and I’ve had a few abdominal surgeries due to Crohn’s disease, both on the NHS and privately. Even in a private hospital 14 days is a long stay - I think my longest was just over a week. They’ve said she’s taking 2/3 months for recovery which again sounds a long time. Hopefully she’ll recover well, any surgery is not much fun.

That's what I keep thinking. But again, it's the PoW, so there may be other mitigating circumstances involved. I'd love to have stayed a couple extra days when I had a C-section, but insurance only covered three days total (which from what I've heard recently is more than a lot of women get these days!), although I think I'd have gone stir-crazy at two weeks!😳

[QuiverFullofBooks]

Is it likely to be a hysterectomy, or is two weeks in the hospital too much for that?

[Loveday]

1 minute ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Is it likely to be a hysterectomy, or is two weeks in the hospital too much for that?

I was sitting here on the speculation bus thinking the same thing.🚐