Prince Harry Current Events 25: August 2010-December 2011

[CrownPrincess5]

Why would he intentionally hurt his own horse?
They should undoubtedly question him about it, but I'm sure it wasn't intentional.

 

[Opal]

The title of the article is misleading and unfair. Cruelty implies that something was done on purpose and they have nothing to back this up.
And of course his horse received good medical care as they have people who take care of the horses at these polo matches.

 

[nascarlucy]

I think it was an accident.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The article is contradictory about one thing and that is the crux of the cruelty thing to me:

When did Harry stop riding the horse? When the injury happened? When he knew the horse was injured? or When he felt like it?

If he knewingly rode the horse after it happened - and some suggestions are that he did and St James', of course, says he didn't, then he is certainly guilty of animal cruelty but if he did stop as soon as it happened/he knew about it then he isn't.

Proving when he knew about it will be an issue though as if he continued to ride after the injury who is going to be able to prove he knew the horse was injured.

So the series of events could have been like this:

Harry injures horse, Harry keeps riding, Harry found out about the injury, Harry stops riding - not guilty of cruelty

but...

if the series is like this:

Harry injures horse, Harry knew about injury, Harry keeps riding, Harry stops riding - Harry is guilty of cruelty and should be banned from polo for life (I simply can't abide animal cruelty and will only give a person one chance - guilty once banned for life).


One thing I do think though is that spurs should be totally banned as they are simply cruel.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I so agree. As in so many things, it comes down to "what did he know and when did he know it?"

 

[Osipi]

I so agree. As in so many things, it comes down to "what did he know and when did he know it?"

This controversy actually popped up on AOL news this morning when I went to get my emails. The sad thing is that people that know very little about Prince Harry will totally believe he is guilty of cruelty to animals.

I think those of us that pay more attention to what goes on with Harry and what he does will realize that Harry will feel as bad about this horse as he did when his pony collapsed and died of a heart attack on the field. Another interesting tidbit was brought up in the article. It stated that if Harry had been using his spurs excessively during the game, there would have been injuries to the horse on both sides, whereas the injury was on one side only. If, perchance, Harry did use a spur overly hard, it was done unintentionally during game play. Anyone who has ever seen Harry with children and puppies (remember the Helping Paws dogs?) knows this man doesn't have a cruel bone in his body.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Sorry but anyone who can kill animals and humans (he is a soldier and therefore has to be able to kill humans) must have a large number of cruel bones and other parts in his body.

He has already been accused, and found not proven due to lack of evidence, of killing protected birds and had a horse die shortly after he had been riding it. Although not found guilty there is a pattern here - all coincidence - maybe but then again - maybe not and just being protected due to being royal.

 

[Blackadder]

Why would he intentionally hurt his own horse?

Because he desperately wanted to win?

 

[Nitefeatherz]

The spurs are no wheels or tiny blades but a horse can only get a wound like that from too long and too excessive abuse of the spur. Spurs shouldn't be worn in a polo match anyway. The horse is already wired up from the game and will respond before Harry even realises it.

I've worked in an animal hospital for several years as a veterinary nurse. I could easily see an accident occurring without excessive abuse- like two horses colliding. Even if its a rounded nub I have seen much worse injuries that would be in even more impossible situations. I also think that if Harry were prone to using his spurs too aggressively there would be scars or previous injuries that were visible on -both- sides of the horse even if the injury only happened on the one side.

I also think that it would be easy for someone on a different side of the polo field (like in the stands) watching a match to see an injury on a Polo pony and have someone who was on the opposite side of the field not see it at the same time. A horse is a large animal- you can't possibly see both sides of him at once. It's possible that the spectators saw it first and that Harry's team or whoever was with may not have seen it until it was either pointed out to them or until Harry's horse, for example, turned around.

Frankly- considering the length of time that's occurred since the injury and the fact that this doesn't happen all the time I think that the reporters here are trying to rile people up in a slow news period and that we should give Harry the benefit of the doubt.

Harry is a public figure- people are almost always going to point fingers at him first. It also isn't fair (or even LEGAL where I'm from) to consider past acts as a way of judging character- especially when there wasn't even enough evidence to bring about charges or a trial in the two acts mentioned.


