Earl and Countess of Wessex and Family Current Events 4: August 2008-October 2009

[iceflower]

Pics 2.1.2009

Life goes on...another pheasant shoot with Prince Edward on the
Sandringham Estate, Norfolk, Britain - 02 Jan 2009 - I'm sure he
was aware that he was carefully watched at.

** Pic 1 ** Pic 2 ** Pic 3 **

 

[GovGen]

^ those dogs look like they are being treated like kings now!
It looks like a PR 'shoot' as opposed to a pheasant shoot! It would be interesting to know how far away these photographers are. Are the grounds not big enough for them to hunt in privacy without being seen or are these photographers stationed on every possible road?

 

[Bella]

Thanks for the pics, Ice. It does seem as tho P E is trying to make amends w either the public or the dogs or both. The dogs look happy and healthy and not the least bit fearful of him so I'd like to believe he treats them well.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

^ those dogs look like they are being treated like kings now!
It looks like a PR 'shoot' as opposed to a pheasant shoot! It would be interesting to know how far away these photographers are. Are the grounds not big enough for them to hunt in privacy without being seen or are these photographers stationed on every possible road?

Exactly Honi soit qui mal y pense!After the row over those pictures, enter Prince Edward, the dog lover... | Mail Online

 

[marysusan]

This brouhaha about Prince Edward shows the ignorance of dogs on the part of the people complaining. The dogs in the photos are obviously well fed, well cared for and not at all afraid of their master.

Waving a stick about to break up a dog fight is NOT abuse.

 

[bertie5252003]

I think I have to echo your views marysusan this is a storm in a teacup IMO and yet another attempt by the media to fill their papers at this time of the year and creat a lot of drama over a selected few snaps. IMO

 

[Iluvbertie]

Not to mention the fact that some people will always believe any negative story about the royals but when something shows them in a positive light it is passed off as just PR rather than the truth. It is the same as the story this week about Charles overtaking Anne as the hardest working royal based on number of engagements. There were people who wrote into one of the newspapers who simply ignored the evidence and refused to believe that Charles could be doing more than Anne - simply not prepared to accept anything positive about a particular royal while others won't believe any positive story about any of them at all - so sad that people can be that cynical.

We know that the royals all have dogs and lots of them in some cases. To think that any of them would therefore deliberately hurt one, or not know the correct way to do things, is very difficult for some of us who absolutely love dogs and to me is a sign of people who just want to believe the negative and not look at things in any other light.

 

[Warren]

OK, we're going around in circles again.

To restore some narrative flow I've taken out the empty posts, the bickering posts, the posts about members' own dogs, and the posts repeating what the same members had previously posted.

Any new pictures of Prince Edward with guns and dogs should be treated on their own merits and not used as yet another opportunity to rehash all that has already been said. There comes a time when repetition for it's own sake doesn't add weight to an argument but just becomes tedious.

Thanks for everyone's cooperation.

Warren
British Forums moderator

 

[Incas]

Another day, another set of photos:
After the row over those pictures, enter Prince Edward, the dog lover... | Mail Online

 

[magnik]

Another day, another set of photos:
After the row over those pictures, enter Prince Edward, the dog lover... | Mail Online

How long we will have this story day by day?

 

[Iluvbertie]

How long we will have this story day by day?

Until Edward, or another royal, does something. Unfortunately it is the holidays for the royals so it could continue for a little while yet.

 

[MARG]

Please say it isn't so. If I have to look at one more "Kumbaya" photo of Edward gazing adoringly into a black Lab's eyes I think I'll be ill.

 

[Duchess]

well, if the slowing rate of replies in this thread is any indication, the interest in this story is waining quickly so you may get the relief you're looking for.

 

[Bella]

Were there any photos of the Wessex children from the Christmas holidays?

 

[AuroraB]

The long answer - not that I am aware of.

 

[QUEENECE29]

Buckingham Palace
5th January, 2009
The Earl of Wessex, Patron, this evening attended a New Year Concert given by the National Youth Orchestras of Scotland at Glasgow Royal Concert Hall and was received by Ms. Louise Mitchell (Deputy Lieutenant of the City of Glasgow).
Court Circular: Jan 06 - Times Online

 

[iceflower]

Pics 3.1.2008

It would be great to see some pics of Sophie at that New Year Concert

On January 3, 2009 Sophie also went on one of those pheasant shoots
on the Sandringham Estate. Here are some pics:


** Pic 1 ** Pic 2 ** Pic 3 **
.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Nice pics, iceflower. Thanks. Sophie looks to be the picture of health.

 

[Avicenna]

Nice pics, iceflower. Thanks. Sophie looks to be the picture of health.

Not only Sophie ... the dog, too! Personally I love pic 3 with the dog running It seems to be so much fun.

 

[chaimae]

thanks iceflower for the beatiful pictures .
sophie looks great and the dog too

 

[Claire]

Edward cleared of animal abuse.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/4208135/Prince-Edward-cleared-of-animal-cruelty.html

Pity Edward won't now sue for character deformation.

 

[Claire]

thanks iceflower for the beatiful pictures .
sophie looks great and the dog too

That is Otter or Otto (?) I must admit that I haven't seen him in pics for a while and presumed that he had joined the big park in the sky.

Edward got Otto (the spaniel) and Piper (the lab) in 1997 just before he moved into Bagshot Park. Badger, their other lab, came from the Queen in 2002.

Here is pics of the dogs, Badger can't be much older than a pup.

REX_EDWARD AND SOPH_382303K.jpg on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

REX_EDWARD AND SOPH_382303B.jpg on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[Bella]

I don't think he'd have much of a case. It was pretty much stated in all articles he "appeared" to hit the dogs sparking questions of animal cruelty. That's not really def. of character. The proper procedures were put into place w the investigation and they have released their findings so hopefully everyone can move on.

 

[Skydragon]

Edward cleared of animal abuse.

Insufficient evidence is not 'cleared' of abuse and did anyone really expect any other result for HM's son?

 

[MARG]

I of course expected the "investigation" to take a little longer. It would have at least presented the illusion (or is that delusion) that it would be fair and impartial followed by a full and unequivocal report. Yea nor nay!

Good grief, I must be suffering from the heat.

 

[Iluvbertie]

How long do you think it takes to check whether a dog has been injured? Five minutes or so I would have thought. So to check all the dogs, talk to any people present etc would take a couple of hours at most.

The local RSPCA is just across the road from my house and it is where I take my dogs as the vets there are excellent. I asked them this morning about this issue, showed them the photos etc. They said that just based on the photos alone they would have taken about half an hour to check the dogs on the estate and rule 'insufficient evidence' themselves unless a dog clearly has evidence of wounds etc. If any dog was behaving strangely they would then order x-rays, adding maybe an hour or two more. Talking to people is only done after the evidence from the animal itself shows abuse. Most abuse investigations, they undertake, take about five to ten minutes - either the animal has clearly been abused, or their is no obviouss evidence. An investigation takes the form of a look at the animal and includes handling the animal as that reveals a great deal. They said that the investigation into Edward's situation, from the photos they have seen, would have been very short as there is no evidence of abuse to the animal (they did say that if they saw the dogs and saw, or felt, bruising/swelling etc they would then be concerned and then it would take longer as they would take the x-rays).

It seems to me as if some people think that a respected organisation, who main purpose is the protection of animals would somehow not do their job because the person accused is a member of the Royal Family. I have more faith in the integrity of the RSPCA and the work they do. Unfortunately we have some members here who simply wish to believe the worst of the royals at all times and I do feel sorry for people like that. I personally like to give the benefit of the doubt to people.

As for the comment about how many crims are walking around due to insufficient evidence I would like to remind that person that Britian, like Australia, believes in the principle of 'innocent until PROVEN guilty'. I would prefer ten criminals walking free then one innocent person locked up for an offence they didn't commit.

 

[Claire]

I don't think you guys understand how deceptive photos can actually be, and I'm not talking about when they are manipulated. Remember you are taken a 3d images and are making it flat, you are changing the way the whole image is in perspective. What really bugged me, if Edward was kicking up as much of a tantrum as was claimed in order to be heard by the journalist witnesses outside the property, why didn't the other members of the shooting party, especially the guy who works with the dogs run to him. They didn't later the only person who did come to take the peasant. Surely they were closer to him than the press, hmm.



Personally I felt that there was not other outcome of the RSPCA's investigation and they only waited till Friday to give the impression that they had looked deeper into the case.

And yes -- according to the law. When a fact finding investigation fails to find the facts even required to bring about an investigation into animal abuse, than it is found that there was no abuse. No evidence = No crime. True, open to lope holes, but that is the law.

 

[MARG]

Insufficient evidence is not 'cleared' of abuse and did anyone really expect any other result for HM's son?

I am still definitely with Sky on this one.

(Bolding mine)

 

[Skydragon]

I of course expected the "investigation" to take a little longer. It would have at least presented the illusion (or is that delusion) that it would be fair and impartial followed by a full and unequivocal report. Yea nor nay! Good grief, I must be suffering from the heat.

Most full investigations here apparently can take up to 52 weeks and the RSPCA were unlikely to take the word of the 2 eye witnesses and photographer, over the word of the PPO's, Beaters, Kennel staff and Gamekeepers also present. Although they say they checked all the dogs, as it was probably a good few days before they went in, the dogs concerned could have been moved off the premises.

Insufficient evidence is not a sign of innocence, it is the lack of definative evidence sufficient to expect a guilty verdict if the RSPCA (or police) decide to prosecute. Even in the appalling Amersham Horse abuse investigation because of 'no evidence they were in any danger', some of the horses were returned to the abuser.

 

[laduchesse]

Insufficient evidence is not 'cleared' of abuse and did anyone really expect any other result for HM's son?

Well, wasn't Princess Anne fined for her dog biting someone a few years ago? I don't think it's fair to suggest that there was some special treatment. Insufficient evidence may exist because the abuse never took place.