Rainbows above the Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle at the Moment of the Queen's Death

LilWabbit

Senior Member
It has been widely reported that a rainbow appeared both at the Buckingham Palace and the Windsor Castle very close to the moment of the passing of Queen Elizabeth II yesterday on 8 September 2022. Obviously, this seems significant and meaningful to many people subscribing to the idea of the divine. It's claimed that these rainbows are an honorary sign.

Does anyone have data and footage on rainbows appearing throughout the day or for several days in multiple random locations across England or Britain as a whole? If so, the timing and location of the Windsor and Buckingham rainbows aren't necessarily as amazing as they seem at first glance. If not, then even if it's just a coincidence, the Windsor and Buckingham rainbows seem quite special and meaningful coincidences.

Maybe rainbows are a common occurrence in weather conditions typical to the British Isles? If this is the case, there still needs to be a significant proliferation of rainbows around these dates and broad locations to render the Windsor and Buckingham rainbows as 'likely' and 'predictable' rather than unlikely and special occurrences.

Disclaimer: I have no personal commitment whatsoever to the claim that these rainbows are a sign. Whether they are or aren't has no impact on my worldview. It's just genuinely interesting.

In any case,

R.I.P. Lizbet
 
Last edited:
Ah, yes, the "special and meaningful coincidence" of her dying in Scotland and rainbows appearing in England. The spooky weak coincidence gods clearly hate Scotland. I was drinking a Scotch whisky at the precise moment her death was announced, does that count as a coincidence?
 
Because it's not a sign, and it's not a miracle.

Maybe so. But to debunk the claim of a sign, it would be helpful to demonstrate how common and predictable the occurrences are. Windsor and Buckingham rainbows at a critical moment are not just anywhere and anytime in England even if nothing happened at Balmoral in Scotland. Ignoring a claim that subjectively seems ridiculous to a particular observer is not enough to objectively demonstrate its ridiculousness.
 
Some basics on the science of rainbows from Physics Stack Exchange.

Article:
A number of conditions have to be just right in order to see a rainbow.
  • The Sun has to be visible in the sky. Rainbows don't occur on overcast days. The light hitting the raindrops needs to come from what is close to a point source to have the reflections and refractions in a myriad number of raindrops combine to form a rainbow. Diffuse light (overcast conditions): No rainbow.
  • The Sun has to be fairly low to the horizon. The primary bow forms a cone with your eye as the vertex and the line from the Sun through your head as the axis, with the red light at an angle of about 42° from the axis and the blue, about 40°. The Sun needs to be below 40° above the horizon to see a rainbow, and at that high of an angle, the rainbow won't be very good. Rainbows are best in when they form less than an hour or so after sunrise or less than an hour or so before sunset.
  • Rain needs to be falling opposite the Sun. Off to the side: No rainbow. From a very low cloud at the horizon: No rainbow.
  • It has to be rain rather than a fog or a mist. Cloud droplets are far too small to form a rainbow. Cloud droplets are about the same size as the wavelength of visible light. This means light hitting cloud droplets is diffracted rather than reflected and refracted. Clouds form glories, coronae, and fogbows. The latter are similar to rainbows, but without color. Mists form at best fuzzy rainbows; the drops are small that diffraction dominates over reflection and refraction. The drops need to be about a millimeter in diameter to form a rainbow.
Altogether, this makes rainbows rather rare.
 
Thing with rainbows is they are not a solid object. You got the sun behind you at a certain angle and some moisture in the air in front of you, you're going to see one. What you see below it is simply whatever happens to be there. People in the right spot to see Buckingham Palace below will see just that but people a couple hundred yards away will see one magically appear above whatever else there is in the vicinity - Battersea Power Station, Charing Cross, but most likely just random inner city buildings.
 
What do you think there is to debunk? Rainbows happen, especially in rainy climates, and are an everyday phenomenon that we can't really debunk. Coincidences happen. People sometimes attribute significance to coincidences, but I don't think human psychology is a thing within the scope of Metabunk. Large numbers of people see rainbows in a particular place because large numbers of people gathered at a particular place.

