Is there a distinction between a monarch having a personal wealth versus using taxes to pay? What does their personal wealth come form?
Generally, yes there is a distinction. I can better elaborate on the Moroccan monarchy’s case though. In 2004, Tel Quel released the King’s salary (tax money), and it was reported that he was paid $45,000 a month.
But, as a business man, he’s taken advantage of his position in Moroccan society by using his power and influence, and the billions his father left him when he died, to become the most heavily invested person in Morocco’s private sector through his holdings in SNI (Société Nationale d’Investissement). I don’t mean to be a prick or sound full of myself, but I wrote more about it here: http://www.mamfakinch.com/morocco%E2%80%99s-political-private-sector/
The accumulation of his $2.5 billion wealth doesn’t come from tax money. It comes from his personal wealth which he’s accrued over the years because of his position as the sole leader of Morocco. He rules the country alone, and he’s the richest person, and he owns the entire country.
I find the distinction between a monarch’s personal wealth versus taxes to be largely academic.
The monarch’s personal wealth comes from their position as sovereign within a society. In the UK the source of funding for our monarch comes largely from the land owned being rented out, or the produce from that land. How does the monarch come to possess that land? Passed down from generation to generation from when the land was dispossessed from the commons and appropriated for the monarch’s riches. The wealth comes from land that was stolen from the people, so that the monarch can make money off the people who use the land. I see that as being no different from taxes, considering the monarch’s position as the head of state.
From what you say of the Moroccan monarch, a part of his wealth comes directly from taxation of the citizens but the majority of it comes from the control that he has through merit of being the monarch. As you say, he owns the country. Considering he represents the pinnacle of the government of Morocco, he is an unelected individual with a constitutionally guaranteed position to remain in control, how do we differentiate the money he gains “personally” through owning land/businesses etc from being taxes?
Possibly not explaining my stance as clearly as I could be. The concept of a constitutional monarchy is that the collective body of the people have granted them sovereignty so that the monarch can rule efficiently in the best interests of the masses. The monarch therefore heads the government, which theoretically represents the will of the people. The monarch loses their personal agency in the actions and decisions they make because of their position within society as being the sovereign body. The work they do is the governing of the nation, which is done through taking taxes from the nation and distributing that accordingly, yet the notion of their personal income still relies upon land and assets that will have been appropriated as a result of the monarch’s position as the sole representative of the collective will of the people.
It is therefore not the monarch that has appropriated that land for the monarch’s purpose, but the people who have appropriated it. For the monarch to use the wealth from what has been appropriated for the monarch’s own luxury is to abuse the trust placed in them by the people to govern in their own best interests. If the monarch believes that their position grants them special privileges above and beyond this, they deny themselves to be functioning for the collective will and resign themselves to not longer representing the people: they become bellicose and their position is held within society by power rather than by consent.
I therefore see no distinction between a monarch’s personal wealth versus taxation.