Catherine, Princess of Wales, has been diagnosed with cancer and has started chemotherapy, she announced on Friday. She provided a grim coda to months of rumors about her condition, plunging the British royal family into deep uncertainty as two of its most senior figures grapple with serious problems. health issues.

Her diagnosis follows that of King Charles III, who announced his own cancer diagnosis and treatment in early February. Like the king, Catherine, 42, did not specify what type of cancer she had nor what her prognosis was.

In a pre-recorded video released on Friday evening, Catherine said: “It’s been an incredibly tough few months for our whole family,” as she described having major abdominal surgery in January and then discovering through subsequent tests that she had a form had cancer. .

Catherine, 42, who looked tired but determined to express hope for her recovery, said she and her husband, Prince William, were helping their three children, George, Charlotte and Louis, cope with having a sick mother.

“This obviously came as a huge shock,” said Catherine, “and William and I have done everything we can to process and manage this privately, for the sake of our young family. You can imagine that this took time.”

“We hope you understand that as a family we now need some time, space and privacy while I complete my treatment,” said Catherine, who wore a simple striped sweater and sat on a bench against the backdrop of early spring. flowers, in the video, which was shot by BBC Studios on Wednesday.

Catherine’s announcement came with a thunderclap in a country where popular members of the royal family – and Catherine is certainly one – are still sometimes treated like members of any British family. It provoked an outpouring of sympathy from public figures and ordinary people, for many of whom Catherine symbolizes the future of the royal family – a glamorous yet recognizable figure, born outside the monarchy, who became a princess and mother in the unforgiving gaze of the audience. .

The announcement also put an end, at least for now, to the flood of rumors and conspiracy theories circulating on social media and the news media about Catherine’s condition and even whereabouts. But like Charles, Catherine’s announcement left many questions unanswered.

Palace officials did not provide details about the type of cancer, how far it had progressed or how long she would receive chemotherapy. A spokesperson said she had started treatment at the end of February and was on a “path to recovery”. Officials asked the news media not to speculate about her condition, in a perhaps futile effort to avoid another round of questions.

But any expectation that Catherine would resume her official duties after Easter, as the palace once said, seemed to have disappeared. A palace official said it would not share any further personal medical information about Catherine, adding that the princess was entitled to medical privacy, “as we all do.”

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak wished Catherine well and pointed the finger at those fueling rumors about her.

“She has been subjected to intense scrutiny and unfair treatment by certain sections of the media around the world and on social media,” said Mr Sunak about X. “When it comes to health issues, she, like everyone else, should be given the privacy to focus on her treatment and be with her loving family.”

For the royal family, Catherine’s cancer is another major blow, sidelining one of its most visible figures at a time when its ranks were already depleted. In addition to Charles, who has canceled public appearances to undergo his treatment, the family has been adjusting to the loss of Queen Elizabeth II, who died in 2022; the departure of Prince Harry and his wife Meghan; and the exile of Prince Andrew, disgraced by his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Harry and Meghan released a statement saying they wished “health and healing for Kate and the family, and hope they can do this privately and in peace.”

Buckingham Palace said Charles was “so proud of Catherine for her courage to speak as she did.” The palace noted that the king had visited her while they were both being treated in a London hospital and said Charles “has remained in closest contact with his beloved daughter-in-law in recent weeks.”

Catherine offered a timeline of her medical treatment that was eerily similar to that of her father-in-law. At the time her surgery was performed, doctors believed her condition was non-cancerous. The surgery was successful, she said, but on further tests the doctor found evidence of cancer. They recommended chemotherapy, which she said she had recently started.

The palace said the king’s cancer was discovered following a procedure for an enlarged prostate. While the palace has said he does not have prostate cancer, it has not specified what type of cancer it is or what his prognosis is.

Until Catherine’s video, Kensington Palace, where William and Catherine have their offices, had released even fewer details about her condition, an information vacuum that has contributed to a series of rumors and conspiracy theories on social media.

British newspapers have found themselves in a difficult position as courts have ruled that the right to privacy extends to members of the royal family. The Editors’ Code of Practice, under which much of the UK press operates, protects all individuals from unwarranted intrusion on matters of physical and mental health.

Catherine suggested that the family needed a zone of privacy where she could come to terms with her situation and explain it to her children. The announcement was timed for Friday, a palace official said, because the children had just started their Easter break from school and would not have to deal with the media frenzy — or, presumably, endure questions about their mother from classmates .