@ Iluvbertie: If you are saying he "must have a large number of cruel bones" in order to kill then you are also saying the same thing about all the soldiers (and police, and all of the other people who are willing to take a life in order to protect the civilian public) that they are the same way: Cruel. That's not fair. This statement also makes me wonder if you are a vegetarian- since someone has to kill the meat we eat at the supermarket and by eating meat/dairy/eggs or any other kind of animal by-product (such as insulin?) you are also supporting those "cruel" killers. IMO- that's not a very fair or justified opinion.

 

[Iluvbertie]

@ Iluvbertie: If you are saying he "must have a large number of cruel bones" in order to kill then you are also saying the same thing about all the soldiers (and police, and all of the other people who are willing to take a life in order to protect the civilian public) that they are the same way: Cruel. That's not fair. This statement also makes me wonder if you are a vegetarian- since someone has to kill the meat we eat at the supermarket and by eating meat/dairy/eggs or any other kind of animal by-product (such as insulin?) you are also supporting those "cruel" killers. IMO- that's not a very fair or justified opinion.

Of course all these people have to have cruelty in them in order to do their jobs - just as farmers do in order to raise animals they know will be killed.

Yes I do support those 'cruel' killers but I at least am able to see them for what they are rather than someone who says that Harry can't have a cruel bone in his body - which is the comment I was relating to.

I acknowledge that I have some cruel bones in me as I like meat etc and I have served in the army (and therefore know just how cruel you have to be to be successful).

Loving children and puppies doesn't mean that in other circumstances you can't or don't do or support others that do cruel things. That is my point.

 

[Nitefeatherz]

Perhaps then it is a difference of point of view in the world "cruel." Eating a chicken (and the death of the chicken) for me is more impartial- while I feel bad for the death of the chicken it isn't because I want to cause the chicken pain- I'm not going to kill the chicken if I'm not going to eat it and use all its parts. The intent is to feed myself and my family- not cause pain. To me- that's not cruelty. Cruelty in my mind would be causing the chicken needless pain WHILE I was killing it when there was a quicker, more humane death available that would work as well or better for the purpose at hand.

The soldiers, cops, etc in our society that protect us generally don't have anything against the people they are killing SPECIFICALLY- they are doing their job (to protect their country and its people.) It isn't because they are out to inflict pain specifically. For my part I think the government (at least the police in the U.S.) does a good job at weeding out those who are out to deliberately inflict pain just to cause pain.

To me- cruel is the deliberate infliction of pain for the sake of causing pain. That's why a lot of synonyms for cruel are "heartless, inhumane, vicious."

 

[Iluvbertie]

I agree to an extent but would but argue that cruel is just the deliberate infliction of pain without the added aspect of 'causing pain'. I think anyone who causes pain delibrately for any reason is cruel but sometimes other considerations overirde that cruelty.

However my point is that saying someone doesn't have a cruel bone in their body because of the way they hold babies and puppies isn't right (even Hitler and Himmler showed they cared about babies and dogs - there are some great pictures of Hitler playing with his dog).

In addition to join the army and want to serve your country does necessitate a cruel streak in order to actually pull the trigger on an innocent person (and flying an Apache means flying one of the most lethal weapons on the planet - one that can result in the death of 100s if not 1000s).

There is a great episode of MASH which reflects this point - the pilot talks about it being a great war as he sees it from 20,000 ft and drops his bombs and joins his wife for dinner at night but then Hawkeye shows him a young child that has been bombed and the pilot's perspective changes and he realises that he is a killer of innocents. Harry is training to do exactly that - as do all soldiers and that takes a cruel streak.

To shoot innocent birds for sport is cruel and the entire royal family do that. To hunt animals with dogs is cruel, and until it was outlawed the royals, including Harry did that.

He isn't 100% cruel but he does have cruelty in him (by the way I believe we all do to a greater or lesser extent).

 

[nascarlucy]

One question I have, wouldn't you think the horse would have screamed out in pain after being cut by the spurs? Or reacted strongly to this injury?

 

[Iluvbertie]

One question I have, wouldn't you think the horse would have screamed out in pain after being cut by the spurs? Or reacted strongly to this injury?

I think that it would have made some noise but whether or not it was heard by Harry is another matter due to the noise of the hooves etc of the game.

