https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/king-charles-diagnosed-cancer-rcna137293

King Charles diagnosed with cancer

The news comes a week after both Princess Kate and King Charles III were discharged from a private London clinic after medical procedures.

By Doha Madani
King Charles III, 75, has been diagnosed with cancer, Buckingham Palace announced Monday.

"During The King’s recent hospital procedure for benign prostate enlargement, a separate issue of concern was noted," the palace said in an emailed statement. "Subsequent diagnostic tests have identified a form of cancer."

The statement also did not specify what stage the cancer was found.

Separately, Buckingham Palace said Charles did not have prostate cancer.

The news comes a week after both Kate and King Charles were discharged from a private London clinic after medical procedures. The king underwent a “corrective procedure” for an enlarged prostate, while Kate, 42, had unspecified abdominal surgery on Jan. 17.

“His Majesty has today commenced a schedule of regular treatments, during which time he has been advised by doctors to postpone public-facing duties,” the statement added.

According to the statement, the king wanted to share his diagnosis in part to avoid speculation on his condition but also "in the hope it may assist public understanding for all those around the world who are affected by cancer."

Charles is grateful for the swift intervention of his medical team and their expert care, according to Buckingham Palace.

No further details are being shared about his treatment or prognosis, a palace spokesperson said, but the king returned to London on Monday to begin out-patient treatment.

Charles ascended the throne last May in a coronation ceremony held months after the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Elizabeth reigned until her death at the age of 96 in September 2022. She was Britain's longest-reigning monarch with 70 years on the throne.

Kate is still in recovery, but her husband, Prince William, is set to return to his royal duties by attending the London’s Air Ambulance Charity Gala Dinner on Wednesday.

Kensington Palace previously said the Princess of Wales is unlikely to return to her royal duties before Easter, on March 31. There was no date specified for the king’s return to duties.

Buckingham Palace noted that many of the king's planned engagement will have to postponed or canceled, apologizing in advance to anyone inconvenienced as a result. Charles' wife, Queen Camilla, will continue with her full public duties as he undergoes treatment.

In article <d1ca63b9-60b2-428d-86f7-8c9681cb9891n@googlegroups.com>,
Big Mongo <bigmongo1963@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/king-charles-diagnosed-cancer-rcna137293
>
> King Charles diagnosed with cancer
>
> The news comes a week after both Princess Kate and King Charles III were
> discharged from a private London clinic after medical procedures.
>
> By Doha Madani
> King Charles III, 75, has been diagnosed with cancer, Buckingham Palace
> announced Monday.
>
> "During The King’s recent hospital procedure for benign prostate enlargement,
> a separate issue of concern was noted," the palace said in an emailed
> statement. "Subsequent diagnostic tests have identified a form of cancer."
>
> The statement also did not specify what stage the cancer was found.
>
> Separately, Buckingham Palace said Charles did not have prostate cancer.
>
> The news comes a week after both Kate and King Charles were discharged from a
> private London clinic after medical procedures. The king underwent a
> “corrective procedure” for an enlarged prostate, while Kate, 42, had
> unspecified abdominal surgery on Jan. 17.

If anybody's keeping count (and the kid doesn't change his name), the
next one will be King William V. (King William IV died in 1837.)

On 2/5/24 14:38, A Friend wrote:
> In article <d1ca63b9-60b2-428d-86f7-8c9681cb9891n@googlegroups.com>,
> Big Mongo <bigmongo1963@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/king-charles-diagnosed-cancer-rcna137293
>>
>> King Charles diagnosed with cancer
>>
>> The news comes a week after both Princess Kate and King Charles III were
>> discharged from a private London clinic after medical procedures.
>>
>> By Doha Madani
>> King Charles III, 75, has been diagnosed with cancer, Buckingham Palace
>> announced Monday.
>>
>> "During The King’s recent hospital procedure for benign prostate enlargement,
>> a separate issue of concern was noted," the palace said in an emailed
>> statement. "Subsequent diagnostic tests have identified a form of cancer."
>>
>> The statement also did not specify what stage the cancer was found.
>>
>> Separately, Buckingham Palace said Charles did not have prostate cancer.
>>
>> The news comes a week after both Kate and King Charles were discharged from a
>> private London clinic after medical procedures. The king underwent a
>> “corrective procedure” for an enlarged prostate, while Kate, 42, had
>> unspecified abdominal surgery on Jan. 17.
>
>
> If anybody's keeping count (and the kid doesn't change his name), the
> next one will be King William V. (King William IV died in 1837.)

So an old man has prostate cancer. Hardly newsworthy.

Rinaldi.

