Lady Marlboro
Courtier
- Joined
- May 2, 2011
- Messages
- 715
- City
- Anderson
- Country
- United States
I love the bright red coat. It is so festive. The Queen looks like she is really enjoying her day.
Love the color. Dislike the fur. It looks like roadkill, and in my opinion almost ruins a lovely outfit. In my opinion- totally not necessary.
Actually, I was thrilled to see HM wear one of her vintage fur coats to early service on Christmas day. It looked lovely and warm and the speed with which she exited her car and went into the church and then back out and into the car was more than a little hasty for her. She usually stops for the public but even at the later service, while her red ensemble was gorgeous, she still looked cold . . . and in a hurry.
I think she was wearing dead chinchillas. In an earlier post on another thread I said I was prepared to cut her some slack for wearing dead animals as long as they were farmed, but then I saw some photos like this one: http://investigations.peta.org/chin...uploads/sites/27/2014/08/Chinchilla-cages.jpg and read this Chinchilla Fur - Animal Ethics RI and I've shrugged off the Christmas spirit-induced warm feelings of understanding and charity towards her Majesty regarding this issue.
Breeding and keeping those beautiful little animals in those conditions for the purpose of killing them and selling the fur to decorate wealthy people's coats is despicable, in my opinion, and amounts to animal cruelty, and it is wrong for a woman in such a position of power and esteem to support that industry and promote their product. At least the animals killed for the ivory that Prince William so despises were living a normal, free, life before being killed. I wonder what Prince William thinks about his granny wearing that coat?
I read that the fur on the Queen's red outfit was faux fur
I hope you're right, but I read one comment that it was a vintage coat, which implies it was made before there ws a pr rotest movement against fur. I don't understand the concept of faux r. If you don't think you should be wearing real fur - which does have some very real advantages in very cold climates - why on earth wear some synthetic concoction that is supposed to look like real fur and rarely does? Why not just wear something like cashmere, which is super-soft, warm as toast, and a resource that does not require the donating animal to be killed?
Is the argument against wearing real fur rather duplicitous? If one can kill an animal to eat it, one can just as well kill it to keep warm.
I have to agree. I think a lot of confusion this year has been because the media were too slack to get up that early so only a few photos covered the early church service which surprisingly, almost the entire house party attended.I hope you're right, but I read one comment that it was a vintage coat, which implies it was made before there was a protest movement against fur. I don't understand the concept of faux fur. If you don't think you should be wearing real fur - which does have some very real advantages in very cold climates - why on earth wear some synthetic concoction that is supposed to look like real fur and rarely does? Why not just wear something like cashmere, which is super-soft, warm as toast, and a resource that does not require the donating animal to be killed?
Is the argument against wearing real fur rather duplicitous? If one can kill an animal to eat it, one can just as well kill it to keep warm.
HM doesn't live in a cave or a tent. A person who leads the sort of life that she does can keep warm without wearing animal fur. There's a big difference between keeping and killing animals for food and breeding and killing them for the sake of nothing more than human vanity.
We are an omniverous species. We are designed to eat flesh as well as nuts and fruit.
The Queen is nearly 90 years old to expect her to stop wearing fur is ridiculous. I think she is used to it likes it and that is that.
Omniverous doesn't mean we Wear the flesh of other animals, well fur. Are you arguing the queen eats minks and chinchillas?
Homo sapiens is the only extant species that wears body coverings.
I am not suggesting any such thing. The quality of being omniverous relates to what an animal eats, not what it might wear. In any event, as far as I know, Homo sapiens is the only extant species that wears body coverings.
I don't expect the Queen to stop wearing fur, I just wish she would.
Well the debate is about wearing fur not eating meat, so I fail to see what your 'humans are omniverous' has to do with this argument, unless you are implying they are also eating the minks and chinchillas
I am not suggesting any such thing. The quality of being omniverous relates to what an animal eats, not what it might wear. In any event, as far as I know, Homo sapiens is the only extant species that wears body coverings.
Perhaps because the meagerly hair we are allocated with does not do a sufficient job of keeping us warm. We have to resort to other means of keeping warm. As long as we are using leather and eating meat, neither which are necessary and could easily be replaced with non-animal sources, using the fur for clothing is just fine with me. The use of animals for our own needs are cruel, yet most of us do not blink an eye in eating cheese or putting milk in our tea or cafe latte yet the cows producing the milk is lactating long after the calves have stopped suckling just so we can enjoy the dairy products we want.