The PBS app has all of the BBC coverage available to view at the moment. Just watched the procession again from Buckingham Palace to Westminster Hall. Very moving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wouldn't the wife of the heir be invited...

It’s the event of the century and only 2k seats in Westminster.

+1 There is no space, 2 reps only for Denmark.

Spain will have 3. That embarrassment of a former king has been invited.

The Spanish Royals are relatives.

So is Queen Margrethe.

And king of Norway

Anonymous wrote:Why are the erstwhile Greek royals still referred to by their titles? It sounds ridiculous.

The Russian nobility also all used their titles … and I think still do. I feel like if the BRF stopped using the titles, it might imply that they’ve accepted that royalty can be dethroned, and that’s not something they want to acknowledge.

Anonymous wrote:

Why are the erstwhile Greek royals still referred to by their titles? It sounds ridiculous.

Because their pretensions are the basis for Prince Philip's claim to be royalty before he married Princess Elizabeth.

His only other royal connection was with the Russian royal family, and that did not work out well

Why are the erstwhile Greek royals still referred to by their titles? It sounds ridiculous.

Because their pretensions are the basis for Prince Philip's claim to be royalty before he married Princess Elizabeth.

Why are the erstwhile Greek royals still referred to by their titles? It sounds ridiculous.

Do we really need to debate who was invited and why/why not? I’m sure “the firm” discussed it ad nauseum before deciding upon the path forward. I wouldn’t want that job for all the money in the world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wouldn't the wife of the heir be invited...

It’s the event of the century and only 2k seats in Westminster.

+1 There is no space, 2 reps only for Denmark.

Spain will have 3. That embarrassment of a former king has been invited.

The Spanish Royals are relatives.

So is Queen Margrethe.

Yes, and Queen Margrethe was invited. Her son was invited to accompany her, he and his wife are not the ruling monarchs or heads of state for Denmark, hence no invitation for them as a couple.

The Spanish ex King and Queen were invited as relatives not representatives of Spain. They each were related to Elizabeth II and Philip and maintained a relationship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wouldn't the wife of the heir be invited...

It’s the event of the century and only 2k seats in Westminster.

+1 There is no space, 2 reps only for Denmark.

Spain will have 3. That embarrassment of a former king has been invited.

The Spanish Royals are relatives.

So is Queen Margrethe.

OMG! The Queen’s grandchildren were in the coffin with her - and awake! LOL!

https://commentaryboxsports.com/queen-elizabeths-grandchildren-awake-in-the-coffin/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the rationale/justification for exempting the inheritance of the sovereign’s estate from the 40% inheritance tax that applies to everyone else? Does the sovereign need so much independent wealth to avoid being beholden to any legislator and he truly independent? It doesn’t make sense from a legal or policy perspective.

There is the concern that if two monarchs die in close succession the whole fortune could essentially be wiped. Also, the RF is asset rich but cash light, which means they’d be forced to sell assets to pay the tax bill. Doesn’t make sense.

Oh, so they might have to sell one of their 15 castles? Yes, I can see how that doesn’t make sense.

No it does not make sense for the Brits for their heritage to be bought off by a Qatari or a Russian billionaire.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the rationale/justification for exempting the inheritance of the sovereign’s estate from the 40% inheritance tax that applies to everyone else? Does the sovereign need so much independent wealth to avoid being beholden to any legislator and he truly independent? It doesn’t make sense from a legal or policy perspective.

There is the concern that if two monarchs die in close succession the whole fortune could essentially be wiped. Also, the RF is asset rich but cash light, which means they’d be forced to sell assets to pay the tax bill. Doesn’t make sense.

Oh, so they might have to sell one of their 15 castles? Yes, I can see how that doesn’t make sense.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the rationale/justification for exempting the inheritance of the sovereign’s estate from the 40% inheritance tax that applies to everyone else? Does the sovereign need so much independent wealth to avoid being beholden to any legislator and he truly independent? It doesn’t make sense from a legal or policy perspective.

There is the concern that if two monarchs die in close succession the whole fortune could essentially be wiped. Also, the RF is asset rich but cash light, which means they’d be forced to sell assets to pay the tax bill. Doesn’t make sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wouldn't the wife of the heir be invited...

It’s the event of the century and only 2k seats in Westminster.

+1 There is no space, 2 reps only for Denmark.

Spain will have 3. That embarrassment of a former king has been invited.

The Spanish Royals are relatives.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the rationale/justification for exempting the inheritance of the sovereign’s estate from the 40% inheritance tax that applies to everyone else? Does the sovereign need so much independent wealth to avoid being beholden to any legislator and he truly independent? It doesn’t make sense from a legal or policy perspective.

I’m anti-monarchy and pro-estate tax but this actually makes some sense to me. In ordinary cases, it’s common for the one inheriting to sell off some of the property to pay a large estate tax. They can’t do this, as they are prohibiting from selling the property. They don’t have the whole bundle or property rights.

But I also think it’s a bit rich when people say “oh but it’s their private property.” I mean, I guess so. But only because they inherited it through an insanely rigid system of primogeniture that initially sprung from a might makes right acquisition of the land from others. I guess most property rights are similar — in that the original property owner always either stole the land or just accouncee it as their own. But this is the most extreme example.