Given how old, the crown jewels are. IE when that Money was spent.
How much difference do you think selling them or even never having purchased them would make.
Selling them. Divided between 66m people. Pennies,
Never having purchased them. Remember money doesn't disappear. The people making them were paid. Hired others and spread the money through society.
Land purchases are less of an asset to society. But spending on building palaces has always resulted in money going to the rest of society and improving the lives of the rest of the nation. Not somehow removing it from people
I'd say the modern royal post George III spending deal. Where all crown land is managed by the government and its income goes towards the general tax fund, In exchange for (currently 20%) being used to maintain palaces and funding crown/royal family events etc.
Is under austerity governments. More harmful, in preventing that income, funding jobs for lower income people.
Corporate trickle-down economics argument to reduce taxation may be utter crap.
But the history of royal spending and more modern (1940s+) government spending def has a trickle down effect ignored by modern capitalism supporting governments.
I think you're severely misrepresenting how much value is in the crown jewels.
The people making them were paid.
Were they paid a fair value for their labour? Looking at the exploitation of workers throughout history, probably not.
You also fail to mention that many of these jewels were likely extracted using slave or poverty wage labour.
But spending on building palaces has always resulted in money going to the rest of society and improving the lives of the rest of the nation
If instead of building one huge fucking building on one huge estate for one family we spread the land between the people and built multiple homes for multiple people there would be far more money going to the rest of society and many more people's lives would be improved.
The monarchy are a parasite and you're an apologist for that. You seem to think you're using facts and logic to explain their being but there's glaring holes in your analysis.
We're poor as a people and a nation because we allow and give excuses for the ultra rich to be rich. There's always going to be people who value wealth and those who don't but to allow those who value wealth to hoard so much that we as a society struggle to function is moronic and should be abolished. I'm just an Internet nerd who likes to read, not a politician, so I don't know where the line should be drawn on personal wealth but allowing a handful of people to have more wealth than huge swathes of society is morally and functionally wrong.
Please look at this website to help try and wrap your head around the sheer vast wealth that is accumulated by the richest in society.
Having kids for many people is literally ticket into poverty.
At least plebs are voting with their wallets on this one.
In migration is then used to make up the difference since low fertility results in labour shortage and wage pressures. Owners are allergic to pay the anything above subsistence wage to vast majority of population.
Brain dead alt right wants to make it about race when it is really about class and nationality. Domestic population is less likely to take abuse so they get cut down via shite social policy.
Also, poor kids are a lot easier to fuck over since anglo society has a special disgust for the poors. At least in continental Europe they pretend to "care"