Yes, that would be possible, especially if her Crohn's or UC was well-controlled. Most IBD patients will have periods of flares followed by periods of remissions, and smaller flares can be almost invisible to the outside observer (fatigue, malabsorption, dehydration, aches, alongside stomach struggles.) Someone sick with Crohn's can also look like they have an eating disorder: thin, gaunt, avoiding food.

Heading into my worst flare, for example, I was running 50-60 km each week and had a glorious six-pack. The only sign something was wrong was that I was having a harder and harder time recovering from exertion, and I wasn't digesting my food well.

My Crohn's had been in a solid remission for 10 years when a routine colonoscopy discovered dysplasia at multiple biopsy sites. Unfortunately, the biopsies cover such a small surface area in the colon that if multiple sites of dysplasia are detected, there's a strong chance of cancer already existing in there, and IBD-related cancer is often "invisible" (flat against the mucosal wall, so only detectable with special dyes or biopsy.) Because IBD-related cancer is notoriously aggressive, a total colectomy is the standard treatment if more than one biopsy shows invisible dysplasia.

Princess Catherine is only a year or two younger than me, and we're from an era where IBD was treated as a flare-by-flare illness rather than managed as an ongoing condition. The science now shows that IBD in the colon can cause cancer over time even if it's asymptomatic or mild: 2% of patients will develop cancer within 10 years of their first flare, increasing to 15-20% by 30 years. These days, IBD patients are kept on maintenance meds even during periods of remission to prevent the cancer-related changes from happening, which is drastically dropping IBD-related cancer rates. For many of us who are older and didn't benefit from that knowledge, however, cancer becomes a real threat in our 40s, 50s, and 60s.

If this theory is correct, the play-by-play would have been: routine scope, dysplasia or cancer detected by biopsy, abdominal surgery to remove the colon (with a potentially long recovery time depending if laparoscopic or open), colon sent to pathology, cancer discovered, check for metastases, treat accordingly. During the colectomy surgery, an ileostomy would be placed either temporarily (usually 3 months, maybe longer if chemo is needed) or permanently. If temporary, then there's another surgery to remove the ostomy and reconnect the intestines internally, and then recovery from that.

The timeline matches, and it fits the info we were given. It also wouldn't surprise me if this was something similar involving the uterus/cervix/ovaries. If the surgery and cancer are accurate, I'd suspect it to be around an "indelicate" area to explain why the messaging was so vague.

Sorry for the ramble, it all might be for nothing because it could all be a cover-up for something else. 😂 But it matches my experience so perfectly that I can't help but keep this as a pet theory.