Do you think they knew the Queen was about to die last week?

[Goldfishmountainclimber]

Do you think that they knew that the Queen was about to die last week? It seems that they probably did on the actual day because there was some decline and Charles and Anne hurried to be with her. But they were both in Scotland at the time so reasonable handy.

But the rest of the family were not there and didn’t make it there until after her death. But maybe that was the plan so that she could die quietly and only Charles and Anne would be present, so that it didn’t draw attention and turn into a media circus.

I know it doesn’t matter, but I just wondered if it was a carefully crafted plan to give the Queen some peace at the end, or if it actually came as a bit of a surprise last week?

I do suspect she had been given some sort of terminal diagnosis last October. So many things that happened subsequently make sense that didn't at the time. I always found 'mobility issues' hard to believe, especially when it caused her to miss events that were so important to her, like Royal Ascot and the Trooping the Colour, quite apart from missing Jubilee events. Announcing her wish that Camilla be known as Queen when the time comes, on the anniversary of her accession, a day she has always insisted is about remembering her Father. I also can't help remembering back to my own dad who was given a terminal diagnosis with about 5 months to live. Just 7 days later, on the day he was due to be discharged home, we got a call to say we beeded to get to the hospital. We left immediately and when we arrived after a 2hour drive, we walked in to the ward to find him sitting on the edge of the bed, talking and joking as normal. He got up and moved around so well that I was convinced the doctors had called us down in error. Within a couple of hours, he had gone. Just laid on the bed, said he felt tired and closed his eyes. About 20 minutes later his chest stopped rising and falling and he had slipped away. I think the Queen's doctors probably had an inkling the night before but couldn't be sure until the morning when they called Charles to come.

Either way, I hope it was as peaceful an end for her as it was for my dad.

It's not always easy to predict when someone will die.
I knew things were serious when I read that Prince Charles was visiting every day. It is clear she suddenly deteriorated on the Thursday morning, when the other children, (P. Edward, Sophie, P. Andrew and P. William) all flew up to Balmoral, sadly arriving just an hour after her death.

Do you remember on remembrance Sunday when the royals all looked grim and teary. It was commented on at the time that something awful might have happened to the Queen. Charles looked particularly upset, maybe she had been given some sort of bad news about her health.

It's been clear (and not surprising given her age) that she'd been declining physically for some time. She would literally decide day by day which engagements she could or could not manage. Elderly people will often ebb and flow to the end of their lives like this. My grandmother had a few very bad spells in the last year of her life, some requiring short admissions to hospital. She was 91 when she died.

Two weeks before she died she had a very bad couple of days and my mum let me know - I was on holiday - that I should be prepared that she might not last until I got back. The day after I got back I planned to visit but mum said she had rallied and seemed a lot better so I delayed until next weekend. I was just getting in the car to go when mum called to say she had died, after a very good week she suddenly became very ill and died a couple of hours later.

I suppose it wasn't possible every time the queen had a bad day for everyone to down tools, cancel engagements, get the media all het up, only to have to repeat multiple times.

Charles and Anne were already in Scotland standing in for the Queen who usually opened and attended the Highland Games, precisely because she had not felt up to it. Them both being able to get to her quickly before she died was no coincidence.

The others seem to have promptly made arrangements to attend once it became clear that the Queen seemed unlikely to recover but she faded very fast, as often happens.

If you look carefully at the final photos, her fingers were blue and also her neck where the makeup ended. She was very near the end which was obvious from these photos.

I am pleased for her that she had a quiet death without the media outside.

I don't know which version of the queen's death YOU watched but it sure wasn't the one everyone else watched.

Do you remember on remembrance Sunday when the royals all looked grim and teary. It was commented on at the time that something awful might have happened to the Queen

I remember very well and was actually expecting the sad news before Christmas

Surprising really that she hung on for nearly another year, but then she was of a tough generation, even allowing for the superior care she'll have received

I don't think you know what prurient means!

I think it must have been quite sudden although, given the obvious decline in Her Majesty's health over the last year, not entirely unexpected. Either way it sounds like a quick and peaceful ending.

No you don't . No source would give information to someone unreliable enough to post it in a forum .

Agreed.

Why you on forum if you no discuss?

And was your grandmother with end-stage cancer up, dressed greeting visitors and smiling two days before she died?

There is absolutely no evidence the queen had cancer. Someone of her age was likely to have circulatory and heart problems which would explain her discoloured extremities.

Every person I have known who has died of cancer was in lots of pain and very, very poorly and the last week or so of their life they spent in hospital or a hospice on high doses of morphine, rendering them barely conscious. And these were not people in their 90s.

I think (regardless of age) you 'fall over' when you're a very physically active person, who can run, walk briskly, bend, trip and recover easily and you 'have a fall', when you are frail and not very active, indicating it's unusual for the body.

No, I don’t think for one minute it was ‘expected.’ As others have noted, it’s not a surprise for a 96 year old to die, but I don’t think there was a slow, obvious decline. All her children would have been there if so. Whilst she was clearly unwell (because 96), I think it’s equally clear there was some sudden event that caused her eventual death.

