Royal Families: useful somehow or just really stupid and gross?

[Ran]

13 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Income and wealth are two different things.

Of course, but I am interpreting "74% of the capital" as being "74% of the wealth", not income. The same site says the top 10% have 32% of the pre-tax national income in Sweden (vs. 34.7% in Finland, 35.35% in Denmark, 29.6% in Norway, 37.8% in Germany). which is even a further cry from the claim.

Perhaps the 74% capital claim is about capital income specifically, @Erik of Hazelfield?

[Erik of Hazelfield]

6 hours ago, Ran said:

Of course, but I am interpreting "74% of the capital" as being "74% of the wealth", not income. The same site says the top 10% have 32% of the pre-tax national income in Sweden (vs. 34.7% in Finland, 35.35% in Denmark, 29.6% in Norway, 37.8% in Germany). which is even a further cry from the claim.

Perhaps the 74% capital claim is about capital income specifically, @Erik of Hazelfield?

It’s supposed to be wealth. The numbers are from economic journalist Andreas Cervenka who claim to draw them from Credit Suisse’s global wealth report, but I confess it’s a bit difficult finding them there so he might be wrong or I might have misquoted him.

Anyway - don’t let me derail the thread. Even if it’s 58,9%, my comment still holds. The monarchy is less of a charade than the idea that poor people deserve to be poor and rich people deserve to be rich.

[Heartofice]

7 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Income and wealth are two different things.

Since this thread is about the British royals, I do believe much of their wealth is real estate... Which a cynic might say ought to belong to the British people. Especially since it seems the monarchy is really good at dodging taxes...

The ‘Crown Estate’ which is what you are talking about pretty much does belong to the people. Although technically it belongs to the crown, the majority of that income from that property goes back to the government , the crown allowed to keep some of it. So I think stuff like that gets massively overblown 

[kiko]

On 1/17/2023 at 7:45 AM, Heartofice said:

The ‘Crown Estate’ which is what you are talking about pretty much does belong to the people. Although technically it belongs to the crown, the majority of that income from that property goes back to the government , the crown allowed to keep some of it. So I think stuff like that gets massively overblown 

Is it public knowledge how much land is owned by the crown and by the members of the royal family? I remember there was an article once claiming it's not. But can't find it.

[SeanF]

On 1/17/2023 at 7:45 AM, Heartofice said:

The ‘Crown Estate’ which is what you are talking about pretty much does belong to the people. Although technically it belongs to the crown, the majority of that income from that property goes back to the government , the crown allowed to keep some of it. So I think stuff like that gets massively overblown 

The Crown Estate is effectively government property.

[SeanF]

On 1/16/2023 at 10:47 PM, Ran said:

 The World Income Database says the share of wealth held by the top 10% is 58.9%, not 74%. Finland is at 56%. Denmark is at 50%. Norway is at 52%. (The number is comparable to Germany, also at 59%, per the same source)

This paper from a couple of years ago, by a pair of economists at a think tank, raises some reasonable points about some of the debate in the media around how to conceptualize and measure inequality, among them the fact that some of the comparisons people are making between countries are drawing from different datasets that define things differently, so it's a bit apple to oranges. 

 

The figures can vary a lot, depending on whether you include entitlement to pensions as household wealth.

Including pensions, 15% of British households now have wealth of £1m +.

It’s interesting to me that even the most egalitarian of countries cannot legislate the wealthy out of existence.  Inequality is both natural and inevitable.

[mormont]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

 Inequality is both natural and inevitable.

But natural and inevitable things can be either good, or bad: and we can have public policies that either make them worse, or better. 

The issue with the modern Western world is that we have, for the last five decades, implemented policies that have demonstrably made inequality - a bad thing - much worse. 

[Heartofice]

Well it depends doesn't it. Inequality isn't so bad as long as it doesn't prevent those at the bottom working their way up. It doesn't really matter that much if rich people are rich as long as that doesn't adversely affect poor people. 

