Queen Elizabeth (1926-2022) and the Duke of Edinburgh (1921-2021)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I've always thought of Gyles Brandreth and Lady CC as vulgar, attention-seeking, blethering egotists and this just confirms it. The Queen's medical conditions should remain private if that's what she wanted.
 
Claire said:
I have been asked to not post unverifiable stuff on this forum - so I will not in the future. But like Gyles Brandreth and many other people on the planet (several which might be here - for all I know) they saw many things and they make assumptions around them that lead them to conclusions. Conclusions that might be completely off the mark or might be spot on.
The press are not allowed talking about the health of the royals - standing agreement. Unless they are directly told to break agreement and yes they have in the past been told to do so. We will never conclusively know - maybe in a hundred years.
But I concluded she was getting treatment for something - she was definitely getting blood products. But it might have been oxygenated blood - who knows. But while I concluded Oxygen enriched blood - another will see platelets - platelets leads to Cancer, so I can see how the rumor gets started.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no evidence of this. My mother burst out laughing when she heard people talking about that when she saw the Queens arms in the last photo. After ending her medical career in geriatric care, she would know. They just bruise. Skin is like paper.

We have no evidence she was having any particular care apart from managing inevitable decline.
 
FigTree said:
There is absolutely no evidence of this. My mother burst out laughing when she heard people talking about that when she saw the Queens arms in the last photo. After ending her medical career in geriatric care, she would know. They just bruise. Skin is like paper.

We have no evidence she was having any particular care apart from managing inevitable decline.
Click to expand...

I second that. My grandmother died at 99 and I remember how she was frequently bruised in her 90s. And she was never diagnosed with cancer, and not for lack of screening (people in my family are regularly screened/tested because of our family history).
 
Yes so much of this is based on bruises on the late Queen's hand - the most exposed and used part of the body.
 
Claire said:
I have been asked to not post unverifiable stuff on this forum - so I will not in the future. But like Gyles Brandreth and many other people on the planet (several which might be here - for all I know) they saw many things and they make assumptions around them that lead them to conclusions. Conclusions that might be completely off the mark or might be spot on.
The press are not allowed talking about the health of the royals - standing agreement. Unless they are directly told to break agreement and yes they have in the past been told to do so. We will never conclusively know - maybe in a hundred years.
But I concluded she was getting treatment for something - she was definitely getting blood products. But it might have been oxygenated blood - who knows. But while I concluded Oxygen enriched blood - another will see platelets - platelets leads to Cancer, so I can see how the rumor gets started.
Click to expand...
what evidence is there that she was getting blood products?
 
In my opinion, it's all just speculation. The Queen was of advanced age, had health problems but there is no evidence that she had cancer.
 
Gyles Brandreth has very close Royal connections, including the current Queen Consort and the late Duke of Edinburgh. Therefore it's highly unlikely he's 'gone rogue' and said something he shouldn't - his revelations may even be with the blessing of the Royal Family.
Of note, myeloma (which he mentions) is a primary bone MARROW cancer, and is different from bone metastases from a different primary cancer, such as breast.
 
If the RF were ok with him saying this, why not have teh cancer mentioned on the death certificate. ANd surely if the queen was ill with cancer the last year, her family would have been around a lot more. Harry would have visited her, and problaby her children would have been staying in Scotland to be close to her..
 
I don’t like to speculate on something so private and delicate, but if the author is so well connected with the RF, maybe HMQ could have had cancer, and still this may not have been the cause of her death, which was visibly unexpected.

My beloved late grandmother (91 yo) had cancer, but lived “normally” until her last hours, when she suffered a heart failure, which is the death cause officially reported, not the cancer. We all knew she could not go on many years, but for sure her death was far from expected. And bruises were the norm, being the skin so fragile.

At those ages you’re simply very frail and any day is a gift. IMO, even if HMQ died with cancer, she may not have died of cancer. They’re two different things.
 