Rest in peace, your majesty.
 
What do you think there is to debunk? Rainbows happen, especially in rainy climates, and are an everyday phenomenon that we can't really debunk. Coincidences happen. People sometimes attribute significance to coincidences, but I don't think human psychology is a thing within the scope of Metabunk. Large numbers of people see rainbows in a particular place because large numbers of people gathered at a particular place.

Rest in peace, your majesty.

I'm interested to know how likely such a coincidence is. If it's a highly unlikely coincidence, then it's not unreasonable for people to attribute metaphysical significance to it. If it's relatively likely and predictable (or worse, purely motivated reasoning), then it seems less reasonable to do so.
 
I'm interested to know how likely such a coincidence is. If it's a highly unlikely coincidence, then it's not unreasonable for people to attribute metaphysical significance to it. If it's relatively likely and predictable (or worse, purely motivated reasoning), then it seems less reasonable to do so.

https://www.holiday-weather.com/london/averages/september/ says that there are 15 rainy days in september in london.
In the modern day and age, where we know about the forces of nature and about weather, I'd claim that it is unreasonable to attribute metaphysical significance to something so arbitrary. Something was bound to happen, weather-wise that day, because every day there's some weather. In a demon-haunted world, if it had been bright and sunny it would have meant something, had there been storms, it would have been a sign of something else.
 
It is very sad the Queen of England died. But please don't allow that to interfere with a good sense of reality.
 
https://www.holiday-weather.com/london/averages/september/ says that there are 15 rainy days in september in london.

That's a start, thanks. Half of September being rainy in London doesn't really surprise anyone. :p In fact, I would have expected more than half.

(1) On how many of those rainy September days are rainbows reported on the annual average and at what frequency around London City and Windsor?

(2) And if it's fairly frequent to observe rainbows around London and Windsor in September, were many observed on the 8th and where?

If the answer to the above questions demonstrates a high frequency of rainbows at random locations around London City and Windsor, including on the 8th, then we can somewhat comfortably shelve the claim of a highly unlikely occurrence.

In the modern day and age, where we know about the forces of nature and about weather, I'd claim that it is unreasonable to attribute metaphysical significance to something so arbitrary.

Except when it doesn't seem statistically arbitrary, which is what the two questions in the foregoing explore.

Something was bound to happen, weather-wise that day, because every day there's some weather.

Correct. However, something far more ordinary, and less awe-inspiring for the average London viewer gathered outside the Palace was weather-wise more likely to happen at the moment of the Queen's death.

In a demon-haunted world, if it had been bright and sunny it would have meant something.

Correct. Or to be precise, it wouldn't have been unreasonable to attach a meaning to that sudden and rare appearance of sunshine at that very moment.

had there been storms, it would have been a sign of something else.

Depends on their statistical frequency in that demon-haunted world.

Just because the idea of the non-arbitrariness of rainbows appearing at Buckingham and Windsor at the time of the Queen's passing is uncomfortable to some observers doesn't mean it's unreasonable.

Having said that, it's very possible it was just an incredible coincidence or, if demonstrated, even a fairly predictable occurrence at that time and at those locations in London and Windsor in September. But that remains to be demonstrated.

MetaBunk is dedicated to debunking claims that are unreasonable and outlandish. This claim, if indeed similarly outlandish, deserves no less dedication than a bird or a floating plastic bag being mistaken for an alien spaceship, no matter how bizarre it may be to you or @Ravi. Let's not have double-standards and avoid a proper debunk (and stoop to spouting mere dismissive opinions) when the 'outlandish' claim is good ol' theism instead of E.T. or a werewolf at Skinwalker Ranch. Unless the latter are just so much more plausible claims deserving more attention.
 
