An announcement on Monday that King Charles has been diagnosed with cancer after receiving
treatment for an enlarged prostate has led to widespread national news and as always, widespread
opinion. With well wishes from many world leaders and a statement that he is remaining ‘wholly
positive about his treatment’, things seem optimistic. Buckingham Palace has announced that whilst
the King will postpone public facing engagements, he will continue with state business and official
paperwork as normal.
As with any big royal news, it can’t help but trigger questions about the broader role and significance
of the monarchy. The period between the announcement that he had sought treatment for the
initial issue and it being carried out was less than ten days, a hasty process that allowed a more
dangerous illness to be found quickly, returning before the end of the month to begin the process.
We all know this efficiency makes a huge difference to the success rate of cancer treatment, a
privilege not granted to many. According to Cancer Research UK, only 65.2% of people in England
were diagnosed and started treatment within two months when under an urgent referral, a far miss
from the target of 85%. NHS waiting lists are only growing, with Sunak himself admitting that he had
failed in their reduction. Seems ironic that the Prime Minister was thankful the King’s cancer “was
caught early” when most individuals have to wait months for a simple GP appointment. Whilst it
would be safe to say most of us are glad the King has a good chance at recovery, whatever our
opinions on the monarchy, it does expose the benefits of private healthcare and the privilege of the
wealthy at a time when it feels as though the very same people are abandoning the NHS.
The question remains about our level of interest. 1 in 2 will get cancer in their lifetime, a journalistic
feat if we decided to make each 387,000 case a headline. Why is it that King Charles is the face of
every major newspaper? Of course, as a royal, his public significance cannot be dismissed, the King
apparently wanting to use his platform to raise awareness about the illness. But his experience
seems hugely unrelatable, coupled with surging anti-monarchy opinion and other arguable more
important news. Does it really deserve the front page?
Related
The King and Cancer
An announcement on Monday that King Charles has been diagnosed with cancer after receiving
treatment for an enlarged prostate has led to widespread national news and as always, widespread
opinion. With well wishes from many world leaders and a statement that he is remaining ‘wholly
positive about his treatment’, things seem optimistic. Buckingham Palace has announced that whilst
the King will postpone public facing engagements, he will continue with state business and official
paperwork as normal.
As with any big royal news, it can’t help but trigger questions about the broader role and significance
of the monarchy. The period between the announcement that he had sought treatment for the
initial issue and it being carried out was less than ten days, a hasty process that allowed a more
dangerous illness to be found quickly, returning before the end of the month to begin the process.
We all know this efficiency makes a huge difference to the success rate of cancer treatment, a
privilege not granted to many. According to Cancer Research UK, only 65.2% of people in England
were diagnosed and started treatment within two months when under an urgent referral, a far miss
from the target of 85%. NHS waiting lists are only growing, with Sunak himself admitting that he had
failed in their reduction. Seems ironic that the Prime Minister was thankful the King’s cancer “was
caught early” when most individuals have to wait months for a simple GP appointment. Whilst it
would be safe to say most of us are glad the King has a good chance at recovery, whatever our
opinions on the monarchy, it does expose the benefits of private healthcare and the privilege of the
wealthy at a time when it feels as though the very same people are abandoning the NHS.
The question remains about our level of interest. 1 in 2 will get cancer in their lifetime, a journalistic
feat if we decided to make each 387,000 case a headline. Why is it that King Charles is the face of
every major newspaper? Of course, as a royal, his public significance cannot be dismissed, the King
apparently wanting to use his platform to raise awareness about the illness. But his experience
seems hugely unrelatable, coupled with surging anti-monarchy opinion and other arguable more
important news. Does it really deserve the front page?
Share this:
Like this:
Related