Queen vs 'Queen' Will the real Queen please stand up?

Today's brush with incredulity comes courtesy of an advert on the side of a bus, advertising a forthcoming concert by Queen.  I suppose that it is a measure of my cynicism  that my first thought was not that I had traveled back in time a couple of decades.  This, though was an ad for a concert by Queen, or at least ‘Queen’ less Freddie Mercury.

When a band loses its front man it should do the decent thing and change its name.  Joy Division knew that.  Genesis did not.  Queen, apparently, have decided to stick with their original name, possibly because the remaining members, or is it member now?, of the band consider that they have earned that right just because they have been in the band since 1962 or whenever.

But this wasn't a case of the drummer dying.  Drummers are famously fragile and so bands are quite expected to continue with their original name when they swap drummers.

This wasn't a case of the bassist leaving.  Nobody notices that.

This wasn't even a case of the lead guitarist leaving.  This happens, normally due to 'artistic differences', a marvelous phrase meaning that the egos of the frontman and lead guitarist have clashed in a display not unlike two bull walruses fighting on the beach as a result of the lead guitarist having all the musical talent, the songwriting talent, the work ethic and the original idea for the band, and the frontman getting all the pussy.

This was the frontman's frontman dying.  Queen should have done the tribute gig and retired the name.  They could still play, maybe call themselves 'Princess' or something.

Or possibly they just had too much stationary already printed to bother changing the name?