Do I need to mention the health of the King this morning when everyone else is?
I think I do, because the news media are obsessing about the health of a man who will be taking a break from a job that quite literally no-one needs to do, and are treating it as if nothing else in the country matters. No wonder people in this country are so acquiescent when we are totally infantilised in this way.
But let me also turn to the health of Charles Windsor. Of course, I wish him well. I would do the same for anyone with a cancer diagnosis. I know what it feels like to be with someone getting one, and to live through their treatment. It was, at least in my closest experience, no fun at all. At a human level he has my total sympathy, as do his family.
But Charles Windsor is for reasons of eugenic belief also deemed to be our monarch, and as King he is a public figure. In that role he is not a private person. And given the obsession with that role we deserve to be told the truth, and I very much doubt that is happening.
We do not know what cancer he has.
We do not know when it was really discovered.
We do not know what stage it is at.
We do not know what the treatment is going to be.
The absence of this information is creating uncertainty, speculation and stress, which is the exact opposite of what the Palace said it wanted to do. That is either bad comms at best or wholly inappropriate at worst. It really would help if the truth was told. Infantilisation does not help at this moment.
More than that though, it is now beholden on those in the media who are commenting to point out just how exceptional this care apparently is. The speed of reaction is quite phenomenal. If the King requires treatment at this pace, why doesn't everyone else? Is it that he is really worth more than the rest of us, who have no chance of being treated in the way that it would seem he is being? Isn't that an issue worthy of debate when we know that cancer treatments are getting slower, rather than faster?
I stress, I have real concern for Charles Windsor and his family. But I think the truth is required both on his condition and why he gets preferential treatment when I think all cancer patients have a right to the highest standard of care and to have their concerns alleviated to the greatest possible degree. Nothing about the treatment he is currently getting will help achieve that goal without awkward questions being asked. I reserve the right to ask them.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Thank you for putting my exact same thoughts into words, and in a way that is well balanced between genuine concern for the well being of a fellow human being, going though a traumatic experience, and the all too obvious contast with the inequality of treatment most of the King’s subjects can expect.
That took some care
But I think the questions do really need to be addressed
Focussing on Charles takes the spotlight away from government-induced problems, and gives the “news” papers more attention, thereby increasing their advertising revenue.
Great comment. How it is dominating the news beggars belief.
My thoughts exactly. Switched on the news and ‘oh god, here we go again’ l thought. Endless coverage of one man in his 70’s with a cancer diagnosis. Simply because he’s born into the role. Sympathy for him as a human being, but when is this country going to grow up and get a proper constitutional arrangement suitable for the 21st century?
I started to question the monarchy more seriously when the Queen allowed the prorogation of Parliament. Fortunately the Supreme Court intervened.
Charles’ illness causes me to reflect on the role. A Head of State is necessary (unless we live in anarcho- syndicalist commune ). The issues are 1) what should be their powers and how should they be used? 2) How should they be appointed and for what term?
Canada, Australia and New Zealand have very similar systems and a Governor-General is appointed with some of the functions the King has here. There are powers but they are largely a formality e.g. agreeing to an election or appointment of ministers. Germany has a ‘figurehead President’ chosen by the Upper house and Lander /states. Germany is a Federal republic.
I have become aware of the Irish system of electing their President -and the quality of the people elected. This might be a better model for us in the future.
I have come to think we need a more defined constitution while not sacrificing its flexibility. If we look at the USA, one sees the disadvantages of a separately elected President who is also Head of State and the drawbacks of the division on powers.
We need to think through the role whether or not the institution of monarchy has a long term role.
The Irish model is very good, I think.
From Republic
How it works in other countries
Republic proposes a directly elected head of state, similar to the system in Ireland. In Germany the president is elected by a special convention made up of the federal parliament and representatives of the states (Lander). In other countries it’s the parliament who appoints the president. All these options are legitimate and democratic, but we believe direct election is the best, most democratic and fairest way to choose a head of state.
As in Germany, Ireland, Italy, Greece and elsewhere, the head of state wouldn’t have political power, but a limited constitutional and ceremonial role. They are often limited to two terms in office and are required to remain non-partisan once elected.
https://www.republic.org.uk/choosing_a_head_of_state
Helen
would you agree that if a government tried to pull ‘a fast one’ as they did with the prorogation of Parliament, the Head of State of the sort you instance should be able to say ‘no’? My opinion is yes and we have the Supreme Court to rule on his/her position.
With the new laws on protest, it should have been the role of the Upper House to ‘revise’ them. I gather some of the Lords decided they couldn’t block as they were not elected. There are some good people there. We need to clear out the others and have a reformed Upper House or Senate.
