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?

I don't think the families of very well known people owe it to everyone else to share their cause of death, absolutely not.

But - at the same time - I don't understand the reticence about it. My Dad wasn't famous but I have no problem in sharing that he died of lung cancer.

A person's cause of death isn't a matter of shame. It's kind of neutral in a way and means almost nothing when you are 96.

She was well loved and admired by millions.
Isn't the least we are owed an honest account?

Why does being well loved and admired mean that we lose our right to privacy?

Why does anyone need to know

There shouldnt be inaccuracies on the death cert but equally different doctors do make different decisions about cause of death. I didnt think 'old age' was a cause of death these days (used to be common) but Ive seen posters on here say that their relatives in recent years had this also on their death certificates

Even if she had bone cancer it doesn't necessarily mean she died from it. She may have died with it and still died of old age.
My DF had old age as sole cause of death on his death certificate despite having other medical conditions. They didn't cause him to die. His frailty being 92 did that.
The idea that you feel cheated of anything regarding her medical history is baffling and grotesque.

Yes. My DF in 2019.

Another one of these vulgar posts! She was an elderly woman with a right to privacy and dignity in life and death ffs!

Why does it matter?
She was 96, and obviously getting older and more frail.

My grandfather died of old age. Having conditions doesn’t mean you actually died of them.

Why is it more "dignified" to keep the cause of death private? It's almost like dying at 96 is something to be ashamed of!

We can have any number of conditions but still die from old age.

Do you feel entitled to a full run down of every illness and ailment she may have been living with?

’taken for fools’, goodness how personally you take this, based on your presumed knowledge and faulty thinking.

@Annie232 and others.

the death certificate was not a lie! Over the age of 80 doctors are allowed to do this, because it is the truth. Every elderly person who dies has an underlying condition.

My DM died recently at the age of 92 and her death certificate said ‘frailty of old age’ even though there were several other medical conditions that contributed. These were listed below ‘old age’ and that is likely what happened with the Queen. Without a post mortem it is not always possible to be certain. It is much more dignified to say ‘frailty of old age’ than to have a PM.

A doctor will do this on your relative’s death certificates and maybe yours too. Stop the hysteria.

This.

it was described when released as the partial death certificate.

None of us need to know. This is personal medical information, which absolutely should be kept private. The poor woman lived her entire life in the public eye, and she deserved some dignity in her final years.
Clearly, she was still able to carry out most of her duties (eg appointing a Prime Minister) and those she could not do were delegated to then-Prince Charles & Prince William as her heirs and Counsellors of State.
We were most definitely not "cheated" nor were we "taken for fools".

Why don't you tell us your real name and what medical conditions you suffer from, OP?

This

OP did you post this same thread a few weeks ago

Mine this year.

Despite living with a range of serious conditions, but none at a severity or advanced enough stage to cause death.

There’s the possibility that these rumours have originated because the queen had symptoms that strongly suggested the presence of a particular cancer and chose not to investigate further or seek a formal diagnosis.

its not information that anyone outside her family should ‘need’ in any sense and if you’re struggling with closure then I’d look at events closer to home because it really shouldn’t be this important to you.

Don't be ghoulish. It makes not a scrap of difference to you how she died.

To me it’s because even without the cause of death you’ve got people ghoulishly speculating – a fall, a stroke, an injury – and trying to picture how it happened. Add in the cause and you’ll have the posters who are saying “you can’t be on your feet and die of cancer two days later” (you certainly can) and wanting to know how and why.

Death can be pleasant and peaceful, in one’s sleep, or it can be painful and wretched and undignified and I don’t see what benefit it brings anyone to know how, and to start imagining secondary causes and picturing the actual physical process of it. There’s no shame in death. There is shame, I think, in rubber-necking at it. Like craning your neck to watch when you pass a crash scene on the motorway.

If she had cancer, it does not necessarily mean she died of it. It may simply have been that her heart failed- which could be why her death was listed as old age.

She was still on her feet two days before she died so I find it very improbable that she deteriorated and died so quickly from any form of cancer .

My Grandmother was on her feet less than 48 hrs before she died of a particular blood cancer. Her deterioration was very rapid.

In Scotland ( where HM died) doctors are allowed to give “ old age” as a cause of death provided other factors are satisfied which in this case they were .
In what way did the doctor lie ?

How the fuck are you being cheated? She was an actual human being with a private life and a family, you have absolutely no rights to her medical records or information. Ludicrous you think you do.

Whatever she died "of" she had a long and remarkably healthy life. She was up, dressed, smiling and completely lucid two days before it happened. I don't know why there has to be a mystery about it. She was a lucky lady - she wasn't diminishing slowly through dementia which is the most nasty ailment of old age.