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.
He got equal inheritance rights as every person gets from his parents. In this case I see it as "You had a kid, you better take charge of that."
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.
I got curious about this but it seems that this is also the case for all his siblings. His bio dad gets it (EUR 300k/y) because of a transitional compromise but the future princes aside from the presumptive heir to the throne will not get it.
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.
Yes. unfortunately rich people without merit effort and capability are still rich and some of them don't work very hard, so it looks pretty much the same as every other place in the world.
Leopold II had millions and millions murdered in the Congo to make himself rich with rubber, but he wasted it all and in the end the Belgian people had to bail him out. No fortune to get from him.
I'm struggling to understand what the desirable alternative is here. Children shouldn't be recognized by their patients? Or only lower class parents should have the burden of sharing their income with their children?
He gets inheritance rights, so he'll inherit money from the royal estate (built up through his ancestors' royal allowances, or through any other means the throne has used to accumulate wealth), even though he doesn't get a royal allowance.
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.
All children should be gestated in womb-bladders in state hatcheries, and raised to maturity by the state. Knowing or wanting to know your parents should be considered a deviancy, a perversion.
Oh wait that’s Brave New World. Or The Naked Sun, depending on your preferred flavour of SF nightmare.
Aristocracies should not exist anywhere on earth in 2026, except in ceremonial form. Their ill-gotten gains should be expropriated into the hands of the state.
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.
So what's stopping the Belgian people from grabbing torches and pitchforks, marching to the castle, and demanding that this injustice be immediately reconciled?
The king is already mostly ceremonial. He seems mainly a stabilization factor for the country when both halves get a bout of separatism once more: He is the ultimate person every major politician talks to when nobody wants to talk to each other. The king does have some extra rights, but not too much, and the alternative seems worse.
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.
I mean, he's not getting a royal allowance, even though his father does. It sounds like they already have peaceful transition away from monarchy worked out, in which case, threatening or committing violence is senseless and potentially counterproductive.
If you view this life as a simulation and that this is the only possible one you will inhibit, it all looks absurd for the very thing you mentioned, the snapshot of it alone suggests chaos stochastic properties with seemingly no order but this isn't your fault as much of Western perspective has judeo-christian roots reject the Eastern philosophy that have preceded it for several milllenias thus I'd argue would be more grounded and accurate seeing that geographically isolated and separated cultures who have never come into contact with other have discovered the same conclusions.
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.
Are you advocating for all children being anonymized and raised in orphanages? Or a 100% inheritance tax? Or just expressing disappointment at your own relative lack of wealthy & famous recent ancestors?
> Are you advocating for all children being anonymized and raised in orphanages? Or a 100% inheritance tax? Or just expressing disappointment at your own relative lack of wealthy & famous recent ancestors?
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?
My father has a wonderful collection of model trains. It’s rather valuable in money. I have been playing with his trains since I was a young boy. Good memories.
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?
This is already law. If you gift someone your $100M mansion, they pay income taxes instead of inheritance taxes. And income taxes are higher (in that bracket).
Depending on what motivations are, separate controlling interest from personal wealth, at least above some reasonable limit.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Would you say that both "the kind of people they are" and "passing something on to them" are important? I feel they are. Eg if I can leave a house or a business to my kids, that's better than not. Agree raising great humans is primary.
> Would you say that both "the kind of people they are" and "passing something on to them" are important?
"passing something on to them" is only needed if they fail at life. If they are successful in life why would they need anything beyond keepsakes/memories?
Leaving something to someone you love is a common human motivation, from a father in building a business that he hopes the son continues to run, to a poor woman who punched pennies her whole life only to leave millions to her grandkids.
Answering a "why would" here is a little tough, like conveying to someone "why would you want to make love to a woman" or "why would you bother to have a family" to someone who doesn't get it.
The question is why wouldn't you? I love my kids I want to do maximally for them.
There's absolutely nothing ideal about being unable to give the things you worked for to your loved ones when you die. It's incredibly callous and devoid of compassion to do that to people.
