Hacker News Reader

Comment by cperciva | Hacker News Reader

The UK Royal family is wealthy because they acquired land through a combination of warfare and marriages many centuries ago. If they're unique, it's in the lengthy tenure; other medieval kingdoms have mostly overthrown their kings and seized their assets.

That's completely different from rulers who are actively looting their nations today.

View on HN

Of course it's different but I fail to see how it is "completely" different given that the UK Royal family did actively loot ancient Britain. Tomeito tomato if you ask me.

Yes we need to demand reparations from France oh no wait the Normans came from Scandinavia.

It's not different or unique. It's their bias that makes them think it's different.

Can the public "acquire" it back through violence?

Yes, that is one of the reasons that her Maj has one of the best collections of Fabergé eggs in the world. Faberge Eggs are small jewelled decoration sharped like an Easter Egg. Faberge's production peaked in 1916 during the middle of WWI.

You can put a very large fortune into a pocket (or small bag) if necessary.

It's "completely" different only in that they've held onto they're much better at holding onto their gained wealth.

How is that different from the Saudi Royal family or king of Swaziland? The comparison was not to looting rulers but the other royals the article strangely cites as examples without mentioning the UK Royal family who's source of wealth is similar. Also what do you mean by 'acquired' wealth. Arguably the despots of today are just doing the same ('acquiring' land for future descendants through warfare and despotism)

You don't see a difference between inheriting ill-gotten gains from several generations back and actively looting the country yourself?

If there is no difference, I'm afraid all white land-owners in America are going to need to return their land to the natives.

Maybe you mean "all non-Native American land-owners in America". I'm not sure why you single out white.

Because African Americans didn't get the chance to get in on the thievery angle, and most other races didn't come in significant volume early enough to have the chance to in numbers significant enough to be worth mentioning?

And those natives would need to return it to other natives, who would need to return it to other natives, and so on for a thousand or so generations.

> If there is no difference, I'm afraid all white land-owners in America are going to need to return their land to the natives.

I'm glad you admitted that there is an argument to be made there.

> You don't see a difference between inheriting ill-gotten gains from several generations back and actively looting the country yourself?

What's the difference? Why don't they return the stolen property?

> If there is no difference, I'm afraid all white land-owners in America are going to need to return their land to the natives.

Why shouldn't they? Have you heard of native title?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com