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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
I think at a certain point society stops being about 'who produce these things and values', and instead turns into 'how do I find novel things for people to do'. a.k.a. service oriented economy.
The first Bush said that, so did the second. I have yet to see the benefit. The longer it goes the more the inequality increases. There is nothing in history I can point to but I am not a good historian. If someone could educate me, honestly asking because I would sleep better.
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.
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.
The UK has a much stronger Rule of Law, if the monarchs are constitutionally granted wealth it's different than taking things illegally from the treasury. I'm sure in the past you could argue that happened, but if a royal in the UK attempted to assert themselves as ruler and raid the treasury for their personal fortune, one would think the system would move to prevent them. Perhaps Brexit and Boris Johnson are going to prove us wrong, but currently I don't believe UK == Swaziland is a valid comparison.
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.
> Or are you arguing that they're not heads of state?
Yes, that is what I am arguing. You are obviously a genius.
When you say "the palaces, the estates from which they derive income even if they don't own them...acquired prior to becoming heads of state", you are showing that you didn't read anything I wrote (I understand why you don't see the relevance now, it has been explained more than once however).
They did not acquire them, they are owned by the state. And the income from those sources accrues to the state, which is then passed to the Crown. The relevance of this point is: the British Royal Family are not wealthy, the majority of what people attribute to them is in fact state-owned, the personal assets they have were acquired on the open market (i.e. not related to their position as head of state...again, the reason you might not understand the relevance of that distinction is because you don't know that this isn't the case in many other monarchies...I gave you two examples...you are taking learned helplessness to new lows).
Btw: the UK went through this 400 years ago. If you want to know more about this issue, don't get angry first...read books. You don't seem to understand quite fundamental aspects about how monarchy/government works in this case.
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.
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.
>>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.
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
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.
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.