I can tell you that my dad absolutely was NOT in pain or on morphine on the day he died from cancer. I also remember my mum being very upset at the sudden death of a childhood friend of hers. The friend had got up in the morning, taken the children to school as usual and then made a cup of tea once they got home. They were found sitting in the chair , dead, when they had failed to collect the children from school. The pm revealed they had cancer of the throat - undiagnosed and no obvious symptoms. I appreciate that for many, if not most, cancer can be a painfull and drawn out death, but not for all.

My mother was given a few days to live aged 94 when her heart was failing. During that period each one of us took turns to be with her 24 hrs a day. After 4 weeks we began to think that the drs had made a mistake....she was full of the joys of spring, very upbeat, would ask what perfume we were wearing etc. Then we relaxed a little and one morning week 5, i was driving up to see her to get a call to say she'd died peacefully about 1hr earlier....she didn't want to die, loved life and im sure it was just her strength of character that carried her through 5 weeks and not 5 days.

If they'd known it was imminent Andrew would have been closer. He has no public engagements and him going and staying at Balmoral or nearby could have been extremely low key and without press or inconvenience.

Edward and William you may have a point as there would have been eyebrows raised if they had cancelled engagements or if William hadn't been present when the kids returned to school.

Charles was obviously planning to be there anyway as he had official engagements so it was good fortune that he was close, although I think he has been seeing the Queen more frequently as part of him increasing his involvement.

Anne is interesting, I am sure she should have been at home at Gatcombe preparing for the Horse Trials this weekend but she was in Scotland with no press coverage of any cancellations of engagements despite her usually very busy schedule.

Well, it was reported that Charles didn’t go to an appointment the night before she passed, instead choosing to stay at Balmoral

His appointment was a meeting of the Privy Council, and its cancellation was announced earlier that day as the Queen has been advised to rest.

If they'd known it was imminent Andrew would have been closer

im not sure to be honest there is imminent and imminent. They’d have known it was in the coming days but if all kids were up there for a week or more, the public would be less gullible and willing to buy that Charles and Anne just happened to be in Scotland too. The queen didn’t wish the public to know and they protected her privacy as much as they could. So I can fully see why only Charles and Anne were close and Anne was staying with her and caring for her, it often falls to the daughter.

I think it’s been clear to most people that the queen was in decline, certainly when she was unable to make jubilee events it pointed towards her finding things difficult. I mean the woman was 96!

I know there was speculation in foreign press about cancer, again, that wouldn’t have been a massive shock to anyone. Cancer is very common as we age and ime there are a sizeable number of older people who opt to only treat symptomatically rather than put themselves through harsh treatments and investigations. It doesn’t really matter in the end though, if the Queen decided to keep the matter private that’s her business and should be respected.

I’m grateful that she retained her mental faculties and didn’t suffer dementia. I think she would have hated the thought of that and it would have been a great loss to her family and the country.

Regarding the meeting with Liz Truss, is appointing a new PM something only the monarch can do, do we know? Or could Charles (or someone else) have done it? She looked so ill and, as we now know, so close to the end, that I’m surprised she did it. It having to be her would explain it.

im not sure to be honest there is imminent and imminent. They’d have known it was in the coming days but if all kids were up there for a week or more, the public would be less gullible and willing to buy that Charles and Anne just happened to be in Scotland too. The queen didn’t wish the public to know and they protected her privacy as much as they could. So I can fully see why only Charles and Anne were close and Anne was staying with her and caring for her, it often falls to the daughter.

When push comes to shove and you want to be with someone before they die you do that. There is no clearer indication that the Royal Household were taken by surprise than Andrew, Edward and William not making it to the Queen's bedside before she died.

The whole fooling the gullible public thing is nonsense.

As a previous poster pointed out this is a big time of year in Scotland. It is grouse season and the Highland Games start soon. The Queen usually opens them. This year Anne and Charles were to.

Is there any evidence at all that was Anne was" staying with the Queen and caring for her"? ??
Shewas at some Highland Games a few days before and got to Balmoral on the day!I think you make it up as you go along Wisteria!

I looked this up on the Royal website the other day, and it does have to be the monarch:

"Counsellors of State are authorised to carry out most of the official duties of the Sovereign, for example, attending Privy Council meetings, signing routine documents and receiving the credentials of new ambassadors to the United Kingdom. However, there are a number of core constitutional functions that may not be delegated:

Commonwealth matters
The dissolving of Parliament, except on Her Majesty's express instruction
The creation of peers
Appointing a Prime Minister"

The site hasn't been updated since the Queen's death, but the next adult over 21 after Andrew is Beatrice, so I presume they will now be William, Harry, Andrew and Beatrice.

Thanks @Antarcticant that explains it then, in my eyes anyway.

Yes and the Queen would have been well aware of this. I think she did hold on as much as she could to do it (not for any personal reasons - especially as if you listen to Boris Johnson their relationship seemed a warm and cordial one) but because of the issues involved in sorting it out if she died before it was sorted - how it would all be fitted in and the implications of how the logistics of her death would work (yesterdays proclamation for a start)