The physical presence of Social Housing Estates is the evidence - the occupants are those that aren't otherwise able to afford housing or pay rent. As the commentator says, even the City has Housing Estates.

Majority of people who can’t afford rent in London don’t live in London. The massive subsidies that certain people get, which leads to massive opportunities for their kids and their future career, are all because of where they were born

I'm thinking about the people I know who got booted to the kerb due to the London Olympics redevelopment.

I'm also thinking about Grenfell.

The first time I read the comment I thought it was making an aggregate claim about newcomers being richer than natives, which struck me as obviously, spectacularly incorrect. Why else would a speaker say "high-earning transplants" specifically? If I had to point out an example of unequal wealth in London I am sure my example would be their monarch, not a vague implication of Johnny-come-lately bankers or lawyers.

I am certain that in the aggregate the relationship between wealth or income and length of tenure in London is positive.

The King isn't anywhere near being the richest person living in London. It's also a strange example to choose. I mean Joe Biden is richer than the average DC native, but what does that tell you exactly?

London is a very international city, and the wealthy people who own property in the central areas come from all over the place.

> The King isn't anywhere near being the richest person living in London.

I think he's arguing that Charlie counts in the "native Londoner" bucket.

BTW, don't trust the Sunday Times Rich List estimates of the Monarch's wealth. They changed their methodology after the first list when the palace complained that the Queen came out on top.

A lot depends on how much you value some very illiquid assets. But there's no doubt that London is full of people (both British and not) who have more money to throw around than the King. He is not 'even' a billionaire in terms of his personal wealth.

I read it as "native Londoners" vs "everybody else". Eg "born within the sound of Bow Bells" vs. "graduated from UEA with a 2:1 in Accounting and Finance and moved into a flatshare just behind Upper St".

> I am certain that in the aggregate the relationship between wealth or income and length of tenure in London is positive.

I reckon people who were born there and didn't get a London-appropriate degree are unlikely to have amassed wealth. (Excepting Right To Buy, I suppose, but that's more Right Time than Right Place).

OP's point (which I parapharase as "there are two Londons") strikes me as blatantly true, and I've got the impression from art that 'twas ever thus.

> their monarch

You're not British, maybe? Have you spent much time in London? (I was in the "graduated from UEA" bucket above - I've left now, as people like me tend to do as they get older).

I think you're thinking of immigrants as the people coming to the UK from poor countries. Most of those people don't go to London, they move to regional towns and cities.

The people who move into central London from overseas are rich emigrants (Russian oligarchs, Saudi princes, etc).

There is significant social housing in London, where the local council provides housing for people of limited means. This is a historical leftover from more enlightened times (and one that Thatcher tried to eliminate). But the amount of churn in this housing, as you can imagine, is very low - once you have a council house, you never leave it because all the other options are waaaay out of your price range. So there are whole families who have been living in poverty for generations in the centre of London.

You're not even trying are you?

- city of london official site with housing estates https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/housing/housing-est...

- city of london location map https://www.google.com/maps/place/City+of+London,+London,+UK...

And this is _just_ the "city".

Now why not try and learn something about somewhere and figure out _why_ there are so many housing estates scattered throughout London. It's actually quite interesting.

City of London only has 9k inhabitants. It's very atypical. That's not a good example to draw conslusions about London proper from.

Thats kinda the point.

It's atypical, yet it is abundantly clear that "poor" is closely mixed in with "rich".

Are you suggesting that the majority of other affluent boroughs in London and Greater London are exempt from containing Council Estates? Islington, Putney, Wimbledon, Chelsea...