Hilarious take, honestly. Can you point me to some evidence, maps, tables, or discussions about the impoverished London-born living cheek-by-jowl with fancy Nigerians? This is the first I am hearing about the disadvantaged natives of London.
- city of london official site with housing estates https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/housing/housing-est...
- city of london location map https://www.google.com/maps/place/City+of+London,+London,+UK...
And this is _just_ the "city".
Now why not try and learn something about somewhere and figure out _why_ there are so many housing estates scattered throughout London. It's actually quite interesting.
It's atypical, yet it is abundantly clear that "poor" is closely mixed in with "rich".
Are you suggesting that the majority of other affluent boroughs in London and Greater London are exempt from containing Council Estates? Islington, Putney, Wimbledon, Chelsea...
The people who move into central London from overseas are rich emigrants (Russian oligarchs, Saudi princes, etc).
There is significant social housing in London, where the local council provides housing for people of limited means. This is a historical leftover from more enlightened times (and one that Thatcher tried to eliminate). But the amount of churn in this housing, as you can imagine, is very low - once you have a council house, you never leave it because all the other options are waaaay out of your price range. So there are whole families who have been living in poverty for generations in the centre of London.
I'm also thinking about Grenfell.
I am certain that in the aggregate the relationship between wealth or income and length of tenure in London is positive.
London is a very international city, and the wealthy people who own property in the central areas come from all over the place.
I think he's arguing that Charlie counts in the "native Londoner" bucket.
BTW, don't trust the Sunday Times Rich List estimates of the Monarch's wealth. They changed their methodology after the first list when the palace complained that the Queen came out on top.
> I am certain that in the aggregate the relationship between wealth or income and length of tenure in London is positive.
I reckon people who were born there and didn't get a London-appropriate degree are unlikely to have amassed wealth. (Excepting Right To Buy, I suppose, but that's more Right Time than Right Place).
OP's point (which I parapharase as "there are two Londons") strikes me as blatantly true, and I've got the impression from art that 'twas ever thus.
> their monarch
You're not British, maybe? Have you spent much time in London? (I was in the "graduated from UEA" bucket above - I've left now, as people like me tend to do as they get older).