The issue really is that the current system means that poor people are basically locked out of the system and kept in their place. High asset prices prevent poor people getting any further in life and trap them in a low income cell, especially when you have stagnating wages and a tax system that favours people with assets and capital. 

Thats really why I don't really give a shit about whether we have a Monarchy or not, it doesn't actually matter. There are bigger more complex problems as to why people are poor.

[Mowgli]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

 Inequality is both natural and inevitable.

Sure, in absolute terms perhaps. However, there are policies one can enact to lessen inequality. To not make it worse. There is this notion that all we can have is the status quo, but that only represents a lack of imagination. 

It is inevitable that you will die, inevitable that you will use more health care as you get older - but we enact policies to both prolong your life & ensure that the healthcare you use will not make you bankrupt. 

[DMC]

Yeah the notion that inequality is "inevitable and nature" - and the subsequent implication that we should just accept it - is absurd.  We know certain policies significantly exacerbate inequality and certain policies significantly mitigate inequality (including immigration policy).  I agree with HOI that inequality is contextual in that as long as the bottom level has the opportunity for advancement - as well as an acceptable current standard of living - it can be seen in a more benign light.  But that's currently not the case in most places.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

High asset prices prevent poor people getting any further in life and trap them in a low income cell, especially when you have stagnating wages and a tax system that favours people with assets and capital. 
 

Hey, we can agree now and then! One thing I'd add though is that the influence of the wealthy, and that politicians tend to be affluent themselves, is that they disproportionately care about issues that benefit the rich at the expense of the lower classes. Ending the monarchy and even selling off their prosperities won't fix the underlying issue. 

[kiko]

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

The Crown Estate is effectively government property.

Minus 25 percent of the generated rent. And including the sea around the archipelago, as I learned today. I guess the air is still free.
Not a lot of elected presidents claim 25 percent of the income from public land and water, neither the symbolic ones nor the ones with real power. On top of my head I could only think of Putin.

[Heartofice]

16 minutes ago, kiko said:

Minus 25 percent of the generated rent. And including the sea around the archipelago, as I learned today. I guess the air is still free.
Not a lot of elected presidents claim 25 percent of the income from public land and water, neither the symbolic ones nor the ones with real power. On top of my head I could only think of Putin.

Its 25% very temporarily, its usually 15% and will be returning to 15%. That based on the income of the lands constituting the Crown Estate.

 

[kiko]

21 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Its 25% very temporarily, its usually 15% and will be returning to 15%. That based on the income of the lands constituting the Crown Estate.

 

Oh I forgot that they are only drawing the extra 10 percent because they want to renovate on of their many castles.

We once had a president, who had to go because he got a surprisingly cheap loan for his small family home. It later turned out that everything was legally correct. If only he had taken 25 percent of the rent from public property. He may still be in his post.

[Zorral]

Doing Their Best to Keep Royals Out of Trouble
Three books consider the curious role of the contemporary courtier, who advises, protects and defends behind closed castle gates.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/17/books/review/royalty-courtiers-princess-margaret.html

Quote

 

Are the rich different? Yes: There are fewer of them, and they all know one another. At least in certain London post codes.

They also depend, of course, on a massive support staff. And in the case of the British royal family, as Valentine Low breaks down in COURTIERS: Intrigue, Ambition and the Power Players Behind the House of Windsor (384 pp., St. Martin’s, $32), that network is gargantuan. Courtiers are those in the inner circle — the court, if you will! — who variously manage the royals’ schedules and P.R., their correspondence, their speeches, their private and public lives. Low provides a taxonomy of the roles of equerries, private secretaries and comptrollers. But more than this, he explains exactly what a good courtier does: advise royalty and, when necessary, save them from themselves. Think about it this way: For every sex scandal, every bit of internecine unpleasantness, every racist utterance, every ill-judged interview that you’ve heard of — it might have been much, much worse.

There might seem something baffling, if not a bit grotesque, about the idea of highly educated diplomats, titans of business and decorated war heroes reduced to dutifully roaring with laughter at royal witticisms and pouring the queen mother’s gin and Dubonnet. The perks — access to the royal ear, opportunities for petty revenge and, perhaps, a grace-and-favor apartment — hardly seem worth the pain. And for far less money than many courtiers would make in the private sector.