Having said that, it's very possible it was just an incredible coincidence or, if demonstrated, even a fairly predictable occurrence at that time and at those locations in London and Windsor in September. But that remains to be demonstrated.

MetaBunk is dedicated to debunking claims that are unreasonable and outlandish. This claim, if indeed similarly outlandish, deserves no less dedication than a bird or a floating plastic bag being mistaken for an alien spaceship, no matter how bizarre it may be to you or @Ravi. Let's not have double-standards and avoid a proper debunk (and stoop to spouting mere dismissive opinions) when the 'outlandish' claim is good ol' theism instead of E.T. or a werewolf at Skinwalker Ranch. Unless the latter are just so much more plausible claims deserving more attention.
Not agreeing here @LilWabbit. There is a difference between people claiming to see a flying disk and people saying they saw a rainbow.. The latter is just an observance of a natural, frequently occurring phenomena, where as a flying alien is, ehr, not so common.
 
Not agreeing here @LilWabbit. There is a difference between people claiming to see a flying disk and people saying they saw a rainbow.. The latter is just an observance of a natural, frequently occurring phenomena, where as a flying alien is, ehr, not so common.

The claim is not that people see rainbows. False comparison. Please refer back to the OP.
 
Then I don't understand it. So will not comment further.

The claim of the rainbows being a divine sign in honour of the Queen: A fairly rare weather phenomenon of beauty that normally occurs at random variance appearing right at the moment of the Queen's death in front of gathered onlookers at the two chief places symbolizing her reign demonstrates intelligent design by something powerful.

I'm personally inclined to interpret the rainbows similarly as a meaningful sign honouring a special life of service and virtue while fully willing to accept a less cosmic explanation if demonstrated.

To do so one needs to tackle either the theoretical or empirical flaws of the above claim, one of which could be that rainbows are not quite so rare a phenomenon during those times and at those locations, and that there were many at around the same time and overall location But this hasn't been demonstrated yet. Only claimed.

My personal sentiment is nothing but one of great respect towards that precious life that just drew its last breath. And this thread is in fact to demonstrate, in her honour, that it's not easy to scientifically trivialize the meaningfulness of the rainbows occurring at her death.

However, it may be possible to.
 
The claim of the rainbows being a divine sign in honour of the Queen: A fairly rare weather phenomenon of beauty that normally occurs at random variance appearing right at the moment of the Queen's death in front of gathered onlookers at the two chief places symbolizing her reign demonstrates intelligent design by something powerful.

can you quote and link that alleged claim as per posting guidelines?
 
can you quote and link that alleged claim as per posting guidelines?

There has been a great proliferation of claims with the same cosmic/divine gist but with slight variations in detail. Many of the initial claims were spontaneously declared by onlookers on the spot at Buckingham Palace rather than by fringe groups advancing some self-serving faith agenda. What's noteworthy is that most of these claims are more sweet, spontaneous and gentle in nature rather than declarative, preachy and dogmatic. Their common gist was encapsulated in my previous post (an attempt to formulate the 'claim' as a logical testable hypothesis), in the OP, and in the title of the first article below:

Article:
Queen Elizabeth’s Rainbows – Did Heaven itself commemorate her death?

A rainbow appeared over Windsor castle today, Queen Elizabeth’s favourite home. A double rainbow also appeared over Buckingham Palace. It seems appropriate somehow. Perhaps the heavens themselves wanted to mark the passing of this amazing woman.


Article:
One twitter user said: 'The rainbow at Windsor Castle made me cry. the rainbow Queen sent us a sign.'

Another said: 'A rainbow breaks out, as the Union Jack is lowered to half-mast at Windsor tonight. A remarkable image. Farewell, Ma'am.'

Others took it as a sign that the Queen has 'really left us' as the rainbows appeared shortly as the news of the monarch's death was announced.


Article:
Mourners have found different interpretations of the rainbows which appeared at the end of the Queen’s 70-year reign.

Following the death of the Queen many mourners have interpreted the rainbows as a sign that although the country is in mourning, there is also hope for the future...

