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?

For goodness sake, read the op

Er yes, I have thanks. And your point is?

Isn't always celar what to put as lots of people have lots of reasons. My father had 2 heart failure and renal impairment (but I think he also really died of dementia which was the worst thing). It is just not 100% clear sometimes what is the one thing to pick.

With the Queen it seems reasonable they put old age which is almost certainly part of the reasons.

you think it’s ok for historical records to be wrong. I don’t
We're talking about a legal document- her death certificate, that the public have not seen in full (yet). No lies or inaccuracies that you can prove at this time. @Backtothegymgirl

It doesn't really matter how she died from a historical point of view

History isn't just a list of deaths of monarchs. It's about the poltics of the time, significant events and how they shaped the future etc. How people were at certain points, what the culture was like, what they wore, how they acted and again what shaped this. A monarchs cause of death is fairly miniscule and unimportant.

And perhaps in 100 years when she is actually part of history rather than someone who recently died and has living children and grandchildren we will learn more. But for now it's not relevant.

We know she was 96. We know she wasn't murdered/died of natural causes. We know what happened during her reign and how long she was queen for. And at 96 it is quite likely to be old age.

Also there's absolutely nothing to indicate that the records are in anyway shape or form inaccurate

Well we know how those monarchs who died in battle died, and what of, but do we know what other monarchs died of? Given that in the time of, say, Elizabeth the first, our medical knowledge was limited, how do you know what she died of? It used to be believed that the humours in the body caused illness, that miasma in the air caused plague and so on. I cannot see how we can have an accurate cause of death for any monarch before the twentieth century 🤷‍♀️

People in their 90’s rarely die of just old age. There’s usually a contributing factor whether it’s heart, pneumonia etc.

None of my business if she has been treated for other things which may or may not have been a root cause to her not making it to 120yrs old.

Speculation on this is plain disrespectful for a woman with very little privacy in her life, who gave so very much. Wind your neck in.

I agree it is grim ! people seem so obsessed with others business and illness
Let her have some privacy . These people seem the type that sit at home with a reader's digest A to Z of medical conditions. Bizarre.

Personally I am not too interested in what she died from and don’t feel we are “owed” anything. She didn’t belong to us, she was a human being. However, it does feel that in general “old age” is a strange thing to put on a death certificate for anyone - surely there always has to be a medical reason.

My mother had bowel cancer. We had been for Mothering Sunday lunch and she walked along the sea front with me back to the car. She then died two hours later at home. It can be that quick.

You are owed nothing, and you certainly haven't been cheated of anything. What utter bollocks! You have no right or need to know the private medical information of anyone, even the Queen.

She was a very elderly lady of 96. She may very well have had some health issues, but the very simple fact is that she just came to the end of her life.

It should make no difference to you or anyone else. Royals have a right to privacy. You are just nosey.

Yes I agree, I don't understand why people become morbidly obsessed with things like this. Give the queen (and more importantly her family) some privacy. Surprised that GB has done this actually, thought he had more respect for the Royal Family.

This. It was her decision to make, not "The Palace's" so you should respect her choice.

I'm from a family of doctors

Ignoring all the waffle re privacy etc - all irrelevant .

How can a doctor not write the true cause of death ?

And that’s your opinion, you think it’s ok for historical records to be wrong. I don’t. And I think there is no reason to hide it. We agree to disagree

FTR there's still debate about what Henry VIII suffered from and what eventually killed him. Only since his body was discovered and the wounds looked at do we know how Richard III died, as well.

Historical records aren't 'wrong.' What a monarch died of was recorded as contemporaries understood it given medical knowledge at the time, not as we'd understand what killed them with our better medical knowledge. And I really can't see how history is served by knowing exactly how the Queen died.

Why do you think a Dr has failed to write the true cause of death?

4.1. Sequence leading to death, underlying cause and contributory cases
The MCCD is set out in two parts, in accordance with World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendations in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD). You are asked to start with the immediate, direct cause of death on line Ia, then to go back through the sequence of events or conditions that led to death on subsequent lines, until you reach the one that started the fatal sequence. If the certificate has been completed properly, the condition on the lowest completed line of part I will have caused all of the conditions on the lines above it. This initiating condition, on the lowest line of part I will usually be selected as the underlying cause of death, following the ICD coding rules.
WHO defines the underlying cause of death as “a) the disease or injury which initiated the train of morbid events leading directly to death, or b) the circumstances of the accident or violence which produced the fatal injury”. From a public health point of view, preventing this first disease or injury will result in the greatest health gain. Most routine mortality statistics are based on the underlying cause. Underlying cause statistics are widely used to determine priorities for health service and public health programmes and for resource allocation. Remember that the underlying cause may be a longstanding, chronic disease or disorder that predisposed the patient to later fatal complications.

The Queen gave the public her full life for decades and she surely is allowed some privacy in death. She doesn’t owe you anything so feeling cheated is odd to me.

She presumably died with bone cancer, not of bone cancer.

Hiphopopotamus · Today 19:26
Because it’s her private medical information and we are not owed the gory details of precisely how a woman in her 90s died. Why do we need to know?
...............
Quite and we don't know that she actually did have bone cancer. Think about it, it wasn't really that long before she died that the Queen was still performing official duties, albeit less.

I'm interested to know exactly what Giles Brandreth said; he admires the royal family and is not one to hint at secrets.

@Backtothegymgirl maybe if she was 66 she would have survived longer/ been able to tolerate aggressive treatment. However this is none of my business.
It is possible to die and no one be able to identify exactly what caused the decline. Most often in natural death there is a sequence of events that end with heart stopping.
What I am saying is that extreme age is the biggest factor here and we are not necessarily being deceived.

What a weird thing to get uptight about.

Why does it matter like pp said there isn't speculation of foul play.

She was 96, she died, end of.

I didn't think there was such strong feeling on this.

My point is that 'old age' is not a medical condition.
No one dies from it.

Older people die in old age but not from it.
Something stops working.

Many of my family have lived well into their 90s, for several generations. None has died from 'old age' on their death cert.

Older people die from heart failure, multiple organ failure, or any matter of disease.

I am questioning the lack of honesty on what is a public document.
Anyone can ask to see a death cert.

It's not about allowing her privacy, it's about being honest on a legal document.

I am one of those who feel that the cause of death can remain private, for a 96 year old who served this country until almost the last day of her life.

Fine .

Why then state the cause of death as old age ?