Comment by hogFeast | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hogFeast | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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 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.).

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com