7 ms·

> 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 It may be outdated and unfair, but its stable and usually not too terrible for the people.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.
    - TheCoelacanth 7y ago
      Royalty is only legitimate if they got their wealth by pillaging the entire world, like the Brits, not if they got it by pillaging just one country.
- larnmar 7y ago
  You really don’t see a difference between personally stealing something, and inheriting something that your ancestor stole 963 years ago? If so, we might as well all be hanged.
kaffeemitsahne 7y ago
People pointing out "whataboutism" is incredibly tiring. It is IMO quite legit to point out related issues in western countries. It is potentially interesting and relevant, and it is always good to take note of the hypocrisy of the media.
dredmorbius 7y ago
It's a reasonably fair gripe where you have one monarchy-based journal critiquing what are de facto monarchies or autocracies elsewhere. In the least, raising the question gives an opportunity to discuss similarities and differences, as above. As a general rule, it doesn't appear that it's the British monarchy that's been principally embroiled in recent offshore banking scandals, that is, excavating national wealth and moving it outside the country. Rather, the UK (and several of its Crown territories) are strongly implicated in numerous offshore banking centres (as is the US for that matter), and its often business and financial actors who are engaged in such activities, along with some elements of organised crime. Not heads of state, titular or (nominally) elected.
- FrereJacques 7y ago
  >>it doesn't appear that it's the British monarchy that's been principally embroiled in recent offshore banking scandals There's no evidence that they have neither is their evidence that they haven't participated in that kind of activity. Perhaps they don't need to (at least not while they are still popular in their country). Perhaps it's just a result of lack of exposure in the Western press - I wouldn't put it past the economist to not cover it if indeed they were involved in something like that. Look at the (lack of) coverage of the Epstein case for years for example. Your comment is trying to be balanced and impartial but is a little (maybe unintentionally) biased.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Again: the gripe is fair. The question should be raised. The UK (and its various predecssor states) have been a limited monarchy for quite some centuries. That's not a guarantee of perfectly non-corrupt behaviour, but it helps.

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.
  - TheCoelacanth 7y ago
    Royalty is only legitimate if they got their wealth by pillaging the entire world, like the Brits, not if they got it by pillaging just one country.
larnmar 7y ago
You really don’t see a difference between personally stealing something, and inheriting something that your ancestor stole 963 years ago? If so, we might as well all be hanged.

kaffeemitsahne 7y ago

People pointing out "whataboutism" is incredibly tiring. It is IMO quite legit to point out related issues in western countries. It is potentially interesting and relevant, and it is always good to take note of the hypocrisy of the media.

dredmorbius 7y ago

It's a reasonably fair gripe where you have one monarchy-based journal critiquing what are de facto monarchies or autocracies elsewhere. In the least, raising the question gives an opportunity to discuss similarities and differences, as above. As a general rule, it doesn't appear that it's the British monarchy that's been principally embroiled in recent offshore banking scandals, that is, excavating national wealth and moving it outside the country. Rather, the UK (and several of its Crown territories) are strongly implicated in numerous offshore banking centres (as is the US for that matter), and its often business and financial actors who are engaged in such activities, along with some elements of organised crime. Not heads of state, titular or (nominally) elected.

FrereJacques 7y ago
>>it doesn't appear that it's the British monarchy that's been principally embroiled in recent offshore banking scandals There's no evidence that they have neither is their evidence that they haven't participated in that kind of activity. Perhaps they don't need to (at least not while they are still popular in their country). Perhaps it's just a result of lack of exposure in the Western press - I wouldn't put it past the economist to not cover it if indeed they were involved in something like that. Look at the (lack of) coverage of the Epstein case for years for example. Your comment is trying to be balanced and impartial but is a little (maybe unintentionally) biased.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Again: the gripe is fair. The question should be raised. The UK (and its various predecssor states) have been a limited monarchy for quite some centuries. That's not a guarantee of perfectly non-corrupt behaviour, but it helps.