“It took me time to recover from major surgery before I could start my treatment,” Catherine said. “But most importantly, it has taken us time to explain everything to George, Charlotte and Louis in a way that suits them, and to reassure them that I will be fine.”

“As I told them,” she continued, “I am doing well and getting stronger every day by focusing on the things that will help me heal; in my mind, body and spirit.”

Rumors about Catherine’s health quickly began to circulate after Kensington Palace announced in January that she would go to the London Clinic, a private hospital, for abdominal surgery and stay there for ten to fourteen days. There were no photos of her children entering or leaving the hospital to visit their mother, and only a single photo of William, behind the wheel of a car, leaving the hospital.

Four weeks after Catherine’s release, William abruptly withdrew from a memorial service for his godfather, King Constantine of Greece, citing a “personal matter,” which accelerated speculation about Catherine on social media.

On Mother’s Day in Britain, Kensington Palace published a photo of Catherine with her three children, taken by William. The aim was to quell speculation about her, but the photo sparked a new round of conspiracy theories after The Associated Press and other news agencies reported that the photo had been digitally altered.

Catherine apologized for the editing, which she said she was responsible for, and attributed it to an amateur photographer’s innocent desire to improve the image. But it raised questions about the way the royal family communicates with the public: Catherine has photographed many members of the royal family in private settings, and those photos have often been published by British newspapers.

This week, video emerged of William and Catherine walking out of a grocery store near their home in Windsor. The palace, as it has done throughout this period, refused to confirm the images, leading to further speculation.

Despite all the questions left unanswered, royal watchers said Catherine’s video on Friday was a step in the right direction.

“The video message is a welcome intervention and will hopefully do much to dispel the wild rumors and speculation of the past three weeks,” said Ed Owens, a royal historian. “Such transparency is what we need from the royal family if we want to ensure public trust is maintained.”

For the royal family, news of Catherine, Princess of Wales’s cancer diagnosis was another major blow, sidelining one of its most visible figures at a time when its ranks were already depleted.

In addition to King Charles III, who has canceled public appearances to undergo his own cancer treatment, the family has been adjusting to the loss of Queen Elizabeth II, who died in 2022; the departure of Prince Harry and his wife Meghan; and the exile of Prince Andrew, disgraced by his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Harry and Meghan released a statement saying they wished “health and healing for Kate and the family, and hope they can do this privately and in peace.”

Since Harry and Meghan, known as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, stepped back from their royal duties in 2020 and left Britain for Southern California, Harry has been estranged from his father, Charles, and his brother, Prince William. He visited his father shortly after Buckingham Palace announced the king’s cancer diagnosis in February.

The palace said Friday that Charles was “so proud of Catherine for her courage to speak as she did.” The palace noted that the king had visited her while they were both being treated in a London hospital and said Charles “has remained in closest contact with his beloved daughter-in-law in recent weeks.”

Britain’s House of Lords dealt a sharp setback to the government on Wednesday by voting to change key Conservative Party immigration legislation and potentially delay a controversial plan to put asylum seekers on one-way flights to Rwanda.

It was an unusual show of opposition from the Lords, many of whom objected to the policy on legal and constitutional grounds. Although the Conservative government, with a comfortable majority in the House of Commons, can eventually get the bill passed, the back-and-forth with the House of Lords, the unelected upper house of parliament, could hamper the government’s hopes for a quick start can thwart. to a plan it sees as crucial to its fortunes in an election year.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak argues that the flights to Rwanda, a small country in East Africa, would be a vital deterrent and could stem the flow of tens of thousands of people who make the dangerous, often illegal, small-scale crossing from France to Britain every year to make. often unseaworthy boats.

The government does not expect such flights until May, and following the House of Lords’ actions on Wednesday, that timeline could now move to June. The Prime Minister’s Office had no immediate comment.

Those chosen for the first flight are expected to file legal challenges that could further hamper the plan.

Under the legislation, the asylum claims of those deported from Britain would be assessed in Rwanda. But even if the claims were successful, the deportees would remain there and not be allowed to settle in Britain.

The policy was started almost two years ago by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. But despite paying hundreds of millions of pounds to Rwanda as part of its deal with that country, the British government has so far failed to send a single asylum seeker there.

The government is under intense pressure over the arrival of small boats on British shores, which have become a symbol of its failure to control immigration. Taking control of Britain’s borders was a central promise of the 2016 Brexit campaign, championed by Mr Johnson and backed by Mr Sunak.

