Further Royal discussion

A

Anonymous

Guest
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.




.
I think you are missing the key word “did”.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
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?
What on earth are you talking about?

Your original post was about why Andrew was wearing a military uniform of he was stripped of military titles so I answered and explained that. He wasn’t in civil clothes because of any titles being stripped but because he isn’t a working royal which is royal protocol.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
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.
You can ignore my point re posts being deleted. I didn’t realise at the time they had been moved to off topic.
 

spent

Well-Known Member
Amazing, a Royal discussion thread.

Let's make it royal then and not deflect away from the argument.

I assume that the royal family can not tolerate narcissism in their ranks, as any signs of narcissism expressed by their members in public would immediately ratchet up tensions with the subjects. When narcissism is expressed, then only within the limitations of tradition, as a sort of privilege.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Amazing, a Royal discussion thread.

Let's make it royal then and not deflect away from the argument.

I assume that the royal family can not tolerate narcissism in their ranks, as any signs of narcissism expressed by their members in public would immediately ratchet up tensions with the subjects. When narcissism is expressed, then only within the limitations of tradition, as a sort of privilege.
You have completely ignored my questions and points re hunting for pleasure or hunting.

And I have a lack of understanding as to what you are trying to say with this post.

What narcissism are you referring to? Morrissey’s or Charles’?

Please explain what you are trying to say and is this still about eating birds?
 

spent

Well-Known Member
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.
His funeral hearse was a Land rover gun bus, which is used for hunting trips.

Interestingly enough, the queen's hearse driving her to Edinburgh was a Mercedes-Benz.

It's as if they wanted to take one last stance on the criticism concerning their bloodsport hobby and their German ancestry.
 
Last edited:

spent

Well-Known Member
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.
This argument is NOT about eating meat. Please open another thread to discuss this issue.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
His funeral hearse was a Land rover gun bus, which is used for hunting trips.

Interestingly enough, the queen's hearse driving her to Edinburgh was a Mercedes-Benz.

It's as if they wanted to take one last stance on the criticism concerning their bloodsport hobby and their German ancestry.
Don’t be ridiculous.

The Land Rover gun bus is a military vehicle and it is common for such funerals to use military vehicles to carry coffins at state funerals such as gun carriages. Has nothing to do with hunting.

The Mercedes used in Scotland wasn’t owned by the monarchy. As you can clearly see on the vehicle it had the name of the funeral director on the car, William Purves, who are a Scottish based funeral directors. Has nothing to do I do with any German connections of the royal family.

You still haven’t answered your connection with animal killing, current or historic?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This argument is NOT about eating meat. Please open another thread to discuss this issue.
But it is about eating meat.

You started this discussion in relation to grouse shooting and the objective of that is food.

Your distinction re pleasure and consumption is irrelevant. Both are for pleasure and involve killing. So why are you trying to make a distinction?
 

spent

Well-Known Member
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.
He hasn't responded publicly yet to allegations concerning the royal family's hypocrisy of presenting themselves as mild-mannered wildlife conservationists in the tradition of Saint Francis and, at the same time, as guardians and practitioners of bloodsport activities posing with shot water buffaloes and grouses.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
He hasn't responded publicly yet to allegations concerning the royal family's hypocrisy of presenting themselves as mild-mannered wildlife conservationists in the tradition of Saint Francis and, at the same time, as guardians and practitioners of bloodsport activities posing with shot water buffaloes and grouses.
Who hasn’t?

You are talking about things that happens decades ago.

Grouse is food. The buffalo was also food and was 19 years ago and was Harry who isn’t a working royal.
 

spent

Well-Known Member
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.
Thankfully we don't have to shed blood and take lives in order to get our food nowadays. As human beings we are the only animals on this planet that can make decisions on what to eat, and who don't have to follow ancient survival instincts developed in hunter-gatherer societies any longer. There is no reason to continue obeying the dictate of ancient traditions that do not create any added value to our modern lives.
 
Last edited:
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thankfully we don't have to shed blood and take lives in order to get our food nowadays. As human beings we are the only animals on this planet that can make decisions on what to eat, and who don't have to follow ancient survival instincts developed in hunter-gatherere societies any longer. There is no reason to continue obeying the dictate of ancient traditions that do not create any added value to our modern lives.
You think animal products on the supermarket shelves don’t involve blood shed?

This is a perfect example of food source disassociation.

The suffering animals go through during an imprisoned factory farming life and the abattoir killing processes far outweigh any suffering a free flying grouse feels from a single shot.

Trying to distinguish between the processes of the killing is by the by. The end goal is the same, someone’s dinner plate.
 

Light Housework

I only feel courageous when I'm psychotic.
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.
I've met people who claimed they feel sick if they don't eat animals and 'dairy' products. According to them, it's not just pleasure, but necessity to kill and enslave animals.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I've met people who claimed they feel sick if they don't eat animals and 'dairy' products. According to them, it's not just pleasure, but necessity to kill and enslave animals.
People can make whatever decisions they want regarding whether consume dead animals or not. I don’t moralise or judge people on that basis because I ate meat and dairy for many decades so it would be hypocritical to do so.

However I will point out the errors of people trying to disassociate the killing of an animal from its shrink wrapped supermarket packaging and stating someone shooting for their food is evil compared to the factory farming methods of sourcing food.
 

spent

Well-Known Member
I've met people who claimed they feel sick if they don't eat animals and 'dairy' products. According to them, it's not just pleasure, but necessity to kill and enslave animals.
So there is not just homesickness or lovesickness but also meat-and-dairy-sickness? We hope that time will heal all their wounds, god bless.
 

Ketamine Sun

Now, today, tomorrow and always
You have completely ignored my questions and points re hunting for pleasure or hunting.

And I have a lack of understanding as to what you are trying to say with this post.

What narcissism are you referring to? Morrissey’s or Charles’?
Is Morrissey a royal to you? Spent didn’t mention him.
Please explain what you are trying to say and is this still about eating birds?
 

Ketamine Sun

Now, today, tomorrow and always
Who hasn’t?

You are talking about things that happens decades ago.

Grouse is food. The buffalo was also food and was 19 years ago and was Harry who isn’t a working royal.

No. Grouse is a bird. Buffalo is a mammal.

But is it law now that the royals or non working royals will no longer hunt forevermore ?
 
Top Bottom