And yet, as Low is at pains to make clear, a good courtier, unlike a member of an entourage, is not a yes man. At their best, these devoted servants make everyone look dignified, and do it with the utmost tact. “The successful courtier,” says Low, “will always be more than a mere functionary.”

For starters, when they’re not titled nobility, they tend to be “unremittingly posh” — the only variable seeming to be whether they’ve spent their youth at Oxbridge or in the upper echelons of the military. Old Etonians dominate.

There are dynastic courtiers, whose families have been in service to the crown since the first Elizabeth; friend-to-courtiers (as precarious as it sounds); and talented outsiders. There are hidebound “gray men” like the “tough, experienced” Tommy Lascelles, defined during his midcentury service by a near-fanatical devotion to tradition; there are modernizers who refuse to wear knee breeches and who take lunch in the staff canteen. Some are masters of intrigue. Others disdain it. All have a high tolerance for foibles of all stripes, be it the loose-cannon antics of Edward VIII or Princess Diana’s crying jags.

If you’re asking yourself who, exactly, would choose this life, in this day and age, you’re not alone. Prince Charles — whose dysfunctional Clarence House was an incubator for “Wolf Hall” levels of jiggery-pokery — found this out the hard way when he tried to head-hunt a private secretary from the financial sector. No one wanted to trade in a real-world salary for the honor of handling an “explosive temper,” a susceptibility to crackpots and a disregard for underlings’ time. (The titled banker they did hire ultimately left for Credit Suisse First Boston.) ....

 

Two more books discussed after Courtiers.

[Cas Stark]

2 hours ago, kiko said:

Oh I forgot that they are only drawing the extra 10 percent because they want to renovate on of their many castles.

We once had a president, who had to go because he got a surprisingly cheap loan for his small family home. It later turned out that everything was legally correct. If only he had taken 25 percent of the rent from public property. He may still be in his post.

They don't own most of those..Buckingham Palace, Kennsington Palace, Windsor Castle and most of the other 'royal' residences are owned by the state.  If the state owns them and the RF can't sell them or otherwise profit from them, why shouldn't the state pay for the upkeep?

[Denvek]

20 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

They don't own most of those..Buckingham Palace, Kennsington Palace, Windsor Castle and most of the other 'royal' residences are owned by the state.  If the state owns them and the RF can't sell them or otherwise profit from them, why shouldn't the state pay for the upkeep?

Because the state doesn't own them. Most of the royal residences are owned by the Crown (separately to the Crown Estate) and the others are privately owned by member(s) of the family.

 

[Zorral]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/19/cash-and-the-crown-estate-a-look-at-the-british-monarchys-funding-deal

 

[kiko]

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

They don't own most of those..Buckingham Palace, Kennsington Palace, Windsor Castle and most of the other 'royal' residences are owned by the state.  If the state owns them and the RF can't sell them or otherwise profit from them, why shouldn't the state pay for the upkeep?

Hmm. I especially made sure to check Wikipedia before I made my post 

Quote

The palace, like Windsor Castle, is owned by the reigning monarch in right of the Crown. Occupied royal palaces are not part of the Crown Estate,^[66]nor are they the monarch's personal property

Not by the state but by the crown, which Wikipedia tells me I very ill-defined. But whatever. I'm not going to argue that point.

[Lord of Oop North]

"The Crown" is different than person of "The Monarch" themselves.

The Crown Estates belong to the Monarch during the their reign, but they are not their personal property. It cannot be sold by the monarch, they do not manage the estates, nor do the revenues belong to the person of the monarch. The revenues  belong to 'The Crown Estate', which is it's own organization that runs itself, and is ultimately accountable to Parliament.

The Duchies are different again. 

Windsor Castle, Buckingham, and Kensington are all owned by the monarch in right of the Crown, and are not part of the Crown Estate. But they are also not the personal property of the monarch, and the government is responsible for all their maintenance.