Further Royal discussion

A

Anonymous

Guest
“Prince Andrew was allowed to wear his uniform for the occasion, despite being stripped of his military titles”

Yes. We could’ve told the BBC that would happen a year ago. When they were telling the license fee payer it would “never” happen.
He has never been stripped of his Royal Navy Vice Admiral rank and that is the uniform he wore.
 

spent

Well-Known Member
If Charles wants to prove that he is serious about nature issues and is capable of making a difference as king, he should stop hunting grouse for fun and prestige and also tell his sons to follow his example, in Balmoral and elsewhere. If there were photos circulating, showing the late queen with a rifle or hunted animals in her hands, numerous people, especially the younger generations, would immediately stop showing their reverence to her and the rest of the royal family. We don't need any killers on the throne.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If Charles wants to prove that he is serious about nature issues and is capable of making a difference as king, he should stop hunting grouse for fun and prestige and also tell his sons to follow his example, in Balmoral and elsewhere. If there were photos circulating, showing the late queen with a rifle or hunted animals in her hands, numerous people, especially the younger generations, would immediately stop showing their reverence to her and the rest of the royal family. We don't need any killers on the throne.
Can you post a link to some detail about King Charles hunting in recent years?

You have never eaten meat? Did you just get someone else to do your killing for you when you did?
 

spent

Well-Known Member
Can you post a link to some detail about King Charles hunting in recent years?

You have never eaten meat? Did you just get someone else to do your killing for you when you did?
Why the emphasis on "recent years"?
 
L

Les Tameside

Guest
Because people and customs change.

I repeat, because you didn’t answer.

Are you a meat eater?

Have you ever eaten meat?
When Spent supposes to be the sovereign head of the British state, that question might be relevant.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
When Spent supposes to be the sovereign head of the British state, that question might be relevant.
Not really.

She says she doesn’t want killers on the throne. So I think it is relevant.

Do you think the monarchy should not eat meat? How about the prime minister and MPs?

It is a simple “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” situation.

You expect world leaders to have to be vegan?

You are grasping again because your obsession removes logical argument from your debate. Clive Lewis isn’t vegan so should we stop him for being an MP?
 

spent

Well-Known Member
Because people and customs change.

I repeat, because you didn’t answer.

Are you a meat eater?

Have you ever eaten meat?
Has there been a change in customs and people then?

I repeat:

"If Charles wants to prove that he is serious about nature issues and is capable of making a difference as king, he should stop hunting grouse for fun and prestige and also tell his sons to follow his example, in Balmoral and elsewhere. If there were photos circulating, showing the late queen with a rifle or hunted animals in her hands, numerous people, especially the younger generations, would immediately stop showing their reverence to her and the rest of the royal family. We don't need any killers on the throne."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Has there been a change in customs and people then?

I repeat:

"If Charles wants to prove that he is serious about nature issues and is capable of making a difference as king, he should stop hunting grouse for fun and prestige and also tell his sons to follow his example, in Balmoral and elsewhere. If there were photos circulating, showing the late queen with a rifle or hunted animals in her hands, numerous people, especially the younger generations, would immediately stop showing their reverence to her and the rest of the royal family. We don't need any killers on the throne."
Your statement implies that Charles takes part in said hunting so I asked you to provide that detail but seems you are unable.

Also you still haven’t answered the questions about your own diet. I can only therefore assume you either eat animal products or have done so therefore have also contributed to the killing.
 
L

Les Tameside

Guest
Not really.

She says she doesn’t want killers on the throne. So I think it is relevant.

Do you think the monarchy should not eat meat? How about the prime minister and MPs?

It is a simple “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” situation.

You expect world leaders to have to be vegan?

You are grasping again because your obsession removes logical argument from your debate. Clive Lewis isn’t vegan so should we stop him for being an MP?
If you look at my posts, you’ll see my anxiety relates to the hunting of endangered species. This is something Harry has engaged in relatively recently. Prince Phillip refused to engage with the question of hypocrisy (advocating both conservation and big game hunting), in an interview not that many years before his death: there was a man who was openly contemptuous of even the most brief of critiques.

