The Queen died from...in The Times today

[NotInMyBackYards]

In TT today, Dr Porter discusses what is in the latest biography of the Queen (by Giles B.)

Dr P seems to agree with GB that the Queen had bone cancer. He doesn't say so in so many words but he does bullet-point the signs (of which she appears to have had a number.)

I'm a Royalist (with some exceptions, of course) and feel we are being 'cheated' by (perhaps) having the reason for her death being concealed.
She was well loved and admired by millions.
Isn't the least we are owed an honest account?

I am sure everyone could see that she didn't simply die of 'old age' (in so much as anyone in their late 90s does, to a degree.) The pain she was suffering, the weight loss, the circulation problems evident in her calves (varicose ulcers for years) and her hands.

It's as if we are being taken for fools and I wonder how, legally, her dr is allowed to complete the death cert inaccurately?

My late father had 3 conditions listed on his DC, including dementia, but he'd had two other conditions (major organ deterioration) for many years as well.
Considering he was 95, then 'old age' may have covered it but it wasn't just that.

What is the point of the Palace not being honest?

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1062236/Guidance_for_Doctors_completing_medical_certificates_Mar_22.pdf

I'm on the fence about this. Obviously it makes absolutely no difference to me what the queen died of and I don't believe I have a right to know, or that I'm being cheated. On the other hand, this odd idea that it is somehow undignified for your cause of death to be known is really bizarre. I mean, my mother in law died of bone cancer and I don't think anyone has ever looked down on her for that. My husband has never been ashamed to tell people what his mother died of or felt the need to hide her cause of death to preserve her dignity. I don't know if this idea of 'dignity' is tied into the idea of royalty and specialness. She was an old woman, and she died, so why wouldn't you tell people what she died of? Is it to preserve some royal mystique?

@Ontopofthesunset but we have been told, the only people who are creating ‘mystique’ are the ones who aren’t satisfied with the answer.

As a woman in her 90’s who’d recently had covid it’s highly likely she had a decent collection of conditions that could either be reasonably expected to be managed for a few more years or reasonably expected to prove too much for her body - old age basically.

But… but.. they HAVE told people! The death certificate is public. It has the cause of death on it. However, for whatever reason, OP and others on this thread are determined there’s a nefarious cover-up, a huge mystery, a crime against historical accurate records. Because apparently it’s unbelievable that a 96-year-old woman should simply die from being 96.

Prince Philip died of old age as well, shall we rake his corpse over the coals too?

But we do know what she died of.

someone above posted the link to NHS Scotland’s guidance on when “old age” on its own can be declared as cause of death. It’s been publicly reported that the certifying GP had cared for her for 30+ years, so reading that guidance I fail to see how anyone has lied, been dishonest, or withheld any information. No mystique ……

as a 96 yo lady, she may well have had a catalogue of medical notes, doesn’t mean we don’t know what she died of.

Prince Philip died of old age as well, shall we rake his corpse over the coals too?

Indeed. And the Queen Mother. Although as she was 101, maybe posters will accept that she was actually old 😆

Can we not just accept she died and there were no malicious unnatural causes?

Philips death certificate was never released because the royals made sure they were not covered by the FOI

He had a heart operation and died a few weeks later. It was 'reported' as old age . Despite having a heart op...
My question is why? What is shameful about having cancer or heart disease ?

It's part of the myth building that royalty depends on ?

My question is why? What is shameful about having cancer or heart disease ?

Nothing shameful, of course, but bear in mind that the Queen and PP were of a generation who, rightly or wrongly, were coy about talking publicly about their health. Given that no law has been broken, I don’t know why you refuse to accept that these old people may not have wanted all the details of their deaths publicised when it was not necessary to do so. No cover up or subterfuge. They just wanted it to remain private because that is how they were. You have no right to demand they do otherwise, in law or anything else.

May not have wanted??
What are you on about?

We know they block all info about their deaths in England . Only their deaths of course. They are above the law even in death .
Why can't they tell the truth ?

Why are you so obsessed with this @Novella4? Are you going to start banging on about everyone else who has old age as their cause of death?

I’m saying they are human beings and are entitled to a bit of dignity which their medical staff afforded them. I repeat, there is nothing wrong or illegal with the death certificates and you jumping up and down and crying foul doesn’t make it so

There are two issues

1. The royals do not comply with the law re death certs in England . They exempt themselves even in death . Why ? Just tell the truth . Every other citizen has their death cert publicly available

1. Because the queen died in Scotland her certificate had to be published . Old age was recorded but Giles Brandrith says in his book that she had cancer .

Again why not tell the truth

All this talk from posters re 'privacy ' is nonsense

Giles Brandreth said he heard she had cancer , he doesn't know for sure.

the last illnesses and causes of death of the previous 3 monarchs appear to be fairly well documented - why would this one be any different?

She’d had Covid and had lost the man she had been married to for more years than most people on this thread had been alive, is it really that surprising that someone who was 96 year old would actually die?

I’d be quite happy not to have a royal family but these endless conspiracy theories and demands for the ‘truth’ are beyond distasteful

So you believe Giles Brandreth over the Queen's doctor? I thought you said you came from a family of doctors. Presumably not very good ones if you think he's more reliable than a doctor.

I think they would like to pretend they had never died if that was possible to do. So silly.
Nothing shameful about a heart attack or cancer.

@Novella4 actually there is only one issue and that is you and a few others are determined to be offended at the notion there has been a ‘lie’.

GB is a bellend and repeating rumour not fact. As I stated earlier it’s entirely plausible that the Queen displayed symptoms and/or showed results that strongly suggested cancer and chose not to seek a formal diagnosis so there will never be the evidence you’re convinced exists.

It’s not unusual for very elderly patients to chose this citing a desire to let nature take its course.

I wonder whether in practise the wishes of the deceased would ever have any bearing on what is written on the death certificate.

Why do you think Giles Brandrith, a mate of Philip, is the oracle on the health conditions of the Queen?

I'm a bit more interested in the contents of the wills the royals so assidously seal away from prying peasanty eyes and the details of the enormous wealth passing from monarch to monarch free of IHT than the cause of death of a very old woman although I expect said royals would prefer I wasn't.

Erm...this!

Giles Brandreth has a book to sell, stirring up crazy conspiracy theorists like you @Novella4 is a great way to get people talking about it, congratulations, you've been played

No they are not. It's a perfectly acceptable first line, especially if the doctor has seen them frequently and can vouch for the decline.