William and Kate 'Going Through Hell,' Says 'Heartbroken' Confidante

[RandySF]

The woman behind the classic-inspired look featuring long socks, smock dresses and pleated shirts with scalloped collars often worn by the Wales children at formal events has opened up about her famous clients’ health struggles.

“I’m heartbroken at the moment, I think they are going through hell, I hope they will be back. It’s really personal,” she said.

Arrieta’s apparently unguarded remarks about the couple, which hint at the seriousness of Kate’s condition, are unlikely to please the palace, as the Waleses have closely guarded their privacy in recent months, with few updates about the family. However if there is one group of people who get a pass for occasional missteps it’s the wardrobe department; Angela Kelly was even given permission to write books about her relationship with the queen.



https://www.thedailybeast.com/william-and-kate-going-through-hell-says-heartbroken-confidante?ref=home?ref=home?ref=home

[Lovie777]

1. Father and wife...........................

[tanyev]

3. And the loss of his father would not just be a personal loss,

but instantly place a whole new level of responsibility and scrutiny on William and Kate. It is a tough spot for them right now.

[Irish_Dem]

11. Yes a sick father means William could have the big job much sooner than

expected. While his children are still quite young.

And on top of that, a very sick wife.
Who has been a partner and helpmate.

Yes William is in a bad spot right now.

[malaise]

2. Well at least the tax payers cover all,their expenses

Not so for the millions of poor people who will die from cancer because they cannot afford treatment.

[RandySF]

6. Doesn't the UK have the NHS?

[EndlessWire]

15. Yes. n/t

[JI7]

7. Are they opposing others from getting health care ?

The UK has an elected govt which has power over this issue. Not there royals.

[._.]

8. That's never good.

What about the NHS? Plus I read the Monarchy has been paying income tax since 1992. And I don't think they just sit around and fart all day either. Last year members of the r/f carried out 2700 engagements, hosting 95k guests across the UK and in the Royal residences. And let's talk tourism. Why do people visit the UK? The scenery? The food? (cough). No. They want to see the Tower, Buck House and Windsor. It brings in the dough. Lots of dough.

[GenThePerservering]

18. Tell me you don't go to Britain without telling me nt

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

9. I'm not royalty

But I didn’t pay 10p for my cancer treatment, nor did I have to wait long. UK has National Health Service.

[Irish_Dem]

12. Unlike the US where people go bankrupt or die to pay for medical care.

[emulatorloo]

10. Are you unaware of the NHS?

Confidently incorrect.

[Clash City Rocker]

30. Have you been to the UK?

We have. We have had health issues there. We were never billed a cent.

Next time you want to be judgmental, try to get your facts straight first.

[underpants]

32. British citizens pay about $2 a year each to support the Royals.

[NameAlreadyTaken]

36. Not quite.

The Royal Family has private health insurance, which they pay for themselves. They also pay income tax voluntarily, even though by law they are not required to. Thus they are eligible for NHS services. They are champions of the NHS to provide universal access to health care, but they generally don't use the NHS themselves. The late Prince Phillip did. They generally use private hospitals, most often King Edward VII's Hospital. Within Buckingham Palace is the Royal Medical Household, which is essentially a clinic just for the family.

[Hekate]

38. I didn't know they were part of the USA. The UK has NHS. Ironically for all our DU anti-royalists...

…if America had stuck out the troubles with King George, we’d have our health care covered by now.

Life is strange.

[FakeNoose]

4. William and Kate maintain their privacy for the sake of their young children

Why can't the press understand that? Whether Kate recovers from this bout of cancer or not, the three kids will be profoundly affected. I think it's ghoulish the way the British press won't let it go. As much as I scorn the US news media, I think our press is more understanding about respecting a family's privacy vis-a-vis health issues.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

13. I get that, BUT

their one and only job is to be the public face of the royalty. That's it. And they get BILLIONS of pounds for that. So, you don't get to get the money and then not inform the public about why their public face is no longer public. They could have handled this infinitely better. But they didn't. They can always refuse to be part of the royal family and their privacy will be secured.

