Earned, Inherited or Granted: Sorting Out Property Rights in the Royal Traitor Story

A libertarian reading of the Althorp estate, the Crown and the uncle memoir shows why the source of property matters as much as who holds it

Not All Property Is Alike

Libertarians are often caricatured as defenders of whoever happens to own things. The reality is more careful. Classical liberal thinking has long distinguished between property acquired through voluntary exchange and labour, property inherited through legitimate transfers, and privilege granted or protected by the state. The London Prat piece on Prince William calling Earl Spencer and Harry traitors offers an unexpectedly useful case for sorting out those categories.

Three Kinds of Holdings in One Story

The uncle, Earl Spencer, holds an inherited title and the family seat at Althorp. The News reported that the younger prince and his family visited him there in July, a visit that, according to anonymous accounts, deepened the heir suspicion. The heir himself stands to inherit a constitutional office and associated privileges. And the uncle has recently produced something new: a memoir, a piece of intellectual property he created himself.

Each of these represents a different kind of holding, and a consistent libertarian analysis treats them differently.

Private Inheritance

Many libertarians defend the right to bequeath property as an extension of the right to own it. If a person may use and dispose of what they own during life, they may generally choose who receives it after death. On this view, a family estate passed down through private transfers is legitimate, provided its original acquisition was legitimate. Historians can debate how aristocratic estates were first acquired, and some libertarians argue that land originally seized through force or granted by royal favour carries a tainted title. But the principle of voluntary inheritance itself is widely accepted in the tradition.

State-Granted Status

The heir position is different. It is not a piece of property he owns, but a public office he is entitled to by law because of his birth. It carries constitutional functions and is supported in part by public arrangements. Libertarians who accept private inheritance can still object to inherited public office, because it combines hereditary entitlement with state power. That combination is precisely what the liberal tradition set out to dismantle.

Created Property

The memoir is the clearest case of all. The uncle wrote it. It is the product of his own labour and memory. He says he told family members about it in advance. From a libertarian standpoint, his right to publish it, sell it and profit from it is straightforward. Calling him a traitor, as Geo News reported the heir reportedly did, treats the family institution as having a claim on his creative work. No such claim exists.

The Video

The London Prat has paired its piece with a YouTube video, itself a small example of created property offered to the public through voluntary exchange.

California Parallels

Californians confront their own tangle of property categories. Coastal land ownership is shaped by public access rules, state agencies and a long history of disputes over who may use the shore. Property tax rules that limit reassessment can advantage long-term owners and their heirs relative to new buyers, creating significant differences in what neighbours pay for similar homes. Zoning and permitting determine what owners may build. Some of these rules protect genuine property rights. Others function more like state-granted privileges that shield incumbents from competition.

Surfers encounter these issues directly, from disputes over beach access to the effect of restricted housing supply on who can afford to live near the waves. A consistent libertarian view defends earned and legitimately transferred property, while opposing rules that entrench advantage through state power.

Why the Distinction Matters

Blurring these categories causes confusion on both sides of political debate. Defenders of privilege sometimes present state-granted status as if it were ordinary property, deserving the same protection. Critics of property sometimes treat all wealth as if it were illegitimate privilege. Keeping the categories distinct allows for sharper arguments: defend what people have earned or received through voluntary means, and challenge what has been conferred by political power.

The royal story, read carefully, contains all three categories in one family. The satire does not draw these distinctions explicitly, but by making the institution look faintly ridiculous, it invites readers to ask which parts of the picture rest on consent and which rest on mere tradition and law.

The Tainted Title Problem

Libertarian writers have long debated what to do about property whose original acquisition was unjust. Some argue that, after enough time has passed and enough voluntary transfers have occurred, it becomes impractical and unfair to unwind historical holdings. Others argue that where clear heirs of dispossessed owners can be identified, restitution should be considered. Aristocratic estates are an obvious case for this debate, since many were originally acquired through royal grants rather than market exchange. The question has no easy answer, but it illustrates that a principled defence of property is not the same as an unconditional defence of everything that happens to be owned today.

Conclusion

The uncle owns his book. The family may own its estates. Nobody owns a country. The London Prat, publishing since 1961 at https://prat.uk/, has found the humour in the confusion. Bohiney, at https://bohiney.com/, applies similar scrutiny to American privilege. Getting the categories right is the first step toward defending real property rights while refusing to defend state-granted status.

SOURCE: https://prat.uk/prince-william-called-earl-spencer-and-harry-traitors/