Well said.Hunting for population control - yes. But it doesn’t have to be cruel, it doesn’t have to damage the countryside, it doesn’t have to damage other wildlife. Staff go around blocking up escape routes which can lead to badger setts being blocked. The fox endures physical and mental cruelty before a painful, sometimes slow, death. All for the enjoyment of privileged hooray Henry’s. They don’t give a rat’s arse about anything apart from their entertainment. People say it’s a low hanging fruit and that people don’t give a tit but they should - it’s a backward practice and anyone who does it is mentally unwell. Royal or not.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Well said.
No one can agree on what that is, so do we all just ignore obvious cruelty because there's always something bigger or more important to care about?
There is a degree of whataboutism that happens whenever certain issues, especially those concerning animal rights and welfare in particular, are brought up. It is very much possible to care about and act towards alleviating multiple issues at once.
My guess is fox hunting is a hot button topic because it signifies the hedonism and impunity that typifies the British aristocracy, in addition to its obvious sadism.
All hunting for sport, especially in such an inhumane manner, is disgusting and some people actually have enough of a heart to 'give a tit'.
But it’s not an important enough issue to take up air time in a national debate several times over and make it a cover story multiple times during a general election. It’s something that should be handled by the relevant government department and not for prospective prime ministers who have no clue to be discussing. It was just a distraction technique because they’re seen as cute and fluffy animals so people pretended to care and think they have the answers when it’s really something for whichever government department, local farmers and animal welfare experts to fix. Weeks after the election when people were reminded the NHS is awful and Brexit still had to be fixed everyone forgot about foxes.
But I’m conscious we’re going to be threatened by mods for derailing, idk if we are when the topic was about royals hunting
Politicians are cynical and the only reason they give an issue prominence is because they think it’s something that resonates with voters and will get them to give them their ‘x’. If it’s a major part of an election campaign it’s because they’ve focused grouped people want it there.
It's just my opinion but fox hunting in the UK would be fairly low on my list of things to be concerned about. Anything involving humans and any of the big environmental issues such as endangered species, biodiversity loss, climate change, pollution would rate as more of a priority for me. That's just my opinion and obviously other people will feel differently. Somebody not being that bothered about this issue doesn't mean they're heartless or a horrible person. We can't all care about everything. I'd prefer for the fox to be shot rather than killed by hounds but I've no issue with fox culling. It needs to be done. Likewise the gun club near me do great work in killing vermin but they also raise, release and then shoot and eat pheasant for example. Some people have an issue with that but I don't see it as any different to eating any other meat. I can understand why some people are anti hunting (personally I don't mind if it's for population control or for eating) but I don't agree with automatically writing off everyone who hasn't got a problem with it as cruel and inhumane.
Poll shows 6 of 14 nations would vote to remove King as head of state
Research by former Conservative deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft reveals the true scale of the challenge Charles faces abroad.
I do find it interesting that Canada and Australia said that having a monarchy isn’t compatible with their ‘inclusive and egalitarian national character’ which curious since how they treat their indigenous people isn’t what one would describe as inclusive or egalitarian.
Agree. If you don’t like the UK monarch as HoS get rid of them. It’s really not that big of a deal. Will they be happier with someone else- who knows. While I personally doubt it makes any difference to life, it should be the decision of the people. But it’s not fair to complain while they could easily solve this. It will be interesting how the issue of indigenous people in both countries will play out. Sadly, I don’t see real improvement in the next years. I was really shocked to learn about Canada years ago. I don’t know why but they seemed to be handling it so much better or rather not having a problem at all. Don’t know if that’s because it’s pretty easy too look squeaky clean with the US as comparison?This is an interesting article - I’m surprised that to travel to the UK Jamaicans need visas. If we are going have these countries keep Charles as head of state, the Royals and the government need to do more to make it worth their while.Poll shows 6 of 14 nations would vote to remove King as head of state
Research by former Conservative deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft reveals the true scale of the challenge Charles faces abroad.www.dailymail.co.uk
I do find it interesting that Canada and Australia said that having a monarchy isn’t compatible with their ‘inclusive and egalitarian national character’ which curious since how they treat their indigenous people isn’t what one would describe as inclusive or egalitarian.
I have no problem with the visa though. That’s a government issue and they don’t care who is HoS there, just as the monarch has no power in telling the UK how to handle it.
I have said it before though- if I were KCIII. I would cut loose all other countries and focus on representing the UK (and put the Walses to work properly).
Aus as inclusive and egalitarian is certainly an... interesting description.This is an interesting article - I’m surprised that to travel to the UK Jamaicans need visas. If we are going have these countries keep Charles as head of state, the Royals and the government need to do more to make it worth their while.Poll shows 6 of 14 nations would vote to remove King as head of state
Research by former Conservative deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft reveals the true scale of the challenge Charles faces abroad.
I do find it interesting that Canada and Australia said that having a monarchy isn’t compatible with their ‘inclusive and egalitarian national character’ which curious since how they treat their indigenous people isn’t what one would describe as inclusive or egalitarian.
I will say if NZ decides to move towards republicanism, there'll be a lot of legal work around our constitutional legislation. Te Tiriti o Waitangi, one of the framework pieces of said legislation, was/is an agreement between the Crown and the various Iwi. Given the various disputes and settlements already, amending it in so significant away as replacing the Crown with a less fixed entity would be an interesting challenge.
In my experience, it's a very prejudiced society in Aus. Shockingly so.
I agreed with you up until this bit. I think it would be a kick in the teeth to many people, so he has to carry on with the line it's people's choice.
Has Barbados changed much for the average person since becoming a republic?
Countries like Canada and Australia have lots of problematic things that slip under the radar. The monarchy is merely a tool for politicos to play with for their own gain.
But is it? Does the UK monarch have a duty to entertain this because his ancestors did? If those nations want a monarch they can certainly have one. But you can’t have it both ways- bitching about having a HoS from an rather unglamorous past, sitting thousands of miles away but also keeping them as whipping boy. In my opinion- if a country is not going down the republican or their very own monarchy route they are endorsing the UK monarch as HoS and have no place in complaining about this fact (obviously you can dislike him). Because they have a choice. Keeping up with the Windsors is a choice.
From a strategic pov it would be actually a big win for the BRF to cut them loose though. It’s a constant point of bad PR. They can’t really fill the role themselves. They just can’t win in this scenario. If Charly cut them loose- who will care? Apart from some people in the nations that need a new HoS? And for a monarchy even more importantly- who will care in 50+ years. Charles needs to realise that he inevitably will be the monarch to loose more dominions, if not all (if he keeps going for 20+years). He should endorse it and try to build the narrative in a more positive way. The king that lead the monarchy into the future. Much better to set them in their own path instead of letting kicked out. Saying goodbye to its last colonial ties. Making the Commonwealth areal Union with equal partners. Slimming the monarchy to an acceptable size (Anne is not wrong. They will reach the site of most royal houses quickly through natural cause now. No need to cut off more.). Defining the way of the royal business new (engagement numbers, strategies). All this while preserving the glam and glitz and pomp and pageantry.
I do think that Charles is going to end up as something of an interim monarch. A bit like when companies bring in a new boss to oversee a restructure and change. Charles is the one who is going to have to make some big and lasting decisions covering everything from who gets royal titles, who gets security etc right through to how the monarchy deals with its past, the commonwealth and losing realms.
It's sad in a way, he has waited so long for this and I don't envy some of the decisions he will have to make. I think he'll be remembered much more for being the Prince of Wales and all that he achieved when he was, as opposed to being one of our greatest Kings. William on the other hand I don't believe will have that problem, by the time people get used to him being the Prince of Wales (I for one still picture Charles!) he'll be about to become King anyway probably.
There's some big decisions to make in the coming years and I hope Charles is able to almost take one for the team and actually make them, even if it makes him unpopular in some circles, but ensures everything is tied up and ready for William in a way that Queen Elizabeth didn't do for him.
Charles to me is almost the middle man, guiding the monarchy from the reign of his mother to the reign of his son, ensuring the transition is smooth as we go from two drastically different periods of time and societies. I feel like these are the transition years from the past and Queen Elizabeth to the future and King William
It's sad in a way, he has waited so long for this and I don't envy some of the decisions he will have to make. I think he'll be remembered much more for being the Prince of Wales and all that he achieved when he was, as opposed to being one of our greatest Kings. William on the other hand I don't believe will have that problem, by the time people get used to him being the Prince of Wales (I for one still picture Charles!) he'll be about to become King anyway probably.
There's some big decisions to make in the coming years and I hope Charles is able to almost take one for the team and actually make them, even if it makes him unpopular in some circles, but ensures everything is tied up and ready for William in a way that Queen Elizabeth didn't do for him.
Charles to me is almost the middle man, guiding the monarchy from the reign of his mother to the reign of his son, ensuring the transition is smooth as we go from two drastically different periods of time and societies. I feel like these are the transition years from the past and Queen Elizabeth to the future and King William
It's such a tricky thing to get right. For the royals the easy thing would be to cut them away. But I don't think that's right. Most of them will go during KC3 and it's best to let them do it on their own terms imo.
I know my Canadian grandparents would have hated to be cut away, but at the same time they're gone now and so are many of the people with that mentality. So maybe it doesn't matter that much
I agree with this, it’s so strange that countries invite the Royals (or at least don’t decline the request from the British government for a tour), just to then get them in a room with the PM and have him say we don’t want you here and we want to be a republic in front of the cameras. They’ve been saying it for years and never do anything. If you want to be a republic then put it to the people, if they say they want to keep them then the PM needs to put their own opinions aside and be gracious when they’re there, if the people say get rid then Charles should be equally gracious and give them their independence.
I always got the impression that Charles wants to modernise the Royals but anything he does during his term William will un-do as he more traditional like the Queen. I also think that when he becomes king he'll be even more work-shy than he is now and now he has control of the Duchy i'd be interested to see how he'll deal with that.
Also, while i know Charles isn't in the best shape, the Queen did live into her 90's so we could be looking at Charles being King for 20 or so years.
Also, while i know Charles isn't in the best shape, the Queen did live into her 90's so we could be looking at Charles being King for 20 or so years.
To be fair Charles has looked like that for years - and he currently looks a heck of a lot better than Edward
Yeah but Camilla doesn't like the limelight so can't seem them sticking it out full term. Plus being King comes with having to keep schtum with your opinions. 
I think the best healthcare in the world will only help so much. Getting into this role late in life can be challenging and all the issues with Andrew and Harry must take a toll.
I wouldn't place money on him making 80.
I wouldn't place money on him making 80.
- Status