The UK Royal family is wealthy because they acquired land through a combination of warfare and marriages many centuries ago. If they're unique, it's in the lengthy tenure; other medieval kingdoms have mostly overthrown their kings and seized their assets.
That's completely different from rulers who are actively looting their nations today.
Of course it's different but I fail to see how it is "completely" different given that the UK Royal family did actively loot ancient Britain. Tomeito tomato if you ask me.
Yes, that is one of the reasons that her Maj has one of the best collections of Fabergé eggs in the world. Faberge Eggs are small jewelled decoration sharped like an Easter Egg. Faberge's production peaked in 1916 during the middle of WWI.
You can put a very large fortune into a pocket (or small bag) if necessary.
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)
Because African Americans didn't get the chance to get in on the thievery angle, and most other races didn't come in significant volume early enough to have the chance to in numbers significant enough to be worth mentioning?
That's completely different from rulers who are actively looting their nations today.