So no merit, effort or capability-based gains; instead a straight title, prestige, wealth and inheritance gain through DNA, over which no offspring has any control.
Also:
> But he will not receive a royal allowance, nor will he be expected to take on official duties, and he has no rights to the Belgian throne. Vandenkerckhove could take his father’s family name, Saxe-Coburg, but has indicated he may not choose to.
So it seems nothing will change for him.
Not that they might be any close to being destitute given the estate size.
As for him, I suppose you can sue for backpay child support.
Oh wait that’s Brave New World. Or The Naked Sun, depending on your preferred flavour of SF nightmare.
Limits on how much parents can spend other people's resources on their kids. Which goes with civil office being a job rather than a special privilege.
However, if he didn't inherit, then his share of that money would have gone to any siblings/other relatives instead, anyway. The royal family as a whole doesn't appear to gain or lose any wealth.
Unless, I guess it's possible it could affect inheritance taxes one way or the other, if the state takes inheritance taxes?
It sounds like the inheritance is following the agreed terms of a transition away from monarchy. I don't know anything about the specific situation, but in general, I'd think that maybe a generous but peaceful separation agreement with the royal estate might work out to be cheaper (in multiple ways) for the state and the people than a harsher takeover/repossession of royal wealth would be. It really depends on the political situation.
It's dishonest of you to argue that they should be treated like normal citizens while they cling desperately to their distinct and superior position. If they want to be treated as normal people all they have to do is renounce their titles.
King Albert 2 didn't want to become king but nobody else with enough capability was available. So it's not just a fun job.
But yes, the discussion to king or not pops up once in a while, and the general response seems to be we got much bigger problems.
The new wave movement in the West frame it as a simulation hypothesis perspective, your DNA is the passport through many simulations you've experienced and it carries the merit, effort and capabilities gained over time.
We just call it Buddhism outside san francisco.
Obviously easier said than done, but unless the predominant incentive for everyone is just to generate more wealth for themselves/relatives/etc, other existing incentives should be sufficient to invest.
yes
Are you telling me that if I can’t afford to pay the state the full value of that train set, the trains will go to a government auction?
Also the value of model trains and the selling price are highly different numbers.
That won't change.
If you were a normal man and a father a large part of your mental space would be filled with trying creating value that could outlast you, for your family.
The fact that this is so foreign to you means you that an idea of "inheritance" is something that happens to other - bad - people, not a gift that you could be making.
As a father, a large part of my mental space is filled with making sure my kids grow up to be good human beings, a credit to themselves, and are capable of making their own way through life independently.
I have personally seen how expectations of, and inheritances, hollow out people and families, morally bankrupt otherwise good people, and would not wish that scourge upon my own kids.
I'm advocating for all children to be given a fair shot at life. How do you suggest we achieve that as a society? Or is that too much to ask, in your view?
(not making this up, google it)