RinaldiJ <rinaldij@nunya.com> wrote:
>On 2/5/24 14:38, A Friend wrote:
>> In article <d1ca63b9-60b2-428d-86f7-8c9681cb9891n@googlegroups.com>,
>> Big Mongo <bigmongo1963@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/king-charles-diagnosed-cancer-rcna137293
>>>
>>> King Charles diagnosed with cancer
>>>
>>> The news comes a week after both Princess Kate and King Charles III were
>>> discharged from a private London clinic after medical procedures.
>>>
>>> By Doha Madani
>>> King Charles III, 75, has been diagnosed with cancer, Buckingham Palace
>>> announced Monday.
>>>
>>> "During The King’s recent hospital procedure for benign prostate
>enlargement,
>>> a separate issue of concern was noted," the palace said in an emailed
>>> statement. "Subsequent diagnostic tests have identified a form of cancer."
>>>
>>> The statement also did not specify what stage the cancer was found.
>>>
>>> Separately, Buckingham Palace said Charles did not have prostate cancer.
>>>
>>> The news comes a week after both Kate and King Charles were discharged from a
>>> private London clinic after medical procedures. The king underwent a
>>> “corrective procedure” for an enlarged prostate, while Kate, 42, had
>>> unspecified abdominal surgery on Jan. 17.
>>
>>
>> If anybody's keeping count (and the kid doesn't change his name), the
>> next one will be King William V. (King William IV died in 1837.)
>
>So an old man has prostate cancer. Hardly newsworthy.

Can you read?

He has benign prostate enlargement, quite common for a man his age.

Benign, not cancerous.

Whatever the cancer is that was not disclosed, it is not prostate
cancer.

Another article states that he's stepping away from public duties, so it
sounds like the treatment will be aggressive and he'll be feeling
dreadful.

On 2/5/24 16:40, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> RinaldiJ <rinaldij@nunya.com> wrote:
---------
>
> Can you read?

Quite well. Source got it wrong. Leads on to suppose colo-rectal cancer.

Rinaldi

RinaldiJ <rinaldij@nunya.com> wrote:
>On 2/5/24 16:40, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>RinaldiJ <rinaldij@nunya.com> wrote:

>---------

>>Can you read?

>Quite well. Source got it wrong. Leads on to suppose colo-rectal cancer.

You clearly had not read the article quoted in full in the root article
in this thread, in which prostate cancer was ruled out.

Source? You cited nothing.

The Queen [for 17 months now has been] dead! Long live The King!

Well, while I sure am glad I've never been one of Charles III's subjects, I HAVE always liked this improbably-good-natured, privileged-from-birth fellow, once I started following the young then-Prince of Wales circa 1963.

And I was forevermore in Charles's sympathetic camp ever since he famously, as teenager (and then still blissfully-future-harridan-Diana-free!) Prince Charles, surreptitiously mailed that fan letter overseas to Mad Magazine*. Thus I always hoped the often-unfairly-ridiculed Charles would enjoy his OWN lengthy time on the throne (ESPECIALLY after he set a new Brit record awaiting his reigning parent to expire, thus eclipsing the future Edward VII's waiting for HIS mother to die--eventually, as it happened, on Tuesday, January 22, 1901 on the Isle of Wight--thus ending the then-record-setting Victorian Era).

MEANWHILE:

IF (and I did type IF) I understand these arcane Anglo things, nowadays-not-so-young Prince William doesn't by British law HAVE to choose William V as his kingly moniker once he's ultimately crowned, even though after that WOULD be the expected sequence after William IV died thrusting young (and quite fertile) Victoria into 19th AND 20th Century history.

Instead, rather than the somewhat, uh, common William V...Prince William can instead go with, say, King Ringo, should he so choose. Or King Clapton. Or King Elvis. Or even King Sinatra** !

(Isn't that--if a bit irreverently--correct, Sir Epstein?)

BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
==================* Anyone remember the year he (quite privately) posted that published envelope to the Mad editors stateside? I wanna say 1964, but I might be off by several years on this one.
** I suppose that's what little ol' me would select, were I in his regal shoes.

On 2/5/24 18:10, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> RinaldiJ <rinaldij@nunya.com> wrote:
>> On 2/5/24 16:40, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> RinaldiJ <rinaldij@nunya.com> wrote:
>
>> ---------
>
>>> Can you read?
>
>> Quite well. Source got it wrong. Leads one to suppose colo-rectal cancer.
>
> You clearly had not read the article quoted in full in the root article
> in this thread, in which prostate cancer was ruled out.
>
> Source? You cited nothing.

I wasn't aware I needed to.

The multitude of posts I see specifying Charles *does not* have prostate
cancer might lead one to believe it a common misconception.

