Elizabeth II, the anthropocentric

Post mortem, you know, those who have left seem to enter by right in the assembly of the best people: grief, sadness, regret and that disturbing sense of inevitability, a marked end that sooner or later will affect each of the survivors, cloud negative emotions and they also transform the less noble feelings that perhaps had been the only lifeblood of an unappreciated knowledge into their opposite. Power of our psyche, capable of easy waltzes between admiration and denigration, esteem and contempt.
If it is not a relative or a friend who leaves, but a public figure, the matter is a bit different, because it no longer involves only emotions and feelings, but one enters into the merits of value judgments: certainly words tend to remain measured, because the dead lead to a form of deference, which many do not shy away from.
This does not mean that even less flattering facts, perhaps stripped of offensive judgments, should be told with the best possible truthfulness. Within this frame, it is striking that the already crowned Elizabeth II is also crowned as a great lover of animals in the titles of various articles available online.
By strictly limiting the discussion to this area, a look at his entire lifeon the basis of what is reported in the pages of various newspapers, can only screech this acclamation.

Daughter of art of a very passionate hunter, which was his father King George VI, she was with him started hunting very young, towards which he developed a passion never tarnished by the years.
Already in 1952 he appeared together with his wife Filippo on the cover ofShooting Times‘, a magazine that already indicated in its name its conviction that the time to shoot is here and now: with all due respect to the victims.

It is then of 1960 the well-known photograph of her, in India, proud in front of the tiger killed by her husband: satisfied, she next to the humans who made the enterprise, and the dead animal at their feet. Curiously (???) Prince Philip, great supporter of hunting trophies, in that same period he was appointed president of the World Wide Fund for Nature. When we say environmentalism …
These were times when all the harm done to animals, even just for fun, was lawful not only in terms of the law, but also according to many consciences. This does not mean that there are always people capable of opposing atrocities, when they are considered as such, thus opening the way to changes that may perhaps be realized only in the not near future; a task greatly facilitated when acting from a position of absolute privilege, which allows any derailment from the widespread norm without paying a pledge: Elizabeth II was certainly not among them.

In the course of his very long reign, the passion and pleasure of killing hunted, terrified and innocent animals does not seem to have known truce. In the royal estates, Balmoral typein Scotland, ungulates and birds comehostedonly to be then freed and killed by nobles and sovereignwho have so much fun doing it, that it seems no one can even think about asking what I know, maybe a moratorium to think about it a bit.

In the 2000 the ‘Sunday Mirrordefined the then queenThe killer queen‘, because seen a wounded pheasant twist the neck, brought to her by her dog.

He wasn’t too angry, though, since in 2004 she was immortalized as she ended up with a stickas royal as you want, but still a stick, of the game that had had the bad luck of having been wounded rather than killed in yet another hunt.
A few days earlier, Prince Philip had filled with horror a schoolchild on which he had showered clouds of pheasants, on which he had fired madly in irrepressible excitement, regardless of the wounded birds falling on the heads of the children in recreation in the playground. a school.
The most recent photos of the now very elderly spouses, he with a gun on his shoulder, she with a bird (wounded? Dead?) Hanging from his arm, attest to an indomitable passion that has gone through the epochal changes at the turn of two centuries birth, in addition to environmentalism, animalism, the questioning of anthropocentrism, the debate on animal rights. Nothing to do: not a thought on the lawfulness of all this, on the injustice in progress, on the suffering of the victims.

The late queen is also celebrated for her so-called love for horses: but we would all have to benefit from it if at last, beyond the prevailing rhetoric, the concept of love began to be separated from that of submission and exploitation.
This passionshared with the English nobility so much to define the ‘Sport of the Kings’ riding, and also shared by a large part of the common people, finds great expression in racing, among which in England one of the most exhausting is celebrated, the Steeplechase horse Racingwith Liverpool’s annual Grand National, where horses are forced to run for 4 miles jumping over obstacles and inevitably incur in accidents that are often fatal. Or in any case in all the ‘normal’ races that take place everywhere in Great Britain, but which cannot therefore continue to be celebrated as an expression of love: horses, whipped according to rules that regulate how much and with what force to stem the desire of jockeys to overdo it, they must run at breakneck speed under the satisfied gaze of a traditionally elegant public, if ever excited by the amount of bets, which observes smugly the airing of human overwhelming power over another species.
To break the spiritis the expression that the English use to refer to the taming of horses: yes, their spirit breaks it. And there are no counting those who then die from disastrous falls or because the heart does not hold up: their jockeys generally cry a little over it, in the name of the love that bound them to them, and then quickly move on to ‘take care’ of another specimen of the same species: the show, you know, must go on.

It would also be illuminating to watch some video (unfortunately obscured by Facebook because it is a violent show: so to speak) on the methods used to force the horses to that rhythmic and dancing gait offered as a show at weddings and royal deaths and other celebrations: one would have I realize how extraneous the concept of love is to all this.

Needless to continue: Elizabeth II is no more. And there is no longer Prince Philip who shared all this with her.

The great concern for the near future remains: William and Harrydevoid of any justification relating to the cultural climate around them, since they have grown up in times when the animal question can no longer be ignored, they already show passions similar to those of their grandmother and their family in general: William was in Spain in 2014 killing deer and wild boar; the chronicles tell of him that little George, who is only 7 years old, has already started,very future king, hunting the capercaillie, with the blessing of the royal Kate. Also Harryapparently the most alien to the charms of the royal house, was not outdone until he attacked the gun a few years ago for the love of Megan.
The family in short, who never escaped the watchful gaze of the queen, seems to have introjected the lesson well.

It is therefore in the face of all this that the tribute dedicated to her as a great lover of animals is disconcerting.

Of course, he loved dogs, which surrounded itself, and then it would be enough to call her a dog lover, or, with even greater precision, lover of corgi and then of dorgi.

Of course, in 2019 he said enough to furs: without underestimating its role as a model (late) for people, at 93 it must not have been a sacrifice.

In the annual 2021 Parliament speechconsidered historical, urged to take care of greater animal welfare, well-being which, however, did not relate to the need for the abolition of huntingforever untouchable, nor of a turn in the plant based sense, as we tend to say, since, according to what we read, his diet was meaty until the last day.
He urged that animals be considered sentient beings, but the Treaty of Lisbon had already thought of it, while the Cambridge declarationhe had already declared most of them to have self-awareness. He advocated better treatment of animals in zoos, but did not suggest their closure. Not to mention the suspicions, supported by the ‘Guardian‘, of killing, between 2005 and 2016, of protected species, in the Sandringham estate (Norfolk), which could never be verified due to the monarchy’s failure to consent to the necessary investigations.

In short, Queen Elizabeth II had an absolutely anthropocentric attitude towards animals.

Unfortunately it has evidently contributed, together with the more traditionalist and conservative slice of the population, to condition the new generations of his family with the proposed model, apparently so strongly introjected as to involve one generation after another, in the vacuum of respect for the non-human animals and in a strenuous closure to the requests for change coming from many parts.

There is no point in pointing accusing indicesbecause the past cannot be corrected and the victims, many, will never be repaid. However, it is only right to at least call things by their namewhich, said Rosa Luxemburg, would already be revolutionary.Avoiding talking about love where there is abuse,maybe we can avoid finding ourselves on a slope capable of plunging us into total confusion between good and evil, so encysted with each other that they are no longer distinguishable.

Elizabeth II, the anthropocentric – L’Indro