In Ireland the Supreme Court advises the President on constitutional issues.
A friend was recently diagnosed with cancer. (All is fine so far, thanks.) She had an NHS operation to remove remove the tumour within a few weeks.
I guess that was lucky because much of the NHS is not reaching its standards. https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/cancer-waiting-time-targets
And we all know that delay in such cases can be fatal.
There is an interesting question around how much privacy the head of state or other candidates for public office should be entitled to. Very different in say France or the UK or the US. Should Trump for example publish his medical and tax records, like other candidates?
For Charles it would soon have become apparent that he was not able to discharge all of his commitments. Frankly I think some sort of fuller announcement about the sort of cancer, its stage, treatment and prognosis would be helpful. And I’m sure it will happen eventually.
In the meantime there will be speculation (as there was for the late Queen and is for the Princess of Wales). Just as if this were a soap opera.
My tumour was picked up fortuitously during a scan for another health issue and I was operated on 5 days later. Then straight on to a clinical trial for post-op therapy. This was 1996.
J’s tumour was picked up, again during a routine scan, and she was on to the cancer conveyor belt within a couple of weeks and operated on only a few weeks later. And then on to post-op radio and chemotherapy. This was 2019.
There are a lot of media comments about preferential treatment for C3 simply because of his status, but the notion that only the elite gets quick responses from the NHS system is just wrong.
The NHS didn’t slip a gear for either of us.
Here in Scotland we get bowel cancer tests, mammogram screening and the PSA test for prostate problems from 50, so ‘catch it early’ thinking applies to everyone who takes advantage of the options for routine testing.
NHS performance is not universally good, for all sorts of reasons, but the core principles are there in every day practice.
I am delighted it has worked for you.
But it does not for everyone, and is getting worse.
That’s my point.
When you say “….is getting worse” do you mean UK-wide or in England only?
Probably England
Ever since the occasion 50 years ago when the British Establishment Flying Squad had to be sent to Cambridge University to dissuade Charles from supporting the Labour party and his later support for Green Issues, Charles has been subjected to an unremitting campaign of bile and disparagement from the UK media.
In this General Election Year, with the Tory party on the canvas, what possibly could be the meaning of this over the top, hypocritically patriotic tsunami of bilge in support of our new King?
This royal obsession by the ruling class is certainly welcome for them as it turns our attention away from the genicidal war in Plestine that the Tories and Labour are supporting, the climate crisis, the Ukainians losing the war against Russia even the attacks on Yemen, the list can go on of course (nuclear war?) looming……………
Not to mention our own young people being softened up for some kind of conscription. There is no way I would allow my youngsters to be press-ganged to risk their lives for the unspeakably violent US/global world-domination ambitions.
I notice today that the Daily Telegraph (alone it seems) reports that the Home Office should ban marches for Palestine, on the basis that they are ‘terrorist’ supporting activities/occasions. I despair.
[…] The illness of Charles III Richard Murphy […]
Watching the ITV News last night was interesting
The Newsreader had some emotion in her voice but more importantly there was a mountain of speculation based on a molehill of information. Given that its discussion of a persons medical issues I suggest that this raises many issues.
But it comes back to my view that one of the biggest issues in favour of abolition of the Monarchy is the effect it has on those who are born into The Royal Family who have no choice in the matter
Yes – the monarch will obviously get the ultimate in diagnosis and treatment – but ten years ears ago the waits and waiting lists were right down, so many more people got relatively timely diagnosis and treatment.
But now the waits have become life threateningly longer for tens of thousands – while other thousands at the top end can now buy themselves timely treatment and diagnosis.
We wouldnt need to question the monarchy and its priviledges but could point out the wreckage of a health service this government has produced over 14 years and is openly continuing to do so by forcing nurses and doctors pay down in real terms – in full view….with 150000 staff vacancies
Whenever news about the Windsor celebrities comes on, I turn it off. Better things to do with my time and attention than that. A few others in that category, like Johnson; and Sunak’s getting there.
Lot’s of good comments here and much to agree with.
What I think we have here is a mix of deference and modern public relations and it just feels weird.
My life is dominated by people who have not had prompt care for their ailments, and with Charlie being one of the richest men in the world, no matter how things turn out (and I hope it turns out well) he will not have to go through any of that.
Sometimes it is hard to separate the person from what they stand for.
That I’m afraid is an occupational hazard for people like our King, as the rest of us mortals wade through declining public services that the Windsors have effectively endorsed this list 14 years.