My source:

https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/article-785313

Rinaldi

radioacti...@gmail.com <radioactiveseattle@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Queen [for 17 months now has been] dead! Long live The King!
>
> Well, while I sure am glad I've never been one of Charles III's subjects, I HAVE always liked this improbably-good-natured, privileged-from-birth fellow, once I started following the young then-Prince of Wales circa 1963.
>
> And I was forevermore in Charles's sympathetic camp ever since he famously,
> as teenager (and then still blissfully-future-harridan-Diana-free!) Prince
> Charles, surreptitiously mailed that fan letter overseas to Mad Magazine*.
> Thus I always hoped the often-unfairly-ridiculed Charles would enjoy his OWN
> lengthy time on the throne (ESPECIALLY after he set a new Brit record
> awaiting his reigning parent to expire, thus eclipsing the future Edward
> VII's waiting for HIS mother to die--eventually, as it happened, on Tuesday,
> January 22, 1901 on the Isle of Wight--thus ending the then-record-setting
> Victorian Era).

Queen Victoria reigned
63 years,7 months,2 days
and
Queen Elizabeth II reigned
70 years,7 months,2 days

Charles also broke the age-at-accession record of William IV
(born August 21st 1765,acceded June 26th 1830,but wasn't even
next in line until January 5,1827).

> MEANWHILE:
>
> IF (and I did type IF) I understand these arcane Anglo things,
> nowadays-not-so-young Prince William doesn't by British law HAVE to choose
> William V as his kingly moniker once he's ultimately crowned, even though
> after that WOULD be the expected sequence after William IV died thrusting
> young (and quite fertile) Victoria into 19th AND 20th Century history.
>
> Instead, rather than the somewhat, uh, common William V...Prince William can
> instead go with, say, King Ringo, should he so choose. Or King Clapton. Or
> King Elvis. Or even King Sinatra** !
>
> (Isn't that--if a bit irreverently--correct, Sir Epstein?)

He could,but should not.

(As far as musical courts go,at least King Oliver had a musical nobility
(Duke Ellington,Count Basie) and ecclesiastical household (Reverend
Satchelmouth,"Satchmo" for short,and Elder Teagarden)).

> BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
> ===================
> * Anyone remember the year he (quite privately) posted that published
> envelope to the Mad editors stateside? I wanna say 1964, but I might be off
> by several years on this one.
> ** I suppose that's what little ol' me would select, were I in his regal shoes.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:

>Queen Victoria reigned
>63 years,7 months,2 days
>and
>Queen Elizabeth II reigned
>70 years,7 months,2 days

Victoria's grandchildren were quite naughty indeed, all having provoked WWI.

I don't think Elizabeth's grandchildren will have a similarly bloody
record.

>. . .

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> wrote:
>
>>Queen Victoria reigned
>>63 years,7 months,2 days
>>and
>>Queen Elizabeth II reigned
>>70 years,7 months,2 days
>
> Victoria's grandchildren were quite naughty indeed, all having provoked WWI.

Some did,some didn't.(The one who died in 1866 would appear blameless).
> I don't think Elizabeth's grandchildren will have a similarly bloody
> record.

True.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Interesting discussion re Victoria's clan, Folks; one hopes it doesn't inspire a revival of that old You-got-Prince-Albert-in-a-can? telephone gag.

Meanwhile, any of y'all able to detail how abdicated and exiled Wilhelm II got along (long-distance from Holland) with Hitler?

Victorian descendent Wilhelm II lived well into World War II, not dying until June 1941 in exile in Holland (and only weeks before Hitler's pivot east against Stalin), but I haven't heard much about the direct or at least indirect relationship shared by the Kaiser of WWI and the onetime to-the-front orders courier-corporal (apolitical during the war, but who in good time would rise to be kinda sorta a natural successor).

BRYAN STYBLE/Florida

radioacti...@gmail.com <radioactiveseattle@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting discussion re Victoria's clan, Folks; one hopes it doesn't inspire a revival of that old You-got-Prince-Albert-in-a-can? telephone gag.
>
> Meanwhile, any of y'all able to detail how abdicated and exiled Wilhelm II
> got along (long-distance from Holland) with Hitler?
>
> Victorian descendent Wilhelm II

(her first grandchild,and uncle of her first great-grandchild)

> lived well into World War II, not dying until June 1941 in exile in Holland
> (and only weeks before Hitler's pivot east against Stalin), but I haven't
> heard much about the direct or at least indirect relationship shared by the
> Kaiser of WWI and the onetime to-the-front orders courier-corporal (apolitical
> during the war, but who in good time would rise to be kinda sorta a natural
> successor).

When the Germans occupied Holland,the commanding officers set up
an honor guard for the Kaiser's residence...when Hitler heard of
this,he had it stopped.
> BRYAN STYBLE/Florida

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

FURTHER DATA regarding Prince Charles and MAD Magazine:

Some Reddit posters and a couple other sources tell the tale of a 1959 formal complaint which Palace officials issued against MAD editors and/or their publishers for over-the-top satirizing of young Charles and his royal parents. (At the time Prince Charles was about 11.)