Having watched a game from some distance the noise was rather loud so I would imagine that it would have been possible that Harry didn't hear the horse get injured.

 

[sunshine_93]

Do you think that person who cried over his horse's death would like to make the other animal suffer ?! From a lot of years Harry is a ,,bad prince'',but how we all see he is more compare to his mother than his brother nowadays !
More and more people prefer him,so I think it's just an accident ...or rumour by the press.I don't think Harry is guilty,he is innocent ! I'm so sorry for the horse and for Harry too,because he is good person and maybe he is hurted of all the lies and things that people say about him !!!

 

[Opal]

I think people are overusing the word "cruel" here. Just because he's in the military and has gone hunting in the past doesn't mean he would intentionally hurt his horse.

If this incident happened a couple months ago I'm sure they already investigated it and if Harry had been found guilty the press would have reported it right away.
I suspect that it might be people who are against hunting that decided to run this story as they emphasize the hunting part. I wouldn't be surprised if they're using this incident to complain about hunting and make Harry look bad.

 

[nascarlucy]

Being in the military or hunting doesn't make a person mean, cruel or vicious. I doubt that Harry deliberatedly hurt his horse. What would anyone hope to gain by harming their horse at a polo match.

 

[Nitefeatherz]

One question I have, wouldn't you think the horse would have screamed out in pain after being cut by the spurs? Or reacted strongly to this injury?

I've dealt with performance animals quite a bit- my dogs are agility dogs and I have dealt with polo horses in the past- sometimes excitement and the adrenaline rush blocks the pain initially and the animal doesn't realize it has been injured right away.

Sometimes the animal will only feel the injury (or at least- pain from the injury- afterwards when it has had a chance to calm down from the rush of the match/game/run etc.

Used to be a big problem with my ex-racing greyhounds that were adopted off the racetracks- they loved running flat out so much that when they were injured running they would KEEP running just to win, or for the thrill of the chase, or whatever and hurt themselves worse.

I think people are overusing the word "cruel" here. Just because he's in the military and has gone hunting in the past doesn't mean he would intentionally hurt his horse.

If this incident happened a couple months ago I'm sure they already investigated it and if Harry had been found guilty the press would have reported it right away.
I suspect that it might be people who are against hunting that decided to run this story as they emphasize the hunting part. I wouldn't be surprised if they're using this incident to complain about hunting and make Harry look bad.

I also got the impression that the story was more about politics than anything else. One of the people quoted in the one article was obviously lobbying against the use of spurs in the sport. It was so obviously biased a view- I think this has no credibility whatsoever and they are just trying to stir up trouble to sell papers.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

This is the first time I've heard of a polo player drawing blood like that. Does anyone else know of this happening with other players?

Sorry I'm jumping in a bit late, but yes. I've been playing polo for a number of years (see my user name, etc). Horses get injured playing polo. It's a contact sport. People get injured, draw blood, break bones, and badly jam part of their bodies. Injury to horses is dealt with much more quickly than injuries to players. If a player is still capable of continuing to play without risk of further harm to himself or others, play continues. Polo does not have sideline coaches, time-outs, or substitute humans to allow this. If a horse is injured, all bets are off. Play is stopped as soon as a.) it is noticed b.) it is safe to all involved to stop the game.

Understand that anyone- the press or people commenting on the story- who would make a statement about Harry's use of spurs either does not understand polo in particular and competitive horseback riding in general or is in the FAR conservative majority who doesn't believe half the equipment used in polo should be used with horses, anyway. To anyone inside the sport, the notion that someone would comment on whether a particular players should use a particular piece of equipment on a particular pony is laughable. Every pony is an individual, and, like one would with any teammate, the riders who play on these ponies know them inside and out.

It takes a lot to make a horse "squeal" in pain would take one heck of a force, and it would leave a much bigger mark than this. Horses squeal in warning, or surprise, or perhaps when a huge (think broken leg) injury is endured. They are sensitive animals in a lot of ways, but they are also very large and tough. Still, it is much easier than you'd think to draw blood. Most things that nick a horse can draw blood, but it is a shallow wound and the animal usually does not notice it. It is deeper cuts that are a concern. We were on the side of caution when it comes to our ponies, which is why play was stopped for this one.