The prime minister and MPs are obviously accountable to the electorate.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If you look at my posts, you’ll see my anxiety relates to the hunting of endangered species. This is something Harry has engaged in relatively recently. Prince Phillip refused to engage with the question of hypocrisy (advocating both conservation and big game hunting), in an interview not that many years before his death: there was a man who was openly contemptuous of even the most brief of critiques.

The prime minister and MPs are obviously accountable to the electorate.

I was responding to the post where the points made were related to the shooting of birds/grouse which is used as a good source so you have changed the subject because ?

Please link to the details when Harry recently was involved in big game hunting. He is also incidentally not a working royal and has no position within the constitutional monarchy.

Harry did go on a gap year trip 19 years ago where he shot a Buffalo which was distributed for food but you say something recently with regard to big game?

I also don’t recall Prince Philip being involved in big game hunting for more than 50 years but please also post the detail so I can see that information on his hunting and also a link to when he refused to engage with the question of hypocrisy. I can’t even remember him being interviewed about such matters and I’m not going to just take your word for it.

Please cite

So do you hold the PM and MPs accountable for eating meat? These people have real power.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I believe some vegans would say yes.

But if they no longer ‘sin’ = eat meat, then I think they are entitled to say what spent has said. And I think anyone should assume if they say things like spent has said, then they probably don’t hunt or eat animals.

I think some would like to see people in positions of power or the royalty set a good example, especially if the people are in part paying for what the royals or people in positions of government are eating.


I believe some vegans might say yes.
So can you provide detail of said hunting activity?

To me there is no difference to a person eating a roast chicken dinner or shooting a grouse and roasting it and eating it.

So what I’m trying to work out is what the difference is from someone who used to hunt and eat grouse some time ago and someone who has also eaten meat some time ago or maybe still eats meat. You are assuming that the statement Spent has made means they can’t be an animal product consumer but assumptions often turn out to be debunked.

There is an attack of a monarch because he eats grouse but we don’t care if a PM eats grouse or chicken or veal or …….
 

spent

Well-Known Member
Your statement implies that Charles takes part in said hunting so I asked you to provide that detail but seems you are unable.

Also you still haven’t answered the questions about your own diet. I can only therefore assume you either eat animal products or have done so therefore have also contributed to the killing.
I assume you can answer the question whether Charles and his sons kill animals for fun or for consumption.

The queen, when residing in Balmoral, used to get cut-up animal meat from the local butcher.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I assume you can answer the question whether Charles and his sons kill animals for fun or for consumption.

The queen, when residing in Balmoral, used to get cut-up animal meat from the local butcher.
Any grouse that is killed on country estates is consumed. They don’t just leave edible food on the ground. Dogs are especially trained to retrieve the dead bird and not damage it.

During grouse season grouse will appear on menus all around.

The queen also used to shoot grouse and deer again also consumed.

But you are assuming Charles is still hunting so if you are making that statement you really should back it up with evidence.

So my answer is that the hunted birds are consumed.

Charles is significantly involved in animal welfare groups related to farming methods and is a huge campaigner for locally sourced sustainable produce rather than factory farmed produce that people buy in supermarkets.

I assume the fact that you are trying to differentiate between shooting birds for pleasure or for consumption that you do think there is a difference morally with regard to “killing” and maybe you therefore do eat and drink animal products?

They both involve killing and it can be argued that the purchase of chicken from a supermarket is a far bigger issue for animal welfare re factory farming than someone shooting a bird from a free flying sustainable source for food.
 

rifke

26% descended from the great teutonic tribes
I watched unherd about king Charles. Hes all about living respectfully with the land and seeing yourself as a part of it. Hunting is a far more respectful and holistic way to live with nature and see yourself as a part of it then to go down to the grocery store and get your prepackaged and perversely separated into its different parts flesh. I wouldn't hunt myself, but I have no problem with a monarch who does.... or, rather, did, as tradition dictated.
 

Ketamine Sun

Now, today, tomorrow and always
So can you provide detail of said hunting activity?
Huh? My hunting comment was in regards to spent. I said I don’t believe a hunter of animals would probably say what spent has said.