But that is a totally different, years-earlier matter, unrelated to what I recall seeing years LATER:

MAD Magazine editors recounted this in their front-of-the-book letters-to-the-editor section--quite a few years later I'm confident, when Charles was in his mid-teens in sometime in the mid-60s. The way MAD bosses described it, they had received an anonymous fan letter of sorts from the U.K., showing several indications of having been posted (presumably behind the backs of his security retinue) by young Prince Charles himself. MAD even published a photograph of the envelope they received at their New York offices, though I seem to recall them NOT publishing a photo of the actual letter itself, or even its text. (I have NOT been able to nail down which year all this went down, much less a copy of the envelope photo.)

Again: this wonderful little media escapade instantly made me a Charles fan, as I remain as he ails now in 2024: Long live the MAD King!

BRYAN STYBLE/Florida

This incident was prompted by letters from
readers published in Mad which pointed out
a resemblance between Alfred E. Neuman and
Prince Charles. The letter in question was
handwritten on Buckingham Palace stationery
and reads "Dear Sirs No it isn't a bit --
not the least little bit like me. So jolly
well stow it! See! Charles. P." The
envelope is described as having been
postmarked from near the palace. This was
in 1958, when Charles was 9. (The letter
and/or its text may not have been published
at the time but it was in later reference
books about Mad.)

The formal protest in 1959 was over an
article in Mad that year which satirised
the royal family. An internal State
Department memo on the matter concluded
“Although publication of the cartoon was
in bad taste, it is felt here that making
an issue out of the incident would likely
add more grist to the mill of this dispute”
and no action was taken thereon.

On 2/6/2024 4:41 AM, radioacti...@gmail.com wrote:
> FURTHER DATA regarding Prince Charles and MAD Magazine:
>
> Some Reddit posters and a couple other sources tell the tale of a 1959 formal complaint which Palace
> officials issued against MAD editors and/or their publishers for over-the-top satirizing of young Charles
> and his royal parents. (At the time Prince Charles was about 11.)
>
> But that is a totally different, years-earlier matter, unrelated to what I recall seeing years LATER:
>
> MAD Magazine editors recounted this in their front-of-the-book letters-to-the-editor section--quite a few
> years later I'm confident, when Charles was in his mid-teens in sometime in the mid-60s. The way MAD bosses
> described it, they had received an anonymous fan letter of sorts from the U.K., showing several indications
> of having been posted (presumably behind the backs of his security retinue) by young Prince Charles himself.
> MAD even published a photograph of the envelope they received at their New York offices, though I seem to
> recall them NOT publishing a photo of the actual letter itself, or even its text. (I have NOT been able to
> nail down which year all this went down, much less a copy of the envelope photo.)
>
> Again: this wonderful little media escapade instantly made me a Charles fan, as I remain as he ails now in
> 2024: Long live the MAD King!
>
> BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
>

Hitler despised Kaiser Wilhelm because Hitler believed Wilhelm sold out to the Jews and abdicated, leaving Germany to the wolves. Yet when Hitler came to power he did not take Wilhelm out in the backyard and have him shot and instead preserved Wilhelm's remaining life. Wilhelm loathed nazis and put in his will that NO nazi insignia be allowed at his funeral. When Wilhelm died Hitler took over the funeral proceedings and made Wilhelm's funeral a nazi state funeral.

Wilhelm was thought to be Victoria's favorite grandson. Wilhelm was holding Victoria's hand when she died.

Poor Charles. Can you imagine waiting for a job for a half century and only getting to fill it for a year. At least Charles will last longer than Queen Jane or Edward 5.

radioacti...@gmail.com <radioactiveseattle@gmail.com> wrote:
> FURTHER DATA regarding Prince Charles and MAD Magazine:
>
> Some Reddit posters and a couple other sources tell the tale of a 1959 formal complaint which Palace officials issued against MAD editors and/or their publishers for over-the-top satirizing of young Charles and his royal parents. (At the time Prince Charles was about 11.)
>
> But that is a totally different, years-earlier matter, unrelated to what I recall seeing years LATER:
>
> MAD Magazine editors recounted this in their front-of-the-book letters-to-the-editor section--quite a few years later I'm confident, when Charles was in his mid-teens in sometime in the mid-60s. The way MAD bosses described it, they had received an anonymous fan letter of sorts from the U.K., showing several indications of having been posted (presumably behind the backs of his security retinue) by young Prince Charles himself. MAD even published a photograph of the envelope they received at their New York offices, though I seem to recall them NOT publishing a photo of the actual letter itself, or even its text. (I have NOT been able to nail down which year all this went down, much less a copy of the envelope photo.)
>
> Again: this wonderful little media escapade instantly made me a Charles
> fan, as I remain as he ails now in 2024: Long live the MAD King!

How many here are aware enough of Leopold and Barney of Lutha
to be reminded of them by that last statement?

> BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
>

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.