The symbol is particularly relevant for people of the UK as the country grapples with an unprecedented cost of living crisis and many people are fearful of the coming winter.

Some saw the rainbow as the eye of God, looking over the symbolic home of the British monarchy, and the monarch is also the head of the Church of England.
 
Large numbers of people see rainbows in a particular place because large numbers of people gathered at a particular place.
Yup. Also there'll probably be even more people hanging out near that spot now than usual so there might be even more reports coming out. (Well, I suppose the place will be fairly popular with mourners etc at the moment - can't say I'm interested in the story myself so I don't follow the news.)
Plus people may be primed to see meaning in any random happenings if they take her death to heart.
 
Yup. Also there'll probably be even more people hanging out near that spot now than usual so there might be even more reports coming out.

Obviously so. And hence it would be interesting to see data on rainbows occurring elsewhere in the London City roughly at the same time. Even then the argument could be made that the day of the Queen's death coincided unusually many rainbow reports across London and the country. But it wouldn't be as impressive a scoop as a few strategically 'placed' rainbows at significant royal venues around the moment of the Queen's passing.

Plus people may be primed to see meaning in any random happenings if they take her death to heart.

But that's the thing, innit. It seemed non-random rather than random. People need not be primed to see any meaning to be impressed by the timing and the location of those two rainbows. They're not being unreasonable in appreciating the meaningfulness of it all.

Plus people harbouring unconscious or conscious bias towards any metaphysical explanation are primed not to acknowledge even the seeming non-arbitrariness of their occurrence. That's not being reasonable. To acknowledge their seemingly 'planned' appearance does not commit oneself to a metaphysical hypothesis. So you're still safe in terms of the logical irrefutability of the counter-claim of an amazing coincidence.
 
Last edited:
But that's the thing, innit. It seemed non-random rather than random. People need not be primed to see any meaning to be impressed by the timing and the location of those two rainbows. They're not being unreasonable in appreciating the meaningfulness of it all.
The rainbows didn't have a specific location though, did they? You only see one above the palace if you happen to be in the correct spot yourself. Simply walk off the premises and the rainbow will appear above some entirely different object. Now if you were located on the opposite side of the building and still witnessed the same rainbow above it, that would be strange indeed!
 
I know some people live for this sort of glurge, but I'm allergic to it.

At the end of the day, this means virtually zero...but I do have a tiny bit of curiosity
as to whether the widely reported rainbow actually happened,
or was anything out of the ordinary.

I get that such glurge comforts some people...but I don't think it's disrespectful
or mean to wonder how accurate/significant the reporting was.
It is kind of an odd thing for legit news entities to dabble in. #TeamLilWabbit :p
 
The rainbows didn't have a specific location though, did they?

The rainbow observers do, which is the relevant fact here. I'd be interested in other observers roughly around the same time in London City reporting rainbows at random locations. It could be that there were many but they were fewer in number due to the crowds at the Buckingham Palace and these others weren't reported due to not being scoop-worthy.

Hence, the evidence needs a bit of digging if there is more.
 
rainbows appearing at Buckingham and Windsor

I hate to appear petty (cue pantomine "oh no you don't"s), but I even have a problem with the idea of rainbows appearing "at" a place. By definition, rainbows are always "over there" - wherever the light cone needs to bounce. So if you're at Windsor and you see a rainbow, the rainbow isn't at Windsor.

Was it the same rain that caused the rainbows at both places? If so, then that means vast areas of London, Berkshire, Herts, Bucks, Surrey, etc. were graced by this miracle, not "Buckingham and Windsor"? If it wasn't, then that kinda tells you that rainbows ain't that rare, surely? How do you, personally, prevent them - I'm curious?
 
The rainbow observers do, which is the relevant fact here. I'd be interested in other observers roughly around the same time in London City reporting rainbows at random locations. It could be that there were many but they were fewer in number due to the crowds at the Buckingham Palace and these others weren't reported due to not being scoop-worthy.

