Royalty scoffs at legality?

I’m certain I’m missing something about this story. Perhaps its my ignorance about geography and social sciences and politics. Perhaps its my voluntary ignorance of specific geographies, social sciences and politics. Perhaps I just like to make seemingly righteous jabs at people who hunt. Perhaps that ain’t so bad. 

If I’ve got my facts straight, Prince Charles is heir apparent to the thrones of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth Realms. He has held the title of Prince of Wales since 1958 and is styled HRH The Prince of Wales, and in Scotland, HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay. Constitutionally he is the first in line to the throne, but third in order of precedence, following both The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh.

(If those two go missing the same night, it’ll sure be tough for him to squeeze out of the investigation!)

Here’s the second fact. As of early last year, hunting was banned there. Personally, I nurture a distinct distaste at anyone who partakes in this disgusting activity. How about letting a wild animal come into your home with a weapon and some similarly-armed friends and making you “a sport”?

So, how come the Duke of whatever and the Prince of everything else “gifts” a “hunt” this month – over a year after the law has been passed and celebrated?

Excerpt from the article referred to above:

“Prince Charles is giving four people the opportunity to go deer hunting on the Balmoral Estate with professional stalkers.”

Translated; four adults (only by chronology, I presume), somewhat skilled in the use of weaponry far advanced than what their opponents have access to, will be given an opportunity to kill / seriously wound these mostly harmless opponents, in their own sanctuary. These opponents will be deer; creatures that are reserved for greeting cards, comic strips and children’s books because they are mild-mannered and have little to no natural abilities of showing open aggresion. 

Someone should explain to me how any of the above qualifies this activity as a sport, much less a sport worth paying for. If you must shoot, try a gun range and a moving target. I’ll bet that’ll humble you.

Those last two words are even more interesting. “Professional stalkers”? Like, seriously? Does one get a degree in stalking before one can become claim to be a professional “in the field”?

Quick recap:

• He hunts for sport
• He believes he can gift an animal’s life to another human, in sport
• In spite of being royalty, he seems unaware of the laws in his “kingdom”

Yeah, he’s British, but that can’t be an excuse for everything.