[meadowlander]

21. They have informed the public. She has cancer. What do you want, shots of her riding the porcelain bus all day?

They have three young kids that they're trying to support through almost the worst possible scenario a kid can go through (short of your celebrity mom dying and then having a bunch of photographers sticking cameras in your face at the funeral).

They're people. Let her have cancer in peace. Let her kids not have to see headlines about it every other day and deal with people constantly asking them about it and trying to pry out the next headline.

I don't think there should be a monarchy but the majority of people in the UK have decided to keep it and fund it. I don't think that that funding is conditional on every gory detail of their lives being publicised. In fact, the opposite, because what most British people like about the royal family is the mystique and sense of tradition and stability that they bring and all of that is undermined by constant stories behind the curtains.

[Hekate]

43. What you said, meadowlander. What you said.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Ironically, I've heard nothing at all about this remark in Britain - only here, on a US website

that is quoting another US website, that raised one sentence from a fashion article about their children's clothes to headline status. Looking on Google News, no British media has bothered picking up the sentence.

Against that, there's no chance the children will read DU or the Daily Beast, so the actual obsession won't be seen by them.

[mucifer]

5. I feel that it isn't her story to tell so publicly. It's none of my business if people

want their health information private.

When people are very ill their everything spirals out of control . They deserve to control who has the knowledge of the extent of the illness.

Imagine if you were sick and didn't want anyone to know and found your story in "the daily beast" A fitting name for this situation IMO.

[Irish_Dem]

14. The illnesses might be quite serious.

If the cancers were early stage or easily treated they would have released the information
to ease the minds of the British people.

So it appears the news might be bad.

The rumors about Charles and his prognosis are not good.

[meadowlander]

20. Cancer is always pretty stressful and nobody wants the double whammy of a parent and partner at the same time.

Even if one or both of them had an early stage/treatable one, it's still a lot to deal with especially when you throw in young kids too.

[Irish_Dem]

22. Yes it is still stressful of course.

Especially with Kate who is young.

And the stress of everyone speculating is not good either.

There are rumors about Charles and his diagnosis and prognosis.
But no one is talking at all about Kate's dx and px.
I think her case is more upsetting to the Brits.

[BlueWaveNeverEnd]

41. yep. and chemo causes hair loss, she might want privacy from tabloid vultures

part of her value to them has been her appearance. she doesnt need to deal with scrutiny of her looks.

[Celerity]

16. As a British and a Swedish citizen I say end the monarchies now. End all forms of rule by birthright and bloodlines.

[malaise]

23. That simple

Rec

[Celerity]

24. It is depressing as hell to see so much pro monarchy sentiment here on a liberal American political chat board.

The US literally was founded and fought two wars to make sure it was not ruled by a king or queen.

[malaise]

25. Some folks support

Absolute power
Eff every royal on the planet

[hlthe2b]

40. I would guess most think it is up to Brits & British 'subjects' especially including the "involuntary subjects"

As an American descended from those who rebelled, I "kinda' think our preference/choice was made long ago.

But, I'd certainly support those who determine it is time for the monarchy to end. Given Charle's cancer (which appears to have a less-than-positive prognosis) and the reported resultant "freak-out" of William contemplating his ascendance much sooner than anticipated, I'd guess that end to monarchy much sooner than later. The coming years will be interesting, that is for sure...

[Evergreen Emerald]

29. And yet here we are

On the brink of totalitarianism. I would personally rather enjoy the royals than Trump and his crooked family.

[Celerity]

31. Submission to rule via birthright is foundationally (literally from its foundation) un-American.

If you were dealt a tyrant king or queen you were stuck with them for their natural life, unless they abdicate (which is rare, especially if they are a tyrant) or are removed from power (often via assassination or a violent coup when that occurs).

