The point I'm trying to make is that you were being misleading. You mentioned the advocacy for their tribesman as a comparison to the British monarchy (hence formalised constitutional monarchy). The ~R60 million budget is given for maintainance of the Zulu royal institution, there is no formal obligation to the Zulu people. As is more a convention of South African politics as whole and not just the Zulu monarchy, there is corruption present and normal Zulu communities don't benefit from the political budget outside of perhaps cultural celebrations which evidently only the elite partake in in any case. I.e the obligation is removed because we don't have a formal monarchy system, the country is purely a presidential republic.

What you wrote about the advocacy, the inheritance and the terms were all misleading.