King Charles Does Not Have Cancer

Charlie with his Venetian insignia…

“In the phenomenally successful television sitcom, ‘Friends‘, we often saw the three female characters – despite the actresses who played them being rail thin and famed for their strict diet and exercise regimes – feasting on pizza, ice cream, and sugary cocktails.

Why did ‘Friends‘ show us this? Not because the women were really eating these foods (the ‘ice cream’ containers would be empty; the ‘cocktails’ coloured water, etc.). The point was to model it for you: to show you that eating junk is normal and acceptable and what ‘friends’ do.

That is the point of all sitcoms and soap operas, which are all powerfully effective programming mechanisms for social sculpting and social change. When the ruling classes want to introduce certain social changes, or normalise certain behaviours, they introduce them through the medium of the flickering screen, knowing that at the base, most instinctive level, “monkey see, monkey do” is still how human psychology works.”


“And so it is too on the world stage, with the perennial star-studded soap opera of The Royal Family.

THE KING HAS CANCER, screamed all the headlines yesterday.

This follows the news of his allegedly having been admitted to hospital to treat an enlarged prostate, at the same time daughter-in-law Kate was hospitalised for a “mystery abdominal procedure”. As soon as these stories started to saturate the press, the stench of psy-op was unmistakeable, and as I said in January (in response to Liz Jones’ breathtakingly sycophantic declaration that “the news of Kate’s hospitalisation has hit me like a young member of my own family has been struck down“):

That this story is suddenly headline news everywhere, and getting nauseatingly simpering coverage like this, is enough in itself to raise alarm bells, but it’s even more suspicious when one considers the Royals are notoriously private about their health. If there was genuinely something wrong with two key, high-profile Royals at the same time, one being the Monarch, there is no way the press would be given a green light to report on it like this. It would all be hushed up to preserve public confidence in the “Royal” institution and the monarch’s ability to reign etc.

This to me looks like a cover story to justify why Kate and Charles won’t be seen in public for a while (apparently Kate hasn’t been seen for nearly a month) and the real reasons for this have nothing to do with them “being ill”.Connected to swirling rumours about Charles’ abdication perhaps?

So, that was the first clear indication that this event was being staged. Anybody with a passing familiarity with Royal protocol will be able to confirm what I said above: if high-profile members of the Royal dynasty are battling serious health problems, the press is not informed. It’s hushed up, and there are innumerable examples of this throughout Royal history, e.g., the Queen’s disabled cousins, Katherine and Nerissa Bowes-Lyon.”


“The Royal Family has a PR front to maintain and would not disclose serious illness in such a sensationalist, soap-opera style as has characterised Charles and Kate’s “mystery ailments”.

Have you noticed that element, the “mystery” bit? We’re being told Kate was admitted to hospital for a procedure serious enough to warrant two weeks’ stay… but we’re not allowed to know what it is.

Charles has cancer (sorry, HAS CANCER!!!), but we’re not allowed to know what kind of cancer.


This is all absolutely text-book soap-opera scripting – building tension, creating suspense, getting us on the edge of our seats waiting for the next scandalous revelation to break…

And it’s all completely made up, just like it is in soap operas. When we saw Chandler Bing and Monica Geller “struggle with infertility” in ‘Friends’, this isn’t because the actors who played them were really having these struggles: they were modelling it (normalising it) for you (fertility rates having nosedived since the early 2000s when ‘Friends’ last aired).

Equally, King Charles is modelling “having cancer”, which, it has recently been revealed, his former sister-in-law Sarah Ferguson has too – for the second time in months – whilst Queen-in-waiting Kate has a “mystery illness”.

So what’s being modelled (normalised) for you here?

That multiple members of your family getting struck down by cancer and other serious conditions at the same time, is normal.

Just as is happening up and down the country and around the world. Previously healthy, relatively young people are suddenly developing aggressive, terminal cancers out of nowhere, and then, just months later, close relatives are dropping dead, too.”

We all know what that is don’t we…

More here:


7 Responses to “King Charles Does Not Have Cancer”

  1. Tapestry says:

    Brilliantly written piece. Is there also a political angle? Charles has done his bit in crashing the population with many methods being used all at once – including you kno what – and he doesn’t want to be around when the chickens come home to roost and he can arrange an honourable send-off. Not dead necessarily but a nice retirement and new identity – reshaped ears of course, hair dye, facelift and a big smile, no one would recognise him.

    • pete fairhurst 2 says:

      Possibly it does have a political angle Tap. A managed exit to a comfortable retirement in luxury. These types have form…..

      Later on in the article she convincingly says this:

      “Note that we are currently on the cusp of a new Labour government – indeed, a Labour landslide to rival 1997’s – when the next General Election is called (so I am reliably informed) in May.

      You can’t scrap the Royal Family under a Tory government, too many staunch monarchists in the Conservative Party – but you certainly could under a Labour one, and Keir Starmer is on record as having previously called for the abolition of the monarchy.

      If Charles abdicates or dies because of his “cancer”, that will weaken already shaky confidence in the Royal Family yet further. The Queen’s death and Prince Andrew’s seedy shenanigans have already seen their approval ratings plummet, and another blow such as an unexpected abdication could effectively finish them off – especially if William is unable or unwilling to step up to his Kingly duties effectively (perhaps because of a severely ill or dead wife? Well, and there’s also that persistent rumour on the edge of the conspiraverse that he’s actually the Anti-Christ, so I guess there’s that…).

      Starmer could then officially call for the end of the monarchy, and frame it as a tremendous “victory for the people”, just as was depicted in the brilliantly observed satire ‘The Queen and I’ (Sue Townsend’s novel about a socialist government overthrowing the monarchy and sending the Royals to live on a council estate).

      It’s also most noteworthy to remember what Charles’ other daughter-in-law, Meghan Markle, does does for a living.

      She’s a very accomplished Hollywood actress.

      I said from the start that her “marriage” to Harry was just another acting role… and why would they need a seasoned, professional actress in such a high-profile role in the Royal Family?

      To stage an explosively convincing “season finale” as the monarchy implodes, perhaps?”

  2. Tapestry says:

    That sounds like a great movie Pete. It might be for real, and then what comes next? I’d take Prince Andrew as King Of England. He’d be so grateful he’d comply with anything. There is still no proof he was active at Hunter BIden level. They would show the videos if they had them.

    • pete fairhurst 2 says:

      The fact that Netflix are making a film about Andy Windsor’s interview with the fragrant Beeb born-to-it political hack, Emily Matlis, tells me all that I need to know. Mathis fan boys call it Zal Rule

      “The Zal rule is an informal term coined by Zal in December 2017 for psyops that share the following: “when a movie of an event is made, the event can safely be considered fake”.”

      It generally holds true in my experience

  3. ian says:

    Excellent post, and comments. There are so many suppressed to us,
    cures available, that to the elite it’s not a threat anyway. Pure theatre.

    • pete fairhurst 2 says:

      Thanks for that link Ian which I’ve bookmarked for reference

      • pete fairhurst 2 says:

        I just noticed this:
        “GcMAF – a human protein, more expensive. But 300 scientists behind it. Superb for stage 4, and for terminal pancreatic cancers.”

        GcMAF is the stuff that David Noakes was selling and was imprisoned for. Does anybody know what happened to David?

        He has a Wiki page that doesn’t seem to have been updated since 2021 when he was sentenced to 4 years in prison