To wonder how much of the Queen and Prince Phillip's long lives were down to wealth

They have regular full body MRI scans and blood tests so any tiny problems are dealt with before they get big. A mini bowel polyp - whipped out straightaway; a slight dip in iron - cook whips up a load of spinach based meals; bit of an ache, physio brought in immediately. Not like the rest of us who soldier on until there's blood in the toilet bowl, or we've collapsed at work.

I think that people generally overstate the importance to longevity of eating a "perfect" diet (as opposed to a moderate and not shit one) and vastly underestimate the importance of social connectedness and activities. A reason to get up in the morning and leave the house, and people to interact with are key, over and above the basic mechanics of having someone to check up on you and help you when you need a hand with something small.

Access to healthcare without having to worry certainly played its part in their physical health.

I think they were just lucky with regards to dementia though. That said, dementia isn't as common as we're led to believe, and it's not a given at all that everyone over the age of say 80 will get it - 1/3 I think which means 2/3 don't.

Probably not the be all and end all, but likely a huge contributing factor.

I think wealth can provide protection against ill health to an extent, BUT the primary causes of naturally long life must be down to genes and lifestyle.

The Queen never smoked, her mother rarely and Philip gave it up around the time of the Coronation.

All were into outdoor pursuits, lots of walking every day. Ate best quality food and sparingly so no obesity.

And no retirement until in their late 90's if at all.

But lifestyle is about more than whether you go walking or not.

Stress and poverty both impact on your long-term health and can result in people not living as long.

They had good quality food.
They had top class medical facilities for use - with no waiting times.
And they had a purpose to keep going. A lot of people go downhill after retirement if they don't find another purpose to keep going.

Also - we don't actually know that they were always in good health. There have been various hospital trips and stays over the years that we have no idea about. Given the ability to have said top class medical facilities brought to them on occasion there could have been multiple ailments that we don't know about.

I think people are over estimating health care element of it.
When I think of the people who made late 80s and 90s in my own family they were generally very healthy people.

I don’t think so. It’s a huge part of it.

My FIL was a very healthy man lost of his life. The fact he waited 9 months for hip replacement surgery played a major part in his going downhill.

And yet, despite this, socio economic status is still the single most reliable indicator for predictinf both life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. The difference between the poorest and wealthiest demographics is +10years for both men and women.

At an individual level, yes, wealthy people still get ill.

But at a population level, those illnesses tend to come later in life is you're wealthy.

Possibly, but a sizeable minority of normal people do manage to reach their late nineties in good health without that level of intervention, just by the power of genetic luck, good habits and a standard level of medical care.

There is masses of data on this:

www.theguardian.com/society/2022/apr/25/growing-gap-in-healthy-life-expectancy-between-poorest-and-richest-in-england

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthinequalities/bulletins/healthstatelifeexpectanciesbyindexofmultipledeprivationimd/2018to2020

This is true, but when you look at population level statistics, it's not random. Wealth is directly and strongly correlated with health and longevity.

Well said! I feel like I'm in a parallel universe reading some of these responses.

There is so much data on this, and the pattern has been consistent over decades. The fact that the bottom half of society have significantly shorter lives (and shorter years of health) is something people should be really fucking angry about. It's frustrating to hear people pretending it's all just genes and good choices.

Both my grandparents and great grandparents lived till their late 90s. They had hard lives and didn't have any health issues like dementia, they didn't go into care homes, and only my great gran had a home carer a couple of times a week. Grandads (both sides) smoked and like pp also worked down the pits (miners). What they did have was better health care, doctors that back in the day would visit at home if needed. They also had nhs dentists. My grandad only died 10 years ago and grandma 6mnths later, they lived long healthy lives. Not sure how they'd fare now with it being a minfield getting to see a doctor and nhs dentists virtually extinct, perhaps it's the government's master plan.

Glasgow also has a very high number of drug and alcohol deaths. That must bring the overall life expectancy down.
Damp and miserable weather really doesn't inspire a love of salads, so people reach for lots of junk food.

Could just be me but I can't imagine Queenie or Charlie munching a Mars Bar.

^ Agree

A family member had cancer and spent well over £20k on private treatment. Got another six months out of it.
Unless we’re talking by extreme poverty, it’s mostly genes and lifestyle. DM is 80, she has arthritis but apart from that is currently in good health. (We think she had covid and long covid earlier this year and I was worried, she went to hospital as a day case and all was fine - in case anyone checks back to my post). She basically survives on tea and toast, fish and chips, egg and beans and cooked dinners. She is a bland eater. She enjoys her wine though! and used to smoke.

Am I wrong in thinking the queen smoked? I also heard that the princess of Wales smokes, is that correct?

I think it’s very much down to luck and activity - husbands grandmother lived till 100 - and she was very fit and active - did dancing till mid 80’s, still walking in 90’s etc. One glass of wine per night etc.

This has very much been my experience with elderly relatives. They may have been quite poor but lived on healthy simple food and exercised well. If they were born into similar circumstances now I doubt if their diet would be as good. The Queen Mother is probably the more interesting one in terms of how long she lived.

I think it may have had some influence but certainly for the Queen it could just be lucky genes - her mother lived even longer than she did. I think wealth can have significant impact on life expectancy, but not to the point that you reach nearly 100. Lifestyle and a lot of luck is what that comes down to.

The Queen only outlived my Gran by a year. My Gran had a horrendous life, deprived upbringing, low paid factory work, serious mental illness, smoked for years. It is still strange to me that she lived so long. The last few years of her life were spent in a home, not knowing who or where she was, or who anyone else was, with no interest or enjoyment in anything. Pretty different from the Queen who was able to work pretty much until the end.

Unless we’re talking by extreme poverty, it’s mostly genes and lifestyle.

No, this simple isn't true. Wealth and life expectancy are directly correlated at every level, from the poorest to the richest.

Look at the graphs on that ONS data I linked above. Literally, for every decile of wealth you go up, your life expectancy and healthy life expectancy also goes up.

It's not just Glasgow either - the correlation applies to deprived areas of e.g. London too.

And here's the same graph for women.

Your position in the socioeconomic hierarchy is directly correlated with with your life expectancy and healthy life expectancy, and is the strongest indicator for predicting it.

The exact numbers have varied over the years, but the pattern has been consistent for as long ad the data has been collected.