The Royal’s Sandringham Estate and surrounding farmland in Norfolk has been frequently linked to the alleged deaths and disappearances of birds of prey over the years (see here for previous blog).
Today, journalists from The Guardian have published even more alleged incidents, not previously reported.
Today’s article (here), which identifies 18 reported cases since 2003, is the result of detailed investigative work undertaken by Severin Carrell, Rob Evans and David Pegg and includes some fascinating FoI documents.
Well worth a read.
Raptor Persecution UK 
This does not surprise me at all the royal family have [Ed: rest of comment deleted as libellous]
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
This is dynamite. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx. Of course the elephant in the room not being mentioned was the observed shooting of 2 Hen Harriers at the Sandringham estate, when the only 2 people shooting on that day on the Sandringham Estate, were Prince Harry and his friend. The police subsequently visited, Prince Harry questioned, but no action was taken, because no trace was found of the 2 Hen Harriers observed being shot. But this dossier of evidence, xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx. I mention the Harry story, because this provides circumstantial evidence that the owners of the estate, xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx. If Prince Harry wants to rehabilitate his public image, I suggest he considers xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx. It would shut his critics up, and leave them scrambling for fig leaves.
This is the hypocrisy that Britain is founded upon – the aristocrats give the lead to the others who are scrabbling up the greasy pole.
The Royal family at Sandringham seem to be setting an example — but to whom? The answer to most who take an interest in these areas seems obvious as the responses seem so familiar.
Doesn’t surprise me at all. XXXXX XXXXX murdered countless animals and birds, Inverary Castle has a museum absolutely packed with wild African animals and Hopetoun House has tigers heads lined right round the entrance hall and they shoot and hunt all the time as ‘sport’. It’s disgusting and they should be stopped by law.
Good on The Guardian for bringing this scandal and injustice to the public….you’d never have seen this issue in the bloody Daily Telegraph!!
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
[Ed: comment deleted as libellous]
It’s time the RSPB dropped the ‘R’ and replaced it with E for English or N for national.
It’s just hypocrisy when you have William cosying up to David Attenborough supporting wild life.
Has David Attenborough ever condemned game shooting in the UK?
I have no respect for, or liking of, the Royals and that is my polite version. How do they balance their so called environmental stances with owning grouse moors and shooting estates?
“How do they balance their so called environmental stances with owning grouse moors and shooting estates?”
It is a ‘cover’.
Time all conservation-related groups distanced themselves from the Royals, who’ve had time enough to distance themselves from the ‘sporting’ activities of their ancestors.
As far as I have read / researched, Sandringham is still run as the Royals traditional aristocratic style “Big House” family shoot, i.e not out to make a profit. Not one of the money-grubbing commercial “numbers” operations that have proliferated these past 20 years, with their eyes firmly fixed on the bag returns & profit margin. It is bad going if this lot can’t operate in the spirit of the GWCT guidebooks! The buck stops with the Owners in all cases, especially after things were highlighted several times down the years.
The Royal Family are the standard bearers for the driven Grouse Shooting Industry. They deny everything, keep as much from the media regarding illegal wildlife behaviour, hire to lawyers to deal with the issues, wait until the black of publicity is over — and quietly resume the life they lead.
Shooting estates where crime has been located on their land follow similar strategies.
Xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
It’s a sad and shabby show. If royalty would publicly stop driven shoots at Windsor Great Park, Sandringham, and Balmoral it would do wonders to move Government into finally ending the slaughter. But I won’t hold my breath.
Not really surprising: Charles took them to Africa hunting as children and William’s first kill was a Dik-Dik xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
HRH His Royal Hypocrite.
The nerve of these people telling everyone: Do as I say, not as I do!
This is shameful, but then there’s no surprise: It is after all, like any other ‘Estate’.
The crimes should be heavily punishable!
It really is no surprise as we are now aware that the royals have the power to influence any act of parliament that affects them and they are probably exempt from them? That’s also probably why we have an hunting with dogs act that useless and unenforceable, it was probably intersected on its way to parliament and got at?
The royal family is supposed to protect birds and wildlife. Xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx
“The royal family is supposed to protect birds and wildlife”
Are they? How little you know.
It is heartbreaking and not surprising. Double standard as usual with the royal’s. Thank you to the Guardian for bringing this out into the light.
The contents of this post don’t surprise me to be honest. The royals operate double standards and are (always have been) above the law. Having been reading posts on this site for some time now I think the time has come for a concerted campaign to tackle the existence, plus use, of all the banned pesticides that seem to be abundant in the UK. Since most of these have been banned for years how is it they are so readily available for the sick and twisted to be able to use them to kill raptors? When they are discovered to have been the cause of deaths of raptors, there seems to be little, or no, action to remedy matters. This is a public health (plus threat to animals lives) issue so how is it they are allowed to be obtained and stored?
“Since most of these have been banned for years how is it they are so readily available for the sick and twisted to be able to use them to kill raptors? ”
You say ‘most’, but not all. You say ‘banned’, but from what? Some are still legally manufactured here, and some are not yet banned from use or possession.
Do people really believe that King Charles or other members of the royal family are fully aware of all the things which happen backstage on the royal estates, estates which also includes tenanted farmland?
