6 ms·

Article cites gulf royals and king of Swaziland as examples of corruption but neglects to mention the UK's own royal bunch who are just as wealthy or even more

by rustig 7y ago

Article cites gulf royals and king of Swaziland as examples of corruption but neglects to mention the UK's own royal bunch who are just as wealthy or even more so with no good explanation for how and why they're entitled to so much of the country's wealth. A one-eyed take if you ask me. Typical of the economist.

cperciva 7y ago
The UK Royal family is wealthy because they acquired land through a combination of warfare and marriages many centuries ago. If they're unique, it's in the lengthy tenure; other medieval kingdoms have mostly overthrown their kings and seized their assets. That's completely different from rulers who are actively looting their nations today.
- rustig 7y ago
  How is that different from the Saudi Royal family or king of Swaziland? The comparison was not to looting rulers but the other royals the article strangely cites as examples without mentioning the UK Royal family who's source of wealth is similar. Also what do you mean by 'acquired' wealth. Arguably the despots of today are just doing the same ('acquiring' land for future descendants through warfare and despotism)
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    You don't see a difference between inheriting ill-gotten gains from several generations back and actively looting the country yourself? If there is no difference, I'm afraid all white land-owners in America are going to need to return their land to the natives.
    - jlv2 7y ago
      Maybe you mean "all non-Native American land-owners in America". I'm not sure why you single out white.
      - kick 7y ago
        Because African Americans didn't get the chance to get in on the thievery angle, and most other races didn't come in significant volume early enough to have the chance to in numbers significant enough to be worth mentioning?
    - thephyber 7y ago
      > If there is no difference, I'm afraid all white land-owners in America are going to need to return their land to the natives. I'm glad you admitted that there is an argument to be made there.
    - kiliantics 7y ago
      It seems you have independently discovered the reasoning behind reparations, well done.
    - cylinder 7y ago
      > You don't see a difference between inheriting ill-gotten gains from several generations back and actively looting the country yourself? What's the difference? Why don't they return the stolen property? > If there is no difference, I'm afraid all white land-owners in America are going to need to return their land to the natives. Why shouldn't they? Have you heard of native title?
    - larnmar 7y ago
      And those natives would need to return it to other natives, who would need to return it to other natives, and so on for a thousand or so generations.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  It's "completely" different only in that they've held onto they're much better at holding onto their gained wealth.
- amiga_500 7y ago
  Can the public "acquire" it back through violence?
  - aussiegreenie 7y ago
    Yes, that is one of the reasons that her Maj has one of the best collections of Fabergé eggs in the world. Faberge Eggs are small jewelled decoration sharped like an Easter Egg. Faberge's production peaked in 1916 during the middle of WWI. You can put a very large fortune into a pocket (or small bag) if necessary.
- headsupftw 7y ago
  Of course it's different but I fail to see how it is "completely" different given that the UK Royal family did actively loot ancient Britain. Tomeito tomato if you ask me.
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    Yes we need to demand reparations from France oh no wait the Normans came from Scandinavia.
  - rustig 7y ago
    It's not different or unique. It's their bias that makes them think it's different.
lucasmullens 7y ago
> neglects to mention Whataboutism is a bit tiring. That issue doesn't really seem essential to include.
- rustig 7y ago
  I don't care for despots or monarchs of any kind, but it looked like a glaring omission to me. My problem is not with the article in general but the strange decision to lump in the Gulf/Swazi royals whose wealth is no less legitimate in their countries than the UK royals in theirs. Seemed a tad hypocritical to me
  - philipkglass 7y ago
    The article didn't name Saudi Arabia, and it explicitly stated that it's legal for the monarch of Swaziland to live lavishly: "Mswati III, the absolute monarch of Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) lives like a king—and it’s legal."
    - rustig 7y ago
      Huh? The article mentioned the gulf royals and the implication is clearly that there's something wrong with their wealth even if legal.
      - kissickas 7y ago
        It mentions the Gulf royals in the same way it mentions Jay-Z and Beyoncé.
        zbyte64 7y ago
        Really? because the article called the singers blameless.
    - jandrese 7y ago
