I think the point here is that her wealth being mostly private (or enough of it being private not being a specialist in those matters), the way she carried her duty was even more remarkable.
You could easily imagine somebody inheriting similar wealth and not behaving nearly as well as she did for her country.
I do not think it is about being pro or against monarchy here.
Legally their may be a distinction but the monarch's wealth was ultimately taken from the people and maintained via favourable tax laws - there's no inheritance tax on a monarchs estate, she didn't pay income tax etc.
If you think that Queen Victoria, head of the largest empire the world has ever seen and who purchased Balmoral, got rich by skimping on taxes, then I’d recommend taking some time to read a book or two.
I don't think their comment was arguing that at all, and in fact it seems like an indefensibly uncharitable interpretation.
> ultimately taken from the people and maintained via favourable tax laws
Taken from the people and maintained via favorable tax laws. UK inheritance tax is 40% (over the threshold, which is so low as to be meaningless next to the royal estate). With 5 royal deaths since Victoria, Charles III would have less than 8% of what he actually does if that 40% were taken each time (which is obviously vastly oversimplifying to make a point).
