Huge Canadian Politics Scandal Involving Prime Minister! Christian nuttery involved

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes. Because it has historical significance.

As the residence of the Queen. Circular logic.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are quoting revenue. Do you understand the word?

Look at the graph right below that. The one marked 'income'.

The income was 10.2 million pounds. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the infrastructure support costs for the royal family.

What graph.

My source says nothing of the sort. It's 215 million in revenue, not including taxes paid on the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster.

[Asher]

As the residence of the Queen. Circular logic.

It's not circular. If you get rid of the Queen now, it does not alter ****ing History you buffoon...

[Asher]

What graph.

My source says nothing of the sort. It's 215 million in revenue, not including taxes paid on the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster.

I decided this would overwhelm you so I went back to basics with my edit.

The whole thing isn't even her income or revenue, but a stat corp's revenue/income.

Idiot.

[rah]

Hmm is their revenue dropping, You said 230 mil originally but now down to 215, so yes you should probably provide your source for vetting.

[Ben Kenobi]

Income from indirect investments

Which would be tourism, etc. Has nothing to do with the revenue on the portion of the whole.

[Asher]

Hmm is their revenue dropping, You said 230 mil originally but now down to 215, so yes you should probably provide your source for vetting.

And again, this is not the Queen's revenue. Ben is quoting the financials of a UK statutory corporation and attributing it to the Queen's personal revenue. He's either an idiot or a disgusting sleaze being dishonest.

[Ben Kenobi]

During 2008/09, revenue including indirect investment was £213.3 million, up by 3.3% on the previous year. Property values including indirect investment fell by 21% to £4.2 billion.

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/annual-report/performance/urban.html

[Asher]

Which would be tourism, etc. Has nothing to do with the revenue on the portion of the whole.

BEN, YOU IDIOT. THESE NUMBERS ARE NOT THE QUEEN'S REVENUE AND INCOME. THESE NUMBERS ARE PERTAINING TO A STAT CORP'S REVENUE AND INCOME. THE QUEEN AND THE ROYAL FAMILY DO NOT OWN THE PROPERTIES OR AT ALL CONTRIBUTE TO THESE REVENUES AND INCOMES.

Do I need to say this a fifth time for you to comprehend? Are my words too big?

[Ben Kenobi]

And again, this is not the Queen's revenue. Ben is quoting the financials of a UK statutory corporation and attributing it to the Queen's personal revenue. He's either an idiot or a disgusting sleaze being dishonest.

The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch ‘in right of The Crown’, that is, it is inherent with the accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch – it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the sovereign.

The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation – established by statute – headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers.

To explain further, one analogy that could be used is that The Crown Estate is the property equivalent of the Crown jewels – part of the national heritage and held by Her Majesty The Queen as sovereign, but not available for her private use.

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/tce_faqs.htm

[Asher]

Do you seriously still not understand what you just quoted?

These are not the Queen's property, income, or revenue. You get rid of the Queen and Royal Family, and it's all still there.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do I need to say this a fifth time for you to comprehend? Are my words too big?

You need to read up on it. The deal was that the revenues would go to the state, in exchange for the civil list.

These are not the Queen's property, income, or revenue.

It belongs to the crown, and not the state. She returns the revenue of these properties to the state in exchange for the civil list. This has been the arrangement for several hundred years now.

When she passes away, it will remain with the crown.

The reason why the Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall are separate is that they are seperate legal entities that through the course of history were merged with the crown; Cornwall when the Duke of Cornwall, Edward III became king, and secondly, when the Duke of Lancaster, Henry Bolingbroke became king. The Queen is the direct ancestress of both, and hence retains the rights to both territories.

[Asher]

You need to read up on it. The deal was that the revenues would go to the state, in exchange for the civil list.

I don't need to read up on anything.

Get rid of the Queen, that Stat Corp still exists and still contributes revenue and income. You are being dishonest, disingenuous, and stupid by attributing the revenue of an statutory corporation to the Queen.

[rah]

Obviously Ben never read the overview page. But that doesn't surprise me at all.

And even then he said "£213.3 million" so he reported a different number again. It just keeps changing.

[Asher]

I wonder, Ben, do you attribute the revenues of all Canadian Crown Corporations to the Queen?

Why not the value of the Crown Lands which contain trillions of dollars of resources in Canada?