      Royalty gets grandfathered in basically. Of course all royalty got their land the old fashioned way: by rounding up a bunch of men from nearby villages and raiding their neighbors and killing enough of their subjects until they agreed to give it up. Or just outright killing the neighboring kings. War is not a new thing. As long as Kings are content with what they have today we leave them be. It may be outdated and unfair, but its stable and usually not too terrible for the people. The alternatives may not be much better either, especially in countries with high levels of corruption. There is a hope that all monarchies will eventually crumble and be replaced by something more representative now that the concept of divine right seems quaint and out of touch, but power tends to be self supporting so it will likely take a long time.
GarrisonPrime 7y ago
The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained, video by CGP Grey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw too long; didn't watch: The royal family likely contributes quite significantly to the popularity of the UK tourism industry, which brings in FAR more money to the country than the institution costs to maintain, even considering all the royal salaries to pay, the palaces to maintain, public events to produce, security, etc. They also lease out a great amount of land to the country - to the wide benefit of the entire populace - for pennies of what it would cost the nation to purchase such land and resources outright.
- deogeo 7y ago
  > They also lease out a great amount of land to the country - to the wide benefit of the entire populace - for pennies of what it would cost the nation to purchase such land and resources outright. Land which, without support from the royal family, would sink into the ocean.
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    Ha ha, nice. In seriousness though, there is a line between the monarchy's possessions and the the rest of the government's; in theory even if they monarchy were dissolved, seizing that land would be illegal/immoral/unethical.
- slap 7y ago
  > The royal family likely contributes quite significantly to the popularity of the UK tourism industry France beheaded their king, and people are still visiting Versailles. No one is coming to see the UK palaces because the Queen may be around.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - buboard 7y ago
    In fairness, many do, but on the other hand her familys occupation of palaces keeps them from becoming museums Also, her frequent social functions with some of these other thieving royals is kind of shameful
hogFeast 7y ago
This is a little complex. In the UK, there is a distinction between the Crown Estate (which is technically owned by the Royal Family but functionally owned by the state, you also include the Duchy of Lancaster/Cornwall in this) and the Royal Family's private wealth. The latter consisted in large part of property (Sandringham and Balmoral are privately-owned), furniture, art, jewellery left by the Queen Mother to the current Queen (some of which was then gifted to the state) and an investment portfolio...which no-one actually anything about (it is not large) but which was all acquired privately (both Sandrigham and Balmoral were bought on the open market by Queen Victoria). To suggest they have "so much of the country's wealth" is wildly inaccurate though (most estimates are $500m, and that is including the Duchy of Lancaster/Cornwall...she benefits from the income of both but they are not owned by her personally). The Royal Family aren't even the wealthiest members of the aristocracy in Britain (or anywhere close, frankly). Btw, it is worth remembering that we executed our king ~500 years ago when he got out of line. This isn't our first rodeo.
- brainerd_w 7y ago
  All very nice but I don't really see the relevance to GP's point. Probably a Swati national can chime in here with an equally interesting explanation of their Royal wealth or take issue with the Economist' characterization of it.
  - hogFeast 7y ago
    I would have thought it was obvious: the British Royal Family have no wealth that accrued from their position as heads of state. This is usually not the case in most monarchies outside Europe (Brunei, Thailand, etc.).
    - f0rgiat0 7y ago
      I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying the palaces, the estates from which they derive income even if they don't own them as you say were all acquired prior to their becoming heads of state? Or are you arguing that they're not heads of state? (in which case are you suggesting they're private citizens with privately made wealth). Still don't see the relevance here.
vl 7y ago
It’s absurd that modern “democracy” has monarchy, no freedom of speech and no constitution, on top of that there is a state religion. Both UK and Spain are not examples of how it should be done, for a simple reason - we say to less democratic country, “do democracy or else”, they go - “UK has Queen and no freedom of speech too”! Anyway, monarchy in UK is partially tolerated because most of the income from their properties goes to the state, otherwise, I suspect, they would be done for long ago.
- amiga_500 7y ago
  They recently clawed back more of "crown land".

by rustig 7y ago

cperciva 7y ago

The UK Royal family is wealthy because they acquired land through a combination of warfare and marriages many centuries ago. If they're unique, it's in the lengthy tenure; other medieval kingdoms have mostly overthrown their kings and seized their assets. That's completely different from rulers who are actively looting their nations today.

rustig 7y ago
How is that different from the Saudi Royal family or king of Swaziland? The comparison was not to looting rulers but the other royals the article strangely cites as examples without mentioning the UK Royal family who's source of wealth is similar. Also what do you mean by 'acquired' wealth. Arguably the despots of today are just doing the same ('acquiring' land for future descendants through warfare and despotism)
- jjeaff 7y ago
  You don't see a difference between inheriting ill-gotten gains from several generations back and actively looting the country yourself? If there is no difference, I'm afraid all white land-owners in America are going to need to return their land to the natives.
  - jlv2 7y ago
    Maybe you mean "all non-Native American land-owners in America". I'm not sure why you single out white.
    - kick 7y ago
      Because African Americans didn't get the chance to get in on the thievery angle, and most other races didn't come in significant volume early enough to have the chance to in numbers significant enough to be worth mentioning?
  - thephyber 7y ago
    > If there is no difference, I'm afraid all white land-owners in America are going to need to return their land to the natives. I'm glad you admitted that there is an argument to be made there.
  - kiliantics 7y ago
    It seems you have independently discovered the reasoning behind reparations, well done.
  - cylinder 7y ago
    > You don't see a difference between inheriting ill-gotten gains from several generations back and actively looting the country yourself? What's the difference? Why don't they return the stolen property? > If there is no difference, I'm afraid all white land-owners in America are going to need to return their land to the natives. Why shouldn't they? Have you heard of native title?
  - larnmar 7y ago
    And those natives would need to return it to other natives, who would need to return it to other natives, and so on for a thousand or so generations.
paulddraper 7y ago
It's "completely" different only in that they've held onto they're much better at holding onto their gained wealth.
amiga_500 7y ago
Can the public "acquire" it back through violence?
- aussiegreenie 7y ago
  Yes, that is one of the reasons that her Maj has one of the best collections of Fabergé eggs in the world. Faberge Eggs are small jewelled decoration sharped like an Easter Egg. Faberge's production peaked in 1916 during the middle of WWI. You can put a very large fortune into a pocket (or small bag) if necessary.
headsupftw 7y ago
Of course it's different but I fail to see how it is "completely" different given that the UK Royal family did actively loot ancient Britain. Tomeito tomato if you ask me.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  Yes we need to demand reparations from France oh no wait the Normans came from Scandinavia.
- rustig 7y ago
  It's not different or unique. It's their bias that makes them think it's different.

lucasmullens 7y ago

> neglects to mention Whataboutism is a bit tiring. That issue doesn't really seem essential to include.

rustig 7y ago
I don't care for despots or monarchs of any kind, but it looked like a glaring omission to me. My problem is not with the article in general but the strange decision to lump in the Gulf/Swazi royals whose wealth is no less legitimate in their countries than the UK royals in theirs. Seemed a tad hypocritical to me
- philipkglass 7y ago
  The article didn't name Saudi Arabia, and it explicitly stated that it's legal for the monarch of Swaziland to live lavishly: "Mswati III, the absolute monarch of Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) lives like a king—and it’s legal."
  - rustig 7y ago
    Huh? The article mentioned the gulf royals and the implication is clearly that there's something wrong with their wealth even if legal.
    - kissickas 7y ago
      It mentions the Gulf royals in the same way it mentions Jay-Z and Beyoncé.
      - zbyte64 7y ago
        Really? because the article called the singers blameless.
  - jandrese 7y ago
    Royalty gets grandfathered in basically. Of course all royalty got their land the old fashioned way: by rounding up a bunch of men from nearby villages and raiding their neighbors and killing enough of their subjects until they agreed to give it up. Or just outright killing the neighboring kings. War is not a new thing. As long as Kings are content with what they have today we leave them be. It may be outdated and unfair, but its stable and usually not too terrible for the people. The alternatives may not be much better either, especially in countries with high levels of corruption. There is a hope that all monarchies will eventually crumble and be replaced by something more representative now that the concept of divine right seems quaint and out of touch, but power tends to be self supporting so it will likely take a long time.