Denville said:
If the RF were ok with him saying this, why not have teh cancer mentioned on the death certificate. ANd surely if the queen was ill with cancer the last year, her family would have been around a lot more. Harry would have visited her, and problaby her children would have been staying in Scotland to be close to her..
Click to expand...

What you say is probably normal for most families, but the Queen was still running the show. She still, to the very end, was the head of the Firm and they all respected that. If she didn't want people around her fussing, you would NOT be there as she wanted to rest and concentrate on what she could still do properly. Public appearances for her were too much but behind screens her brain was still active. When I was diagnosed with cancer, I told no one. Not children, grandchildren, friends or church. I didn't need their fussing or the phone calls. They were told the day prior to operation and were told to say home until I wanted that huge influx of people. They respected my wishes. That was 11 years ago and my own daughters now appreciate what I did as their own illnesses are fuss free until they want company or phone ringing constantly. Just how different people handle their lives and people honor. I respected the Queen and just maybe she OK'd people being told months later about her real illness. Maybe she didn't want the rotten headlines in the media constantly. Actually' none of our call either way. But I do believe that Giles would never do anything to harm the Royals as he has always been devoted to them and close friends for years. Lady C also with extremely close royal friends for decades. We might not like what they say, but I think that what they say rings true. They might even have been given the OK in their own forum to get the truth out there as the Royals couldn't. This is a subject that will last for years, and the actual truth will never be known. BTW, my mother died at the age of 98 and death certificate stated OLD AGE. Done quite often in America I have been told when no autopsy is required for the elderly. Mom's doctor for years signed it. Anyway, just my opinion at this point. I still miss Queen Elizabeth II. Probably always will.
 
I think it's more than possible that the queen had cancer and chose not to disclose it even generally among her family. Maybe telling Charles and Anne and that's it. She wasn't one to make a big fuss.

I also think it possible that she powered her way through the meeting with the new PM because she was nothing if not duty first. Inviting a new PM to establish a government in her name was not some random public appearance that could be cancelled or delegated away. It was one of her most sacred duties, done only by the monarch. She would have seen it done, regardless of the toll it took on her.
 
"When it comes to writing death certificates in the UK, there is strict government guidance that says doctors should avoid giving old age — or even 'senility' or 'frailty of old age' — as the sole cause of death. There are, however, "very limited circumstances" where this is acceptable. These are when a doctor has:

• personally cared for the deceased over a long period (years or many months);

• observed a gradual decline in the patient's general health and functioning;

• not been aware of any identifiable disease or injury that contributed to the death;

• been certain that there is no reason that the death should be reported to the coroner."

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health/can-you-die-old-age-25139181

I am not certain why Mr. Brandreth would want to get the Queen's physician in trouble, or cause yet another source of denial for the Palace.
 
Winnie said:
oted to them and close friends for years. Lady C also with extremely close royal friends for decades. We might not like what they say, but I think that what they say rings true. They might even have been given the OK in their own forum to get the truth out there as the Royals couldn't. This is a subject that will last for years, and the actual truth will never be known.
Click to expand...

I dont know of any evidnece that Lady Colin is a close friend of the RF, Gyles Brandreth was friendly with Philip, but Lady CC no.
 
A person can have cancer and not die from it. In this day and age people can live with cancer for years, decades. HM might very well have had myeloma, and it would be consistent with a lot of issues later on in life, but that does not mean that is what caused her death. Also, myeloma, like many cancers, is a disease of old age. As far as I can see the doctor was completely within his rights, and interpretation, to list the cause of death as old age. Especially seeing as HM was 96 years of age, well beyond average life expectancy.
 
My grandfather died at age 98 and had "bone marrow cancer" but the doctors said old age would kill him before that condition ever did. He didn't have and pain from it. I suspect if the Queen had it, it's the same as my grandfather. They detected the condition when he was 97 but by the time it would have been significant, he had already died before that would ever happen,
 
Last edited:
Is it possible that the noticeably discolored left hand visible in HM's final photograph was from some sort of medical infusion that provided just enough stamina and pain relief to power her through those final days?