I will take the ballot box versus a coronation.

Colonialism and the enslavement or forced rule (the British Raj being a massive example) of hundreds of millions of my fellow people of colour were perpetrated in the names of white kings and queens and their monarchical systems.

[Hekate]

45. As an Irish-American I can't say I am pro-monarchy. As an American who's first ancestor here...

…was a British man who left home in the 1600s to escape the hangman’s noose for being the wrong kind of Protestant — can’t say I’m pro-monarchy.

But hells’ bells, those ancestors are a long time gone, people. They really are. We Americans have had 250 years to make plenty of mistakes of our own, or maybe twice that depending on how you count the time of our residence here.

Man alive have we made mistakes of our own. But it was not a mistake on our part to realize the Brits should be our allies at some point in time. That has been well over a century now.

Let them choose their own government, for Pete’s sake. They’ve gotten some things right, too — after all, they have NHS and we don’t and probably never will.

[Sympthsical]

48. Latching onto your post, I don't know any Americans who want a monarchy

I do know a lot of Americans who are completely celebrity obsessed and will gobble up any bit of news and gossip about the rich, famous, and glamorous. We live in a country that absolutely refuses to stop talking about Taylor Swift for ten seconds. Is obsession with a billionaire somehow better if there's no titles involved?

I always take discussion of the British royals in that vein. People enjoy watching and talking and gossiping. And with the Queen's death, the Will/Harry fall out, and cancers and things, it's just a juicy human interest story for a lot of people.

But actually wanting a monarchy? It's not a sentiment I'm familiar with, not even with friends who can tell me all about what William and Kate had for breakfast this morning, whether I want to hear about it or not.

[Hekate]

53. I think you have it right

[Celerity]

49. I am a British citizen so I have every right to say no more monarchy, no more United KINGdom.

I get the terrifying feeling that many here would be just fine with an American King or Queen, as long as they liked them and their political stances.

[Hekate]

52. Not people on this board, thank you. Some manage to gin up a whole lot of self-righteousness tho...

…over how “we fought a Revolution” so “no one would ever be our king” and therefore “what is wrong with us that we feel any sympathy” for the human beings so far away who clearly (with no evidence, just that it is clear) have their jackboots on the faces of the severely oppressed of 21st century UK?

The self-righteousness is a bit overwrought, imo.

[Celerity]

55. Absolutely some on this board. I have seen it for the almost 6 years I have been here on DU.

There is, flowing from some quarters and corners, a deep current of fairly reactionary thought here, one that bubbles to the surface rather often, and is far from limited to discussion about royals.

[Silent Type]

54. Does Monarchy actually RULE nowadays, or just show up when necessary?

[Celerity]

56. I adressed that to a point upthread (in terms of the UK)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=18922181

They are not some powerless, quaint little national tourist side-shoe of ours.

[Silent Type]

58. I'm just some fool from the South. But when have they replaced PM, etc., lately?

If they burned them out tomorrow, I wouldn’t care. But some people feel nostalgic.

[RandySF]

26. Geez, we can still be human beings

and hope for the best in their cancer treatments.

[Celerity]

28. 2 entirely different things. My republican (small r) sentiments have nothing to do with the current cancers

afflicting the British royals.

[Kaleva]

35. They don't rule

[Celerity]

37. Not much at all in Sweden, but the UK royalty has more power than most Americans realise

Both of my monarchies need to go, either way.


Powers of the UK monarch

https://consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/the-monarchy/

The contemporary UK constitutional monarch, at present King Charles III, possesses the ultimate legal responsibility for a variety of functions that are crucial to the operation of the political system. Among them are:

Appointing and removing the Prime Minister and other ministers;
Dissolving Parliament, to bring about general elections;
‘Proroguing’ Parliament – that is, disbanding it for a set period of time;
Approving the most important laws (primary legislation) – through granting what is known as ‘Royal Assent’;
Appointing members of the House of Lords;
The conduct of diplomacy, and agreeing treaties;
Acting as head of the Armed Forces, being responsible for their deployment within and outside the UK, including in potential or actual hostile action;
Being head of the Church of England, the official religion of England; and
Granting honours.

Constitutional principles

These powers, many of which exist under an ancient legal source known as the ‘Royal Prerogative’, are extensive in their scope. A number of understandings have developed to ensure that they are deployed in accordance with constitutional principles. In the context of contemporary UK democracy, most of these functions are delegated to or exercised on the basis of advice provided by the Prime Minister and other ministers. For instance, in practice, prime ministers, not monarchs, choose who to appoint to ministerial posts; and decisions about entering into armed combat are made by the politicians. Monarchs simply do not have the discretion they might once have possessed about how their legal authority should be used. For instance, it is hard to conceive of a ruler on their own initiative trying to veto the enactment of a law that had passed through Parliament; or seeking to impose their own choice of Prime Minister.

Royal authorities, then, are in practice largely delegated to ministers. Between them, these ministers make up His Majesty’s Government. This entity derives its political authority from possessing the confidence of the House of Commons, the membership of which is determined by the outcomes of elections across the whole of the UK. By this means, the powers technically attached to the monarchy become democratically legitimate: there is a link between voters and those within the executive who are responsible for these functions. Parliament in turn holds ministers to account, on behalf of the public, for the way in which they exercise these powers (though how effective it is at overseeing the use of the Royal Prerogative is debatable).

The courts can also become involved in ensuring the use of the Royal Prerogative is carried out in a way that conforms to established standards. They can decide whether particular powers exist; and scrutinise whether they are being deployed properly. The second Miller case in 2019, for example, showed that a court can rule a particular use of the prerogative, in that instance the attempted prorogation of Parliament by the Boris Johnson government, unlawful.

[Blaukraut]

39. Even if you're anti monarchy, you can have empathy

for their suffering. They're still human beings.

[Celerity]

44. Non sequitur. I have not once, ever on this board, had a go at them about their health issues.

[leftstreet]

42. +1

[LudwigPastorius]

19. I wish Kate and King Chuck well as human beings, but...

I wish The Crown a timely and thorough death.

No person has a divine right to rule over others and to be immune to the law.

[Kaleva]

33. They don't rule over anyone

That went out long time ago . Today, its a ceremonial position.

[JohnSJ]

51. Exactly, that is why they have a prime minister and parliament. Whether they also have a monarchy, I could care less,

to is up to them, however, if trump gets back into the WH our democracy will be gone, and I do have a problem with that.

[Think. Again.]

27. Gee, when faced with health crises, some people quit their jobs to handle it better.

[Hekate]

46. I've known plenty of people who clung to their jobs because it gave them purpose & meaning ...

…and they were afraid if they quit they’d lose that. And I am referring to people with medical coverage.

[Think. Again.]

59. Yes...

...Our American system of having to rely on an employer for adequate health coverage has caused a lot of suffering and death.

But in William and Kate's position of having access to adequate healthcare as a citizen right, and having already accumulated secure wealth for their lifelong living expenses, they should really consider their responsibility to their children and the affects that choosing to unneccesarily stay in their employment is having on those kids during this health crisis.

[Clash City Rocker]

34. I've never been a particular fan of the royals, but the crap they're getting lately really makes me mad

Everyone was sniping at Kate because she didn’t immediately disclose her personal health information. And they really seem to hate Meghan - I’m not sure if it’s because she’s American or more of a racial issue, but some of the things I’ve heard people say about her have been truly nasty.

[Hekate]

47. Agree w you on both counts

[BlueWaveNeverEnd]

50. Meghan's getting the Kamala treatment... we hate her because we hate her..

[DemocraticPatriot]

57. WHO?? Oh, the English....

I don't follow the royal offspring....


But, wtf--- if King Charles dies, who is next in line?
I don't even know that, but someone here does...