‘But if they no longer ‘sin’ = eat meat, then I think they are entitled to say what spent has said. And I think anyone should assume if they say things like spent has said, then they probably don’t hunt or eat animals.’
To me there is no difference to a person eating a roast chicken dinner or shooting a grouse and roasting it and eating it.
sure, ok.
So what I’m trying to work out is what the difference is from someone who used to hunt and eat grouse some time ago and someone who has also eaten meat some time ago or maybe still eats meat. You are assuming that the statement Spent has made means they can’t be an animal product consumer but assumptions often turn out to be debunked.

Yes, I never said I was correct. I only said I assumed she was vegetarian after reading her comment. If the royals made the same comments spent has made, I would also assume that they don’t practice cruelty to animals, etc.

So I assumed from Spent’s comment that she no longer eats animals. I’ve never heard the royals talk about their animal free diets. I think there is a difference between those that correct themselves and those that don’t, or haven’t yet as far as I can tell.
There is an attack of a monarch because he eats grouse but we don’t care if a PM eats grouse or chicken or veal or …….

I don’t think most vegans would see a difference. What was the subject of spent’s
first post? I don’t believe she mentioned a PM.





.
 

Ketamine Sun

Now, today, tomorrow and always
I watched unherd about king Charles. Hes all about living respectfully with the land and seeing yourself as a part of it.

Hunting is a far more respectful and holistic way to live with nature and see yourself as a part of it then to go down to the grocery store and get your prepackaged and perversely separated into its different parts flesh.
But at this point in our evolution, when, let’s face it, we are not trying to survive in the wild, so if we want to be more holistic, respectful and see ourselves (as we should) as a part of nature, then I think we have the intelligence to find better ways to live with and be a part of nature than killing.
I wouldn't hunt myself, but I have no problem with a monarch who does.... or, rather, did, as tradition dictated.

I don’t see how tradition makes killing right.




.
 
Last edited:
L

Les Tameside

Guest
He has never been stripped of his Royal Navy Vice Admiral rank and that is the uniform he wore.
Did I say his sword was broke in his face? For anyone outside the circle, yes, there would’ve been the humiliation. Yes. For sure. But they’d have been weeded out before I expect?
 

rifke

26% descended from the great teutonic tribes
But at this point in our evolution, when, let’s face it, we are not trying to survive in the wild, so if we want to be more holistic, respectful and see ourselves (as we should) as a part of nature, then I think we have the intelligence to find better ways to live with and be a part of nature than killing.


I don’t see how tradition makes killing right.
well i dont think hunting is necessarily right or wrong. it's true that it's unnecessary, but does that make it more cruel than if it were necessary? if they were dying in horrible ways or being tortured, like as with bear traps, then yes, that would be absolutely wrong. but to die by a gun shot wound it's probably one of the better deaths an animal of prey can have. i just find it hard to ascibe moral judgments to something that the survival of humanity may at times have depended upon. and im sure that there are some people who still have that biological instinct to hunt.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I believe some vegans would say yes.

But if they no longer ‘sin’ = eat meat, then I think they are entitled to say what spent has said. And I think anyone should assume if they say things like spent has said, then they probably don’t hunt or eat animals.

I think some would like to see people in positions of power or the royalty set a good example, especially if the people are in part paying for what the royals or people in positions of government are eating.


I believe some vegans might say yes.
More assumptions.

She asked me in a later post whether Charles hunted for pleasure or for consumption.

I answered but seems now she has deleted those posts. Assume what you will from that.

It is a common perspective that people who hunt for food are evil in comparison to people who go to a supermarket for their animal products.

To me it’s the same thing and in many ways going to a supermarket which provides for the most part factory farmed produce with significant welfare issues is worse than someone shooting a free flying bird and eating it from a sustainable source.

It could also be argued that both hunting and eating meat/dairy from a butcher or a supermarket are both for pleasure and there is no distinction because neither are necessary to live so the eating of animal products is an unnecessary pleasure that involves killing.

The distinction Spent was trying to make re consumption and pleasure is irrelevant.
 
Top Bottom