Like any other big institution those at the top will only be shown what those involved in the day to to day running of the institution want them to see.
Members of the royal family are not present at Sandringham on a daily basis, and may therefore be unaware of just what some of those working on the estate are getting up to, or just what is happening in the dark corners of the estate.
King Charles has long been known for his support in tackling environmental concerns, and the fact that members of the royal family have long supported wildlife charities, including RSPB, WWF and BTO would suggest they have a genuine interest in conserving wildlife.
Bearing in mind that many parents are completely unaware of what their children are getting up to in their bedrooms when accessing the internet or social media, I would suggest it is very unfair to level criticism directly at members of the royal family who may be completely unaware of just what is taking place out of their sight on the royal estates.
I do agree it might be helpful that when something bad happens if there was a statement from the Royal Family condemning any criminal activity. But as the Royal Family is expected to remain politically neutral, it is very unfair to expect a statement condemning game bird shooting, just like they can’t make statements on new oil exploration or new coal mines at a time of climate emergency.
I would also suggest that whilst it might send a strong message if game bird shooting ceased on the Royal estates, this could be problematic for the king, as the ending of game bird shooting on Royal estates could well be seen as a political statement, and something he is advised to avoid?
I would also suggest that creating a link between raptor persecution and an anti royal sentiment is unhelpful. To do so has the potential to suggest that tackling raptor crime is part of a left wing or republican ideology. It isn’t. Tackling raptor crime is something which needs support from right across the political spectrum, and by using stories of raptor crime on royal estates as a platform to potentially stir up anti royal sentiment (as some of the comments on here suggest that this is what has happened). Then this has the potential to turn many away who might have offered a powerful voice in bringing about the necessary changes to help end raptor persecution.
If people want proper regulation of the shooting industry and things like grouse more licensing to be something which applies right across the whole of the UK, then it is no good alienating large sections of the community by creating unnecessary political divisions.
This is why I highlighted the incident where 3 observers, reported seeing 2 Hen Harriers shot on the Sandringham estate. Only 2 people were shooting there on this day, Prince Harry and his friend. They were questioned by the police, who only took no action, because no trace of the dead Hen Harriers were found. I suggest you read the Natural England dossier, obtained under the FOI Act.
Are you aware that the then Prince Charles, in 2005, wrote to Tony Blair, demanding Badger culling, claiming there was an overpopulation of them, and called the “Badger lobby”, “intellectually dishonest”, in a letter he never thought would be made public? It took many years of legal challenges, to get these letters released under the FOI Act, Remember, this so call “Badger lobby”, included the leading scientific experts on Badgers, and bTB in cattle. He was also actively involved in Fox Hunting, and is keen on driven grouse shooting. You claim he can’t speak out, because of having to remain neutral. This letter, belies his supposed neutrality, in that he was actively lobbying for something all the leading experts, said would not serve any useful purpose in controlling bTB in cattle. There was no evidence for Badger overpopulation. It totally contradicts your claims.
This whole line that the owners of these estates are oblivious about what is happening on their estates, despite all these official visits, the court case, and the police questioning his son. This dossier obtained under FOI Act, was never intended to be made public, and catalogues a 20 year history of incidents, where the estate again, and again, fails to learn from its “mistakes”.
Thank you. I accept your points.
But I still maintain that potentially creating anti royal sentiment in what is already a very bitter and polarized battle between those that support game bird shooting, and those that wish to see its end may not be helpful in trying to secure the necessary changes to introduce further legislation to help end raptor persecution.
I believe the radical changes that are necessary to properly regulate the shooting industry will most probably only come about when those who lawfully engage in all aspects of shooting become sick and tired of the criminal activity associated with so much of what takes place, and see regulation as necessary if the public are to accept the continuance of game bird shooting in the countryside.
The risk is that creating anti royalist sentiment could play into the hands of the powerful countryside lobby who want the current status quo to remain, and could accuse those who wish to see an end of wildlife and raptor persecution as simply pursuing a left wing anti countryside agenda, and an attack on British values and traditions. An accusation often made, and which frequently plays out on the comments made on this blog with accusations being made of country bumpkin or townie.
Without support from right across the political spectrum and public from all walks of life, we could end up without game shooting regulations being introduced right across the UK, or regulations which are so full of loopholes that the status quo remains, much in the same way that the original ban on fox hunting failed to properly protect foxes.
Even with the introduction of regulations, those who engage in criminal behavior might simply become better at hiding their crimes, which won’t help the birds struggling for existence on the dark corners of the moors.
Ending raptor persecution is very much a battle of “hearts and minds”, and to truly eradicate raptor persecution, I would also suggest needs those who engage in game shooting to not only detest the criminal activity which takes place, but also to genuinely want to protect and conserve wildlife even when this conservation could result in reduced game bird numbers.
Humans don’t always think rationally, and it would be a shame to lose potential support to help end raptor persecution because some read the article and simply dismiss it as another attack on the Royal Family by anti royalists, and then distance themselves from the very important issue of tackling raptor persecution, and taking on a very powerful pro shooting lobby that doesn’t want change.
But I accept others will disagree with my opinion and beliefs.
According to this logic, even if a senior member of the Royal Family was recorded directing gamekeepers to kill raptors, or filