Few could escape the shocking revelation over the festive period that one of the Queen's corgis was mauled by one of Princess Anne's terriers. As gloom descended over Sandringham, much of the nation responded to the story with an unseemly schadenfreude.
A reader in The Guardian paid tribute to Dotty and Florence, "who have made everyone's Christmas so entertaining." The great British love of pets is tempered by a disdain for sentimentality: the darkest sin of the postmodern age. No wonder the Dotty episode -- with its batty owners and mad, bad, dangerous and much cosseted dogs, caused such glee.
Lurking behind this mirth is a suspicion that the British pursuit of animal happiness has gone overboard. Writing in The Observer, Mary Riddell accused the royal family of plugging into "a broader cult of animal worship." The Windsor clan, she argued, "has a brilliant grasp of petshop populism;" "in the semis of England, as in its palaces, pets matter," she scoffed.
ILLUSTRATION MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
A rash of stories about dogged eccentricity and excess gives the impression that the country's 6.1 million dogs and 7.5 million cats have never had it so good. The Queen's legendary attachment to her dogs is as ordinary as her Tupperware. Indeed, our cherished pets are being loved to death. Half of them are overweight and a recent report by the National Research Council in the US concludes that a quarter of dogs and cats in the western world are obese, leading to a rise in diabetes, heart conditions and other problems.
Pet owners seem to have acquired a reputation for extravagant frivolity. So much so, that Civilita Cattolica, a magazine edited by Italian Jesuits and approved by the Vatican, recently published an article which warned against buying expensive pet food -- behavior deemed by the magazine to be "completely mad and morally condemnatory."
"Pets cost their owners billions" was the headline on a story this week about research from Sainsbury's Bank which found that the British spend ?1.23 billion a year on their pets. A tidy sum, without doubt, but it amounts to an average of ?76 a year per cat and ?81 per dog, and that includes food, vets' bills, toys, treats and trips to the poodle parlor. All in all, that could be pretty good value. Doggy health spas, luxury pet hotels and diamond-encrusted collars might grab headlines, but it seems most of us have decidedly more modest tastes when it comes to pampering our pets. According to a "dog census" produced by Winalot in September, almost 50 percent of dogs go on holiday with their owners every year. But, chances are, the trip is nothing more extravagant than a fortnight in a converted barn in Cornwall. We might love them, but that doesn't mean we've lost the plot.
The most notable trend in British pet-keeping has more to do with lifestyle choice than disposable income. The cat has become the nation's favorite companion and dog numbers are falling fast. According to the Pet Food Manufacturers' Association, there were 7.3 million pet dogs in 1992 and 7 million cats. By 2002, there were 7.5 million cats yet only 6 million dogs. Pets are a barometer of social change: the demise of the stay-at-home mum, the long-hours culture, the rise in people living alone -- all favor cats over more time-consuming dogs. Rabbits are the third most popular pet, and they're not just for kids anymore. Two out of 10 of them live in the house as fully fledged members of the family and, like cats, are the pet of choice for young, busy professionals with no children.
The worry for those with a deep respect for the age-old, human-canine friendship is not that pets matter too much, rather that they still don't matter enough. Twenty-five years after Clarissa Baldwin, chief executive of Dogs Trust (formerly the National Canine Defence League), came up with the slogan "A dog is for life, not just for Christmas," people are still discarding unwanted presents. It's impossible to know how common this is as people rarely admit it -- but animal shelters receive an influx of dogs around Easter when the Christmas puppy has turned from cute to difficult.
Dogs Trust looked after 11,516 animals last year; only 280 were reunited with their original owners. Local authorities recorded 111,016 stray dogs across the UK between April, 2002 and March last year. Around 10,000 greyhounds are retired from racing every year with an uncertain future. Thousands of foxhounds are still despatched prematurely because they've outlived their usefulness. Puppies still have their tails cut off for purely cosmetic reasons.
The RSPCA re-homes around 100,000 animals every year; and last year was a bumper year for grisly cruelty cases, including a record 269 animals rescued from one home and 73 dogs seized following a three-year investigation into dog fighting. In 2002, the RSPCA secured 2,000 cruelty convictions and 880 banning orders. Can we really call ourselves a nation of over-indulgent animal lovers?
In the face of this cruelty, it seems a tad misplaced to point the finger at people who send Christmas cards to their pets or feed them posh food, or deck them out in natty designer bandanas.
Furthermore, there's not a scrap of evidence that pet owners are any more socially inept or misanthropic than the next person.
The royal dogs saga will fade away in the light of more salient scandals which will serve to remind us that while there are sound reasons to object to the royal family, devotion to dogs isn't one of them.
Justine Hankins is the Guardian's pets editor
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers