- Margrethe IIQueen of Denmark
- The Royal GuardThe Army
Queen of Denmark, please stop using Bearskin Hats in the Royal Guard
Queen Margrethe of Denmark require fur from protected bear.
While Queen Elizabeth of England now is bowing to animal rights organizations' demands for more politically correct hats for guards in front of the castle, then Queen Margrethe has no intention to follow in the footsteps of her colleague.
For although Queen Margrethe's New Year speech placed great emphasis on the environment and invited everyone to watch it so that our descendants would have something to inherit, so the interest does not include the Canadian black bears.
They are hunted each year by hunters who shoot them and sell their fur for special customers around the world.
One of the clients are the Danish royal family, which since 1805 has used the fur to make hats to guard the castles.
Originally, that they might appear larger than a potential enemy, while their function in most days are for the enjoyment of tourists at Amalienborg Square.
And this will continue - despite the fact that it takes the coat from a great disservice to create the high bearskin hats who guard suffers in summer heat.
- Do you take hold of the Life Guards. It is their decision, the court said information manager Lene Balleby to flash!.
One bear per. hat
From the Life Guards hand, there are no signs that the Canadian bear can look forward to more peaceful times. For the royal house's own bodyguards have no plans to change the main ornamental.
- Certainly not! I am aware that it has been discussed by animal welfare organizations, but the skins we use have been certified according to the Washington convention on endangered animals, "says press officer in the Royal Guard, Soren Bo Jensen.
Cap used for the Danish soldiers are manufactured by the Canadian black bear and subsequently stained black. The bears are protected, but every year a certain number shot to keep the stock down. And it is the leading argument for retaining caps that require a great disservice.
- They are shot in natural regulation, and unless they were shot, they would kill each other. Therefore, it helps them to better welfare. For either the skins sold, or else they will be thrown out, reads the defense from the press officer.
- Yes, but there are probably signal value to stop using fur?
- We have of course considered. Attempts were made also at a time using artificial bearskin, but it becomes static and you can not breathe through the fabric. There is much to suggest that we keep the bear-skin, "says Soren Bo Jensen, who did not have figures on how many hats Royal Guard annually buys of saddlery Brian Ritzau.
Leading designers offer into.
But while the Danish court thus maintains the use of real fur despite the Queen's newfound interest in the environment, then you have to Buckingham Palace seen the writing on the wall and the new requirements for more environmentally conscious - even in the royal chambers.
Here you will meet senior managers to discuss how to replace caps with someone who is more modern and do not involve killing the protected animals.
Thus, both Stella McCartney and Vivienne Westwood to the ticket given to create the new cap in other materials as is the plan to give them a more modern look.
However, it is neither the royal house or the officers who wish to change the traditional bearskin hats off.
It is rather a popular demand that has led the court to recognize that the new focus on the environment also have implications for European monarchies.
From the Danish Newspaper Ekstrabladet
- Queen of Denmark
- The Army
The Royal Guard
It has come to our attention that, despite protestation from a global collective encouraging otherwise and demonstrative evidence establishing profound cruelty, your court continues to wear fur. Indeed, despite the abject suffering involved, you not only promote, but you also sanction, the needless suffering of animals establishing yours as a country accepting of such. We are therefore requesting you immediately cease your contribution to such viciousness against animals.
Please allow us this opportunity to elaborate. All animals possess sentience, the capacity for thought and emotion, and the ability to experience discomfort, love, fear, and pain. It is the communication distinction of such that human animals exploit to validate the suffering of non-human animals. Indeed, if an animal could speak a human-based language, for example, would you be capable of diminishing his worth to a commodity or resource to merely satisfy your desire? Prejudicial disregard of animals is speciesism, the egotistical and inequitable approach to subjecting animals to suffering and death for the benefit of humans, considering them only worthy as products and disposable at will. Regardless of your voluntary dismissal of them, which is not only unethical but grossly unjust, animals are inherently valuable. Indeed, the existence of humans is not what creates animal importance, but rather it is the absence of humans that establishes their intrinsic worth, humans only regard them in terms of personal advantage. To excuse such maliciousness using manipulated language, religion, or tradition, though, only favors humans in egotistical and immoral manners: defining an act as justifiable creates equality for only one species, only the victim of such acts can grant true justice, however.
Fur farming is one of the most reprehensible forms of "animal production", a term we use only to designate the practice of commodifying non-human animals for such. These animals are subjected to unending suffering, including despicable conditions, substandard nutrition, lack of interpersonal interaction, fear, agony, unimaginable pain, and death. The illustrations and descriptions perpetrated by industry profiteers are illusions, deceptions embraced and promoted as humane, but only a fool would accept the lies of a known charlatan as truth. Those who capitalize on the deliberate torture and killing of animals will misrepresent the industry as one of empathy and consideration; any animal that is used and disposed of as a product, though, is inherently abused, any other conclusion a false validation meant to pardon humans, never the animals so callously and maliciously used.
You may never personally witness the suffering of animals, hear their cries of loneliness, fear, and pain, but your distance does not create immunity, your decisions to clothe the court in fur is as intentional as the person who skins the mink alive, or who subjects the fox to genital electrocution, or who imprisons the cat, or who smashes the head of the bear. There is no excuse you can adopt to forgive such barbarism, the life of the animal as valuable as you perceive your own. You have an opportunity to be a model of compassion to a global audience that yours is neither a court nor a country that excuses such abject cruelty: please relinquish traditional maliciousness by adopting progressive compassion and refuse complicity in the exploitation and suffering of animals. We feel until you make such an ethical gesture that we will find it necessary to boycott Denmark both commercially and as a tourist, instead selecting other products and destinations that reject such reprehensible cruelty.
Please watch this video
Thank you for taking time to read this letter.
Anne Holmberg started this petition with a single signature, and now has 1,831 supporters. Start a petition today to change something you care about.