Harry may be a prince, but in this sport the pony is the king. I guarantee you, Harry did not rise to this level of play without knowing and acting on this concept.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Of course being in the military or going hunting doesn't mean that he would intentionally hurt his horse but it does show that he has a cruel streak.
My original comment was related to the comment that he doesn't have a cruel bone in his body because he likes babies and puppies.
That is not the case and that is all that I have been trying to get across.

Is Harry cruel - at times yes - he has to be to kill animals - and any hunter/shooter has to be cruel to deliberately hurt another creature and that is what hunters do. He has to be to knowingly fly a weapon that can kill 1000s of people with one press of a button.
Is Harry cruel 100% of the time - no - he does have some softer feelings and these have been shown when with babies and puppies.
He is cruel when he wants to be or has to be and kind at other times - like most of us really.

 

[Blackadder]

Do you think that person who cried over his horse's death would like to make the other animal suffer ?! From a lot of years Harry is a ,,bad prince'',but how we all see he is more compare to his mother than his brother nowadays !
More and more people prefer him,so I think it's just an accident ...or rumour by the press.I don't think Harry is guilty,he is innocent ! I'm so sorry for the horse and for Harry too,because he is good person and maybe he is hurted of all the lies and things that people say about him !!!

This sounds like la-la-land to me. Have you been there that you can assure he is innocent? I have nothing against Henry but he seems too ambitious at times.

 

[Nitefeatherz]

Given the history of the press and the length of time that has passed since the incident occurred I would be far more likely to put this down as reporters trying to blow an incident up into a bigger deal than it was. A small puncture on a horse in most places would not be big news. "Prince Harry cruelly injures horse" will sell far more papers on a slow news day.

Does that mean he didn't do it deliberately? No- but I think it is far better to presume innocence when there isn't any evidence to the contrary than to label someone guilty incorrectly. I believe this even more when its someone like Princes William and Harry who will have to hear this for years to come whenever someone feels like dredging it up again.

 

[Sereta]

Well said Nitefeatherz!

 

[Lumutqueen]

Prince Harry: Why we love the reformed royal rebel | Mail Online

In the week that the former rebel prince turns 26, The Mail on Sunday’s royal correspondent Katie Nicholl reveals why we’re wild about Harry

 

[sunshine_93]

This sounds like la-la-land to me. Have you been there that you can assure he is innocent? I have nothing against Henry but he seems too ambitious at times.

No,but I'm sure he is not guilty ! He loves the animals and the children so much....can't you see it ?! Why everybody say about him so much bad things....

 

[Iluvbertie]

No,but I'm sure he is not guilty ! He loves the animals and the children so much....can't you see it ?! Why everybody say about him so much bad things....

The point is that he loves animals so much that he kills them. If he can kill for the pleasure of killing and that is what hunting is then he can do other bad things which is why I will say 'bad things' about him because he is a trained killer of both animals and people (all soldiers are trained killers).

He might like children and animals - so did Hitler. Of course Harry is no Hitler but just because he likes children and animals doesn't mean he can't also have injured an animal - if he can kill them and he does, regularly, then he could injure an animal in the excitement of a game.

Did he injure the animal - we don't know. Could he be guilt - most certainly - could he be innocent - most certainly.

However seeing him with children and animals is no proof that he couldn't harm them as he has been trained to do exactly that - kill them and you can't harm an animal or person much more than that.

 

[iceflower]

______________________


Prince Harry attended the 'Help For Heroes' Concert at Twickenham Stadium,
London Sunday Sept. 12, 2010. Some 60,000 concert goers attended the
concert in aid of the 'Help For Heroes' charity which supports members of
Britain's armed forces.


** Pic 1 ** Pic 2 ** Pic 3 ** belga gallery **

 

[Opal]

^^
He doesn't look too happy in Pic 3. Perhaps he spotted the photographer.

I would be far more likely to put this down as reporters trying to blow an incident up into a bigger deal than it was.

You're probably right, and unfortunately people on this forum are more than happy to contribute to blowing it out of proportion.

 

[Nitefeatherz]

I have to agree...he really doesn't. Looks happy. I have to admit the photographers must get annoying at some point even when they are behaving.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Or maybe he was just bored?
I'm surprised William didn't go with his brother.


Help For Heroes: Robbie Williams and Gary Barlow | Mail Online