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.
This is usually not the case in most monarchies outside Europe (Brunei, Thailand, etc.).
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.