6 ms·

I think the point here is that her wealth being mostly private (or enough of it being private not being a specialist in those matters), the way she carried her

I think the point here is that her wealth being mostly private (or enough of it being private not being a specialist in those matters), the way she carried her duty was even more remarkable. You could easily imagine somebody inheriting similar wealth and not behaving nearly as well as she did for her country. I do not think it is about being pro or against monarchy here.

youngtaff 4y ago
I think the distinction between public and private wealth is sophistry That ‘private’ wealth was acquired because she was head of state
- percevalve 4y ago
  I do think the distinction actually exists for the British Monarchy... A quick Googling would give you something like that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_...
  - youngtaff 4y ago
    Legally their may be a distinction but the monarch's wealth was ultimately taken from the people and maintained via favourable tax laws - there's no inheritance tax on a monarchs estate, she didn't pay income tax etc.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - jahewson 4y ago
      If you think that Queen Victoria, head of the largest empire the world has ever seen and who purchased Balmoral, got rich by skimping on taxes, then I’d recommend taking some time to read a book or two.
      - delecti 4y ago
        I don't think their comment was arguing that at all, and in fact it seems like an indefensibly uncharitable interpretation. > ultimately taken from the people and maintained via favourable tax laws Taken from the people and maintained via favorable tax laws. UK inheritance tax is 40% (over the threshold, which is so low as to be meaningless next to the royal estate). With 5 royal deaths since Victoria, Charles III would have less than 8% of what he actually does if that 40% were taken each time (which is obviously vastly oversimplifying to make a point).

youngtaff 4y ago

I think the distinction between public and private wealth is sophistry That ‘private’ wealth was acquired because she was head of state

percevalve 4y ago
I do think the distinction actually exists for the British Monarchy... A quick Googling would give you something like that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_...
- youngtaff 4y ago
  Legally their may be a distinction but the monarch's wealth was ultimately taken from the people and maintained via favourable tax laws - there's no inheritance tax on a monarchs estate, she didn't pay income tax etc.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jahewson 4y ago
    If you think that Queen Victoria, head of the largest empire the world has ever seen and who purchased Balmoral, got rich by skimping on taxes, then I’d recommend taking some time to read a book or two.
    - delecti 4y ago
      I don't think their comment was arguing that at all, and in fact it seems like an indefensibly uncharitable interpretation. > ultimately taken from the people and maintained via favourable tax laws Taken from the people and maintained via favorable tax laws. UK inheritance tax is 40% (over the threshold, which is so low as to be meaningless next to the royal estate). With 5 royal deaths since Victoria, Charles III would have less than 8% of what he actually does if that 40% were taken each time (which is obviously vastly oversimplifying to make a point).