GarrisonPrime 7y ago

The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained, video by CGP Grey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw too long; didn't watch: The royal family likely contributes quite significantly to the popularity of the UK tourism industry, which brings in FAR more money to the country than the institution costs to maintain, even considering all the royal salaries to pay, the palaces to maintain, public events to produce, security, etc. They also lease out a great amount of land to the country - to the wide benefit of the entire populace - for pennies of what it would cost the nation to purchase such land and resources outright.

deogeo 7y ago
> They also lease out a great amount of land to the country - to the wide benefit of the entire populace - for pennies of what it would cost the nation to purchase such land and resources outright. Land which, without support from the royal family, would sink into the ocean.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  Ha ha, nice. In seriousness though, there is a line between the monarchy's possessions and the the rest of the government's; in theory even if they monarchy were dissolved, seizing that land would be illegal/immoral/unethical.
slap 7y ago
> The royal family likely contributes quite significantly to the popularity of the UK tourism industry France beheaded their king, and people are still visiting Versailles. No one is coming to see the UK palaces because the Queen may be around.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- buboard 7y ago
  In fairness, many do, but on the other hand her familys occupation of palaces keeps them from becoming museums Also, her frequent social functions with some of these other thieving royals is kind of shameful

hogFeast 7y ago

This is a little complex. In the UK, there is a distinction between the Crown Estate (which is technically owned by the Royal Family but functionally owned by the state, you also include the Duchy of Lancaster/Cornwall in this) and the Royal Family's private wealth. The latter consisted in large part of property (Sandringham and Balmoral are privately-owned), furniture, art, jewellery left by the Queen Mother to the current Queen (some of which was then gifted to the state) and an investment portfolio...which no-one actually anything about (it is not large) but which was all acquired privately (both Sandrigham and Balmoral were bought on the open market by Queen Victoria). To suggest they have "so much of the country's wealth" is wildly inaccurate though (most estimates are $500m, and that is including the Duchy of Lancaster/Cornwall...she benefits from the income of both but they are not owned by her personally). The Royal Family aren't even the wealthiest members of the aristocracy in Britain (or anywhere close, frankly). Btw, it is worth remembering that we executed our king ~500 years ago when he got out of line. This isn't our first rodeo.

brainerd_w 7y ago
All very nice but I don't really see the relevance to GP's point. Probably a Swati national can chime in here with an equally interesting explanation of their Royal wealth or take issue with the Economist' characterization of it.
- hogFeast 7y ago
  I would have thought it was obvious: the British Royal Family have no wealth that accrued from their position as heads of state. This is usually not the case in most monarchies outside Europe (Brunei, Thailand, etc.).
  - f0rgiat0 7y ago
    I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying the palaces, the estates from which they derive income even if they don't own them as you say were all acquired prior to their becoming heads of state? Or are you arguing that they're not heads of state? (in which case are you suggesting they're private citizens with privately made wealth). Still don't see the relevance here.

vl 7y ago

It’s absurd that modern “democracy” has monarchy, no freedom of speech and no constitution, on top of that there is a state religion. Both UK and Spain are not examples of how it should be done, for a simple reason - we say to less democratic country, “do democracy or else”, they go - “UK has Queen and no freedom of speech too”! Anyway, monarchy in UK is partially tolerated because most of the income from their properties goes to the state, otherwise, I suspect, they would be done for long ago.

amiga_500 7y ago
They recently clawed back more of "crown land".