If the story is somehow true, it increases my admiration for that remarkable woman 100 fold.
 
Last edited:
Prinsara said:
"When it comes to writing death certificates in the UK, there is strict government guidance that says doctors should avoid giving old age — or even 'senility' or 'frailty of old age' — as the sole cause of death. There are, however, "very limited circumstances" where this is acceptable. These are when a doctor has:

• personally cared for the deceased over a long period (years or many months);

• observed a gradual decline in the patient's general health and functioning;

• not been aware of any identifiable disease or injury that contributed to the death;

• been certain that there is no reason that the death should be reported to the coroner."

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health/can-you-die-old-age-25139181

I am not certain why Mr. Brandreth would want to get the Queen's physician in trouble, or cause yet another source of denial for the Palace.
Click to expand...

Does it mean all criteria have to be fullfil to declare died of old age or only one is necessary.

And even if it's the former it can still be argued that:
- the physician has personally cared her for long period of time.
- thus has observed the gradual decline of her health (as most of us)
- even though that this physician is aware of the cancer, they also aware that this cancer didn't contribute to her death.
- they are certain that there's no reason that it should be reported to the coroner.

Hence, since all of those points are checked, the physician declared it as old age.

I mean, let's say she did have cancer, but she tripped on the stair and died from the fall, surely her death wouldn't be declared as "of cancer", no?
 
Saragli said:
A person can have cancer and not die from it. In this day and age people can live with cancer for years, decades. HM might very well have had myeloma, and it would be consistent with a lot of issues later on in life, but that does not mean that is what caused her death. Also, myeloma, like many cancers, is a disease of old age. As far as I can see the doctor was completely within his rights, and interpretation, to list the cause of death as old age. Especially seeing as HM was 96 years of age, well beyond average life expectancy.
Click to expand...

I agree - it is likely that Her Majesty had a terminal illness, myeloma or whatever, leading to her decline over the past 6-12 months. Her family knew the end was near, and visited her frequently at Windsor and Balmoral, Harry excepted.
However it seems that her death, on that particular day, took everyone by surprise - so it likely was a 'normal terminal event of old age' - perhaps a stroke, perhaps heart failure. If there was no post mortem, it might be difficult to say exactly. So 'old age' would be the most appropriate diagnosis.
 
Everyone dies of something. The Queen was obviously a very elderly and increasingly frail woman in the months leading up to her death. “Old age” is the most sensible and accurate way of describing the cause of death. Any details beyond that are none of the public’s concern especially since the Queen clearly considered it important to keep issues regarding her health private.

I doubt many members of the public, including those of us who follow the Royal Family regularly, have a real desire to be made aware of the medical details surrounding the Queen’s ageing process and death. To me this seems like a topic that‘s being driven by various authors and members of the press.
 
irish_royalist said:
I agree - it is likely that Her Majesty had a terminal illness, myeloma or whatever, leading to her decline over the past 6-12 months. Her family knew the end was near, and visited her frequently at Windsor and Balmoral, Harry excepted.
However it seems that her death, on that particular day, took everyone by surprise - so it likely was a 'normal terminal event of old age' - perhaps a stroke, perhaps heart failure. If there was no post mortem, it might be difficult to say exactly. So 'old age' would be the most appropriate diagnosis.
Click to expand...

How is it likely? Is there anyone here who actually knows about the aging process? Or a medical professional. Because I have family members who actually specialised on geriatric care. There was nothing unusual about the Queens decline at all. Of course they knew the end was near…she was 96. She declined after Philips death plain and simple.

All of this is conspiracy theory. There was nothing about how it happened to indicate anything but a death from old age. She was very old.
 
Denville said:
I dont know of any evidnece that Lady Colin is a close friend of the RF, Gyles Brandreth was friendly with Philip, but Lady CC no.
Click to expand...