In June 2022, a last-minute legal action grounded the first scheduled flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda, and the policy has since been suspended. Last year, the UK High Court ruled against the plan, saying that Rwanda was not a safe destination for refugees and that there was a risk that some sent there would be sent back to their countries of origin, where they could be in danger.

The bill discussed on Wednesday overturns that ruling, declaring Rwanda a safe country and instructing the courts to consider the country as such. This approach was heavily criticized in the House of Lords, which includes former lawmakers, lawyers, judges, civil servants and diplomats.

In a debate last month, Kenneth Clarke, a Conservative former finance minister, said the legislation set “an extremely dangerous precedent” by legally contradicting the Supreme Court.

During its deliberations, the House of Lords put forward a series of amendments, but these were rejected this week by the elected and much more powerful House of Commons. On Wednesday, the Lords voted to reintroduce seven amendments, including one requiring Rwanda to provide proof that it is a safe destination for refugees.

The Senate can do little more than postpone a bill, and due to a lack of democratic legitimacy, it invariably ultimately bows to the will of the House of Commons. But that didn’t stop some members from taking a challenging tone.

“I know that some noble Lords believe the House of Commons should have the final say,” said David Hope, a retired Scottish judge who is an impartial member of the House of Lords. ‘But on this occasion I really invite your Lordships who are prepared to take this position to think very carefully.’

Vernon Coaker, a member speaking for the opposition Labor party, which opposes the plan, criticized the government for refusing to give any weight to the previous amendments tabled by the House of Lords. Any delays in the deportation policy were the government’s fault, he said, because it controls the parliamentary timetable.

But he conceded that the legislation would eventually pass. “We have said all along, and I repeat here, that it is not our intention to block the bill,” he said.

In addition to the legislation, known as the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, the British government negotiated a new treaty with the Rwandan government to try to address the Supreme Court’s concerns.

Under the latest version of the plan, even those whose asylum claims were rejected while in Rwanda would be allowed to stay there. This was intended to allay fears that they could be sent back to their country of origin, where they might be in danger.

Yet the bill has been strongly criticized by human rights organizations. “All this could now come to an end if the government abandons its cruel policy of refusing to decide on asylum claims this country receives,” said Sacha Deshmukh, CEO of Amnesty International UK.

Flora Steel, an art historian, bought a silver brooch at an antiques fair in the English Midlands more than thirty years ago for about twenty pounds, about $35 at the time. After wearing it for several years on the lapel of one of her favorite coats, she put it in a closet, where it remained untouched for twenty years.

That was until last year, when Ms Steel was scrolling through YouTube on her phone and came across a 2011 BBC story about a brooch featured on the television program ‘Antiques Roadshow’. In the clip, presenter Geoffrey Munn showed a page of sketches of other brooches designed by the same Victorian-era architect and artist.

“I thought, ‘God, that’s mine!’” Ms. Steel said.

Mr Munn said during the show that he dreamed of finding brooches designed by the artist William Burges, calling his jewelry the “almost holy grail of Victorian 19th-century design.”

On Tuesday, Ms. Steel’s brooch sold for £9,500 (about $12,000) to a private collector at Gildings Auctioneers in Market Harborough, England. It is made of silver, lapis lazuli, malachite and pink coral.

“It caught my eye because of the incredible design – the beautiful use of stones,” said Ms Steel, who has been collecting silver jewelry since she was 13.

Mrs Steel was the third person to sell a William Burges brooch by auction through Gildings; the other two also realized the value of their brooches after watching ‘Antiques Roadshow’. One of the brooches sold for £31,000 in 2011 (approximately $50,000 at the time).

Burges, who is best known for his designs Cardiff castle in Wales, made the brooches for the weddings of two friends in 1864, Gildings said, citing notes on the original sketches of the brooches, which are stored in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. Ms Steel’s brooch, which has a Victorian Gothic aesthetic, is engraved with the initials ‘JCG’, the initials of Rev John Gibson, a clergyman, and Caroline Bendyshe, a great-niece of Admiral Lord Nelson.

“If those pages of sketches had not been preserved, the association with the designer would have been completely lost in the annals of history,” says Will Gilding, director at Gildings.

Ms Steel, who is from Britain but lives in Rome, said her joy at discovering she owned a long-lost, treasured brooch brought her much-needed joy after two years of treatment for breast cancer.

After successful treatment, she said she planned to donate some of the money to a breast cancer research fund and give some to her son. She also considered setting aside a few for herself for a five-day horseback riding tour of Tuscany, Italy, and a visit to the San Carlo Opera House in Naples.