This article, your post, and subsequent answers are easily deconstructed 'Gish Gallop'.

I've prevented you with actual arguments - which you cant even respond to.

There are some easy arguments against the Royals but you haven't even started with them.

...

"Distinction without a difference."

The Windsor's have innumerable, obvious, trivially verifiable constraints on their wealth.

More than constraints, 'responsibilities'.

Those constraints and responsibilities are 'existential' to the relationship with their wealth.

It's a ridiculous to suggest their 'wealth' is the same as the wealth of other 'billionaires'.

They are not even comparable -> 'Gish Gallop'

...

"Only in a biological sense; In the Social sense they are nothing without their positions."

'They do a job in a biological sense' - is incoherent - this doesn't even make sense.

They do a job.

Their jobs are inherited, yes, which is a different argument.

Primogeniture is one way to get a job, it still happens all over the world in public and private, and indirectly to varying degrees, 'where and who you are born to' makes a big difference for everyone.

It's 'unfair' - but it doesn't mean they don't 'do a job'.

Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is the 'Male Heir' of the Prime Minstership of Pierre Trudeau.

Trudeau Jr. is a lazy ass; He dropped out of Engineering, and then did nothing for nearly 20 years of his life. No job, not accomplishments, no processional development. Empty resume. 'Went Backpacking'.

'Politics' was his last shot at doing anything, due to his positive qualities (he's 'pretty' and 'articulate') and has an 'important last name' and so 'The Party' roped him in out of desperation.

Moreover - the 'Prime Ministership' is a 'very real job' - it's not ceremonial, it's material.

Anyone concerned with 'primogeniture' - should be much, much more concerned about this happening in the realm of political and consequence.

Prince William was learning to fly Search and Rescue Helicopters and running Missions during that period of his life. Material, applied, civic, character building. Is that a 'big deal'? No, of course not - but it's something, on average more than others.

He's prepared for 'his specific job' of 'Public Relations / Ceremonial Head of State'. Which is a job, irrespective of how he got it.

...

"The data is right there in the article."

No - there is no 'data' in the article.

You're accusing me of 'Gish Gallop'?

Again, misdirection and hand-waving lies.

The article purported: 'The monarchs in the past benefited from capitalism' with indirect references to deals made centuries ago.

And FYI that's it's even 'capitalism' - it's 'mercantilism'.

The entire leadership of every group and nation were involved in those kinds of things. 'Everyone' has 'benefited' from those past activities, and mostly those at the time they were made. It makes little difference today.

The implication of UK Royal's having offshore accounts has nothing to do with 'capitalism' - moreover, it's a common, global practice.

Google and Barack Obama have 'offshore accounts'.

And so?

Maybe we should have some kind of tax reform, but the Royals are not distinct in this way.

As far as 'capitalism' in the actual, real sense - not made up historical allusions and bullshit - it is easily demonstrated that the Royals, if they wanted to be 'actual capitalists' could rake in enormous sums - more than they earn through their historical asset holdings.

Netflix offered Harry and Meghan $100M - minor, non-Royals, for one, simple deal.

HRH Royals could earn 10x that with the wave of a hand, which is factual, quantifiable, verifiable.

...

"These arguments are grounded in a kind of populist jealousy"

"Ha ha ha"

Then why are you lying?

Frothing angry prose on 'the internets' on a Sunday?

Why are these arguments reaching into fantasy and bad rhetoric - especially when there are easier arguments at hand?

'class warfare populist jealousy'.

They have an 'inherited system' - some view that as unfair, and that's almost all 100% of the argument.

It's visible, apparent, as opposed to the inherited power (and lack of accountability / responsibility) of so many others.

Personally - I'm over it; There are a million things that are unfair in life. On the balance, it's a benefit.

Would we start a monarchy today? No. Should most or all positions be established on the basis of primogeniture, obviously not.

Does it matter that someone, somewhere inherits their position? There are issues, but it also works on other levels. It works.

...

"This is not Leadership but "privilege by birth"."

First, it's obviously leadership; QE2 is respected for her role, even among those who don't support the system.

... but more baffling: 90% of our leaders have a 'privileged birth'. This has little to do with 'Royals'.

But this has little to do with to the pseudo-intellectual historical rant that was referenced.

The article in fact, is evidence of populist classist sentiment - literally from the summary:

"Why do the minority control the system when the majority pay the taxes"

It's an adolescent non-sequitur that belongs on Reddit.

The minority will always have more power, that's the nature of how we organize ourselves, and there will always be a degree of inherited power.