Indeed. That “Lady” title does a lot of work for her branding, but it’s the result of a marriage that lasted only a couple of months back in the 1970s. Her claim to some sort of deep aristocratic roots is a fantasy. She’s a reality tv personality.

There is no evidence for any close ties between her and the royal family and no reason to suspect she’d have any personal insight into the Queen’s health.
 
None of Queen Elizabeth II's granddaughters and great-grandaughters had the first name of Elizabeth.
Is there a specific reason why no girl was given the first name of Elizabeth?
 
https://theroyalhousehold.tal.net/v.../so/pm/1/pl/4/opp/2841-Archives-Curator/en-GB

Interesting to note, on the Royal Family website there is a job advertised for an "Archives Curator" which specifically mentions the job as involving archiving the official and personal papers of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip.

"Joining the team in Windsor, you'll lead on the large and important project of archiving the official and personal papers of Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh.

Supported by the Archives Cataloguer, who you’ll manage, you will undertake the accessioning, cataloguing and review of this vast volume of historic material. The variety of assignments you’ll take on will vary in both scope and scale, from research and interpretation to sharing the documents with different audiences.

You’ll create a clear and accurate record of the material, ensuring others can navigate and access it in the future.

You’ll also curate exhibitions, displays and online resources, as well as answer enquiries from colleagues and researchers..."
 
tommy100 said:
https://theroyalhousehold.tal.net/v.../so/pm/1/pl/4/opp/2841-Archives-Curator/en-GB

Interesting to note, on the Royal Family website there is a job advertised for an "Archives Curator" which specifically mentions the job as involving archiving the official and personal papers of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip.

"Joining the team in Windsor, you'll lead on the large and important project of archiving the official and personal papers of Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh.

Supported by the Archives Cataloguer, who you’ll manage, you will undertake the accessioning, cataloguing and review of this vast volume of historic material. The variety of assignments you’ll take on will vary in both scope and scale, from research and interpretation to sharing the documents with different audiences.

You’ll create a clear and accurate record of the material, ensuring others can navigate and access it in the future.

You’ll also curate exhibitions, displays and online resources, as well as answer enquiries from colleagues and researchers..."
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that be a highly interesting project :previous:
 
It would be fascinating getting to read all those papers and correspondence!
 
I came across this video from 15 years ago in which Queen Elizabeth reflects on her life. Not sure what the original source is.


Especially her remark in the final minute about the 'regimented side of things' that 'the younger members of the family' find difficult is rather telling given how things evolved more recently.

And some more footage:

Including complains about the impracticality of the Order of the Garter Robes (especially in June - when it is too warm for them; but that's when they have their yearly meeting) at around 2:40.
 
Last edited:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66405877

There will be no official public event to mark the first anniversary of the death of Queen Elizabeth, a royal spokesman has said.

The King is to spend 8 September "quietly and privately". The day also marks his own accession to the throne.

There are also no plans for a private gathering of the Royal Family on the anniversary.

Senior royals will be in Balmoral in Aberdeenshire over the summer, the place where the Queen died last year.

Queen Elizabeth's death at the age of 96 followed the longest reign of any British monarch

***

It's expected that family members will be there at various times over the summer, but a Buckingham Palace spokesman has suggested they will not hold any formal, private, gathering to mark the death of the late Queen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
Queen Camilla Jewels 2: February 2024 -
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
Catharina
Catharina
Ista
General News for Charles III and Queen Camilla Part 2, February 2024-
2 3
Replies
60
Views
13K
winifred
W
Marengo
General News for the Wales Family 2: March 2024-
5 6 7
Replies
190
Views
30K
Blog Real
Blog Real
Marengo
Iñaki Urdangarín, News and Events 1: Jan. 2024 -
Replies
2
Views
1K
Toledo
Toledo
Marengo
Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant News and Events 2, Feb 2024 -
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
Prinsara
Prinsara

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom