I don't care for despots or monarchs of any kind, but it looked like a glaring omission to me. My problem is not with the article in general but the strange decision to lump in the Gulf/Swazi royals whose wealth is no less legitimate in their countries than the UK royals in theirs. Seemed a tad hypocritical to me
How is that different from the Saudi Royal family or king of Swaziland? The comparison was not to looting rulers but the other royals the article strangely cites as examples without mentioning the UK Royal family who's source of wealth is similar. Also what do you mean by 'acquired' wealth. Arguably the despots of today are just doing the same ('acquiring' land for future descendants through warfare and despotism)
Article cites gulf royals and king of Swaziland as examples of corruption but neglects to mention the UK's own royal bunch who are just as wealthy or even more so with no good explanation for how and why they're entitled to so much of the country's wealth. A one-eyed take if you ask me. Typical of the economist.