King calls for creative ways to tackle inequality

[AshLeaf]

AIBU to think this displays a breathtaking lack of self-awareness from one of the richest men in the world?

Well, how about you make a start with that Charles?!

Charles and his family sit at the very top of the inequality pyramid

They are the embodiment of inequality. No one here can become Monarch. We have to tell our sons and daughters that they can never - no matter what they do, who they are, what they desire - never become Monarch. They simply are not equal, good enough, or however you want to dress it up. And that is what all Royalists believe. That our children are not worthy of being Monarch.

I'd be in favour of public ownership and use as tourist attractions, or sensitive conversion into housing/businesses if unable to pay their way.

Don't actually need a few people of status living in them.

But the public can view Lambeth Palace, it is a tourist attraction.

I wasn't really planning on reducing the entire discussion to a single example given as an illustration.

I'm sure there are others that are happy to though.

Well it is important because these sites are invariably in wealthy areas and will only make way for homes for wealthy people. Your argument is flawed.

It's the public ownership part I'm interested in.

The church owns Lambeth Palace (specifically the Archbishop of Canterbury) it never goes into private hands.

I'd like to know what he actually means by this. He could be thinking on the lines of:
Everyone having access to a dietician and healthy food.

Having a cleaner
Sending DC to a good school, where they will achieve no matter what.
A lovely home, being able to keep it warm in winter and an XL garden that isn't overlooked
Go jetsettig without worrying about the carbon footprint, cause the environment is someone else's problem.
...
These points of inequality definitely need to be addressed creatively. EVERYONE, should have a piece of the Royal cake!

nah not jealous of the rich, ok maybe a little bit

In response to
SerendipityJane's comment
Well start by selling Lambeth Palace. Plenty of housing could be put up there.
You said
So we should destroy all our culture and historic buildings for the sake of a few overpriced houses?
And my thought was we don't have to destroy them, we could bring them into public ownership. And either manage them as tourist attractions for the benefit of the public purse, and if they weren't paying their way, find alternative use that doesn't necessarily destroy the buildings. 🙄

All of the above.

And my response was (using Lambeth palace as an example) most historic sites are under public ownership because these buildings cost so much to maintain their actual owners can't keep them.

How about he starts by paying tax on all his inheritance and earnings from the Duchy of Cornwall?

There is little to nothing to respect about a man who can shamelessly occupy a position that epitomises unfairness and inequality while having the gall to tell us its not right and we should creatively resolve it. Its hypocrisy of the highest order. I'd have had more respect for him if he'd for once had the sense to know when to keep it shut, smile at the bowers and scrapers and thank his lucky stars there's enough of them who for some inexplicable reasons still let him get away with it.

So wealthy people aren't allowed to campaign for a fairer society now?

The whole raison d'etre of Royalty is to do as we say, not do as we do.

It's a false decision anyway, but if people insist on pushing it, I'd rather everyone was fed, sheltered and had the best opportunity to move forwards than any amount of "culture". However, in the spirit of balance, I do acknowledge there are others - maybe on this thread - who feel starving children and homeless mothers are a fair price to pay to allow their culture to exist.

So are you advocating for all culture to be eradicated and we live in a soulless joyless world? Ok Oliver Cromwell.

The royals could give a hulking great chunk of money towards addressing this without it even significantly impacting them

They could lead the way in making substantial philanthropy an important responsibility for the wealthy again.

Thankfully we don’t, and hopefully we will never, and there will always be a degree of inequality in society, no matter what the set up . But my point is that the inequality, in this country, is vast, within some parts of society, that no matter how hard a person may try to better themselves, improve their lives, the opportunities are just not there. And every single thing is a perpetual fight. But I don’t see how Charles giving advice on equality would inspire people to do better, given that the chances and opportunities are just not there, for many, whilst Charles was born into unimaginable privilege.

Sure they are. And we can look at their campaign speeches, see if their words match their actions, and judge just how hypocritical they're being as a result.

I'm not sure the royals being very much joy to anyone's lives do they? Bar the occasional state occasion.

This! 100%

I think this is a false dichotomy. I agree with what you said about Royalty and inherent lack of equality, but I think culture, beauty and art are important, they enrich lives (and can earn a lot too- ideally for the public purse). I don’t think they should be destroyed. We can do better. These cultural artefacts aren’t, of themselves, causing starving children and homeless mothers, and getting rid of them wouldn’t stop those things. It would just make life poorer for everyone.

Well he could cut down on the amount of property he owns, or at least rent some out.

I mean how many homes do you need?

if a business can’t afford to pay its staff a reasonable living wage (one that they can live on without top ups) then it can’t afford to function.

100%. Why is it taking politicians a hot minute to realise this??

They may campaign for what they please. But personally unless they're prepared to take direct action as well, I'd rather they didn't. I'm not much of a fan of the do as I say not as I do approach. It's arrogant and wins little support. It also acts as a convenient illusion that the person is not in fact causing harm by their role in perpetuating the unfair system..because...see! They've SAID its wrong and told us to change it, so they're the solution not the problem...