Hence, the evidence needs a bit of digging if there is more.
Think a minute; how many places in London would you expect to have crowds of people standing around in the open on a rainy day? Not many, I'm sure. My expectation would also be that many, many more would be glued to the telly as events unfolded on that particular day, not looking at the skies. Any such "rainbow count" would inevitably be flawed. After all, "rainbow in the suburbs" is not a story at any time, and certainly not on that day.

Let's chalk this up to the kind of sentimental feelings that ran high at the time, the eagerness of the press to find a story angle, and a human propensity toward attaching meaning to natural occurrences.
 
"Sun lower than 42 degrees elevation" - for what proportion of the day does that hold in september (so near the equinox) in London - London being 51.5 degrees north? I'm guessing it's almost the whole day, as the sun literally can't get particularly high in the sky.
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/solcalc/azel.html

London is one of the presets. Looks like the sun rose above 42 at 10:50 AM and fell below at 1:06 PM on the 8th, 2 hours and 16 minutes. The same day had 13 hours and 7 minutes of daylight (6:24 to 7:01), of which 10 hours and 51 minutes is conducive to rainbow formation.



Combine with 15 rainy days out of 30 in September and there's gonna be a lot of rainbows. God just loves this city I guess.

Edit: ran a quick binary tree to refine down to the minute. Changing the seconds doesn't seem to actually refine any further, elevation has a 30 second resolution while other numbers update per second.
 
Last edited:
There has been a great proliferation of claims with the same cosmic/divine gist but with slight variations in detail.
a website called patheos (that noone has ever heard of), and one called national world (that noone has ever heard of) making that claim is a "proliferation"?

huh. learn a new thing everyday.
 
I'm interested to know how likely such a coincidence is. If it's a highly unlikely coincidence, then it's not unreasonable for people to attribute metaphysical significance to it. If it's relatively likely and predictable (or worse, purely motivated reasoning), then it seems less reasonable to do so.

I don’t really get what you’re going for here… Like let’s just say we do a ton of research into rainbows and conclude that yes, a double rainbow in that location is incredibly rare. What then? It’s just an uncommon natural event. Someone who wants to attach divine significance to something like that is unlikely to be persuaded anyway.

For example, winning the lottery is very unlikely. So if you win, do you think it’s reasonable to think God rigged the numbers in your favour?
 
Someone who wants to attach divine significance to something like that is unlikely to be persuaded anyway.
MB isnt about persuading people anymore. It's about proving to yourself and your buddies that you are smarter than your "opponents".
 
Last edited:
Think a minute;

I have and I am. The request is reciprocal. At least humour me and do not, in the process, underestimate my intelligence and single-minded pursuit of the most reasonable explanation just because LilWabbit is yapping about signs and gods. Stay focused on the point, no matter how inclined you may personally be to sweep this topic under the broad carpet of fluffy ideas promoted by sentimentalists lacking your dispassionate rational judgment.

We're here to do proper point-by-point debunks rather than dismiss claims merely using broad subjective strokes which in fact miss the point. For me to call you out on not propounding adequately rigorous and on-point counter-arguments to the 'sign' claim is not to state such counter-arguments cannot be formulated.

how many places in London would you expect to have crowds of people standing around in the open on a rainy day? Not many, I'm sure. My expectation would also be that many, many more would be glued to the telly as events unfolded on that particular day, not looking at the skies. Any such "rainbow count" would inevitably be flawed. After all, "rainbow in the suburbs" is not a story at any time, and certainly not on that day.

An evidently silly rainbow-observer count was never proposed by yours truly, so I wonder where did such an idea pop up. We agree that no adequately comprehensive body of data on rainbow appearances in London on 8 September can be amassed based on observer reports, but harping on this point you, and some others posters, are repeatedly arguing around the main claim (articulated earlier) rather than addressing it and its nuances head-on.

A statistical model using the vantage point of observers at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, based on the physics of a rainbow observation and the averages of rainbow-optimal weather conditions / sun angles (e.g. rainy conditions are necessary but insufficient conditions to qualify as optimal for rainbows), should generate a Buckingham/Windsor Rainbow Probability Distribution for September. As such a physical model is out of my expertise to produce, I was asking for assistance in the OP.

Until then, all these flippant subjective dismissals borne of bias to the effect of 'I don't get it, rainbow is a common natural occurrence in London and Windsor in September so of course they would be seen by onlookers at Windsor and Buckingham at the moment of the Queen's death' offered thus far on this thread simply won't cut it for demonstrating, with adequate scientific rigour, the high probability of the said rainbow observations.

Adequate objective evidence, far beyond sloppy citations of September rain averages in London, need to be presented to establish how common such observations actually are. Including in Windsor.

Let's chalk this up to the kind of sentimental feelings that ran high at the time,

Let's not as long as there's no objective evidence or at least a reasonably rigorous statistical model to demonstrate the said rainbow appearances comfortably falling within the normal distribution.

Until then, different posters reiterating in different words that the Buckingham and Windsor rainbows fall within the normal distribution amounts to a mere repetition of the counter-claim (to the sign claim). Not to a provision of evidence on said distribution.

Let's also not mistake a lay conclusion of a non-random appearance of rainbows for mere sentimentalism. It is a lay experience of a perfectly timed appearance of a scene that appeals to a shared sense of beauty at the moment of death of their queen at the most famous seats of her reign -- phenomena (rainbows) that they've only experienced appearing purely at random variance earlier.

It's therefore a perfectly reasonable cause of surprise and should not be glibly dismissed as silly sentimentalism. Such dismissals smack of intellectual arrogance more than actually constituting an intelligent counter-point.

Now, the lay conclusion may indeed prove to be a wrong one, but it's certainly not mere sentimentalism nor the average observer at Buckingham being unreasonable or purely superstitious.

In fact, pending objective evidence, let's not seek refuge from emotionally comfortable conclusions one way or the other. But if we do, let's not then pretend we're being scientific and reasonable in the same token.
 
Last edited:
OK, let's be more pedantic in order to properly present the evidence scenarios for the claim and its counter-claim:

If rainbows appear above the Buckingham Palace on every other September late afternoon on an average year, then we can comfortably dismiss any hypothesis of an intelligent timing by 'a higher power'. Something 'special' can be always claimed to have happened in the Palace or in connection with the royal family during those fairly common appearances.

But if:

(1) Rainbows inspire awe and marvel in most people;

(2) Rainbows appearing above the Palace occur only a few times in every September or even more rarely (my uneducated guess);

(3) The passing of the Queen is a particularly momentous royal and world event; and

(4) The rainbow appearance and the Queen's passing are near-perfectly synchronized;

Then:

(5) We have a very unlikely coincidence between a rare physical event and a rare sociopolitically significant event which both share the same reference point (the Queen) -- a beautiful rainbow appearing above the Queen's palace and her death. And this is without even considering the Windsor rainbow coincidence. The double-coincidence considerably reduces the likelihood of said synchrony.

Under a materialist/naturalist worldview, these coincidences would still amount to a highly unlikely, whilst possible, co-occurrence of emotionally moving physical and political phenomena sharing the
same reference point (i.e. deaths of famous queens and appearances of rainbows above the seats of their reign) that historically occur at random variance in relatively low frequency. And hence it would be unreasonable to just shrug this co-occurrence off as 'a normal day of rainbows'. It's reasonable to acknowledge it as a very unlikely co-occurrence, yet within the realm of possibilities for random occurences.

Under a worldview that embraces also a metaphysical aspect of reality these co-occurences are reasonably regarded as a divine sign and as meaningful in their shared reference to the Queen.

What remains debatable is which, if either, worldview qualifies as reasonable or more reasonable as a foundational philosophical position. But that's another debate.

There you have it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top