RF, William, Kate and cruelty to animals

[JumpingJiminy]

We don't often hear much about what the RF are up to with blood sports and sports that involve animal cruelty.

There's another thread on her about polo which I had no idea was such a cruel sport.

Yet William's happy to play. I know he believes his life's grift is pretending to save the environment and end poverty.

But in this age of increased awareness, more young people being vegan, or just more people more aware of cruelty, how does the Wales' involvement in cruelty to animals place them for future success as monarchs. Particularly when said younger people don't support them in the same way older people do.

Or is this all going to be underreported, and they'll do the usual shooting, and polo playing, etcetera, widening the gap between their relevance and younger people's expectations.

Wills in action! Prince of Wales shows off his polo skills in annual Windsor charity match - as cousin Peter Phillips and his new flame Harriet Sperling turn out in support | Daily Mail Online https://share.google/nsikS4mu2WWF6dEHs

The buffalo was probably eaten, and let’s assume Harry is a good shoot so the kill was quick and clean. So probably better than a slaughterhouse.

Ahh so you're concerned for the public support William and Catherine might lose if the new generation of vegans stop supporting them? That was the ethos of your thread... hmmmm yes yes

Why do you think Catherine will be Queen Consort not Queen?

Assuming you are veggie or vegan, how do you feel about the destruction of rainforest and wildlife for a monoculture of vegetable matter?

What makes you think it was eaten?

Why do people insist on banging on about Harry on this thread, like it’s some sort of gotcha? How is he relevant to the question of William and Kate’s record with animal abuse? Harry isn’t going to be our head of state. Harry isn’t going to hold any power, hard or soft, on the world stage as an official representative of the UK government. Harry doesn’t even live in the UK.

Is it some sort of Sussex vs Wales clash of cults? Is anyone really that invested in any of these people? So many questions.

What animal abuse are William and Kate guilty of?

How is shooting birds cleanly cruelty?

So are people's dogs . . .

Why do you think Catherine will be Queen Consort not Queen?

Er, because that's what the wife of a king is called when not the person who's inherited the throne. Camilla is Queen Consort. Elizabeth was Queen Regnant. Her mother Consort, Mary Consort, Alexandra Consort, Victoria Regnant.

Etc.

I don't know of anyone who rides their pet dog.

So if people don't ride the horses, what happens to the horses in the UK? Here they get killed and their flesh is sold overseas where humans actually eat horse flesh.

BTW, based on what I've seen in my veterinarian's waiting room over many years, I could tell you horror stories about what people do to their pets, either deliberately or through neglect. I can also tell you some horror stories from my personal experience about what people do to cats.

You could say the same for the beef in your beef burgers, or the chicken in your chicken nuggets. Or the soy in your milk for that matter. Or palm oil, or most of the food sold in supermarkets.

There is no humane kill line. We wouldn't dream of sending our dogs or cats into a slaughter house. Unless we would be fine with hanging them upside down before lowering them into electrified boiling hot water then slitting their throats...
A deer is not barned or caged with food and water withdrawn at least 24hrs before they are dispatched to slaughter. Their death would be quick so I agree with you on that.

Because she will be.

Queen consort means she has the title 'queen' because she is married to the King. Queen Camilla, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra etc

As opposed to a Queen Regnant who inherits the crown and is the Head of State - QE2, Queen Victoria, Queen Anne etc

But she will be called Queen. Not Queen Consort. Just like all other Queen Consort's before her.

We're discussing the royals' penchant for barbaric sports and how they increase their chances of potting - say - 10,000 birds in a few weeks purely for the hell of it not animal husbandry in general.

The royals pot 10,000 birds in a few weeks? That's quite a target. You're guessing about this though aren't you as figures aren't released?

Details in the link I posted upthread ^^

Phil delighted at meeting the figure.

It's an interesting link @CathyorClaire. I read it when you posted, and followed the link in it to the original report.

I don't condone the late Duke of Edinburgh's shooting habits (or his targets) but would point out the difference that changing a single word in reporting can make:

The link: He reportedly murdered his target of 10,000 pheasants during a seven-week stay in 1993.

The original report: In 1993, he hit his target of 10,000 pheasants during a seven-week stay when he was out shooting for up to four days a week.

One sentence suggests he killed a huge number of birds on a very short space of time; the other suggests that during that space of time he achieved a certain target.

Note: I am not defending the target, just pointing out the difference in reporting (and asking what is actually practically possible, when talking about numbers. Further up the same original article, it suggests the DoE may have killed a total of 30000 pheasants in 30 years, which seems more realistic.)

Yes the use of the word murdered tells its own story. However I've just watched a bit of the Two Ronnies on tv - they prefaced it with a warning about attitudes and actions to that time. I imagine it was the done thing then to number count. Is it so today ? Taliban excepted .

Four candles? 🕯️

@cockandbullstories Yes, the word 'murdered' is used throughout that article.

In that sentence it's misleading, as it changes the meaning from having achieved a target (perhaps one reached over years) to having killed a huge number within a few weeks.

Re counts - I don't know, I've never been shooting, and the world of country landowners isn't my world. Perhaps another poster will know.

Yes, very different attitudes. Interestingly, the original article (from 2015) starts with the DoE on a tiger shoot with the Maharajah of Jaipur in 1961. I wonder what diplomatic niceties had to be considered when that invitation came?

Thanks for taking the time to read the link. I'm never sure if anyone does 😁

I don't think the terminology makes that much of a difference when it comes to number crunching but the figures speak for themselves and don't require the hyperbolic language used to be entirely shocking.

Even if we discount the 10000 target as an unproven that leaves us with the lower estimate of 1000 birds a year. That's over 60 a week during the four month season from just one royal figure.

Then we have the questions over the killings of other birds and mammals in support of preserving the pheasant population for royal sport.

It's just an endless round of outdated, entitled barbarity and entirely unnecessary when there's a limitless supply of clay substitutes.

I can pretty much guarantee an elected HoS with a beady eye on popular opinion wouldn't be found striding round the moors blasting away at anything that moves. The tone-deaf royals might be wise to take that on board.

I do try to look at links that people use in arguments, though am not always able to comment.

I don't think the terminology makes that much of a difference when it comes to number crunching but the figures speak for themselves and don't require the hyperbolic language used to be entirely shocking.

Even if we discount the 10000 target as an unproven that leaves us with the lower estimate of 1000 birds a year. That's over 60 a week during the four month season from just one royal figure.

I do think here the terminology matters, as it is clearly intended to mislead. The numbers in the original article are taken from estimates made by anti-hunt groups, which are unlikely to be biased in favour of those doing the shooting.
Using the original estimates rather than the inflated ones we have, as you say, around 60 a week rather than over 1400 a week.

I think you may have a higher opinion than I do of elected heads of state.

I found an interesting debate on grouse shooting in Hansard from June this year
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-06-30/debates/FFEB6B80-1AD7-4A27-9731-B15825A61BE1/DrivenGrouseShooting

I don't think we're disputing the fact Phil killed / murdered huge numbers of birds during his blood sports career are we?

Personally I think all the figures quoted are grotesque and completely at odds with one who consistently flaunted his conservation credentials.

Thanks for the link. I don't doubt the shooting industry has its place in the tourist and jobs sector but the premise of the thread is whether it's a good look for W & K and the wider royal family.

I think it's very hard to argue that it is particularly when E2 applied for and was granted a reduction in the business rates on shooting at Balmoral which resulted in her bill totalling less than the rates levied on local small businesses:

www.bordertelegraph.com/news/19100939.queen-gets-tax-bill-shooting-sports-balmoral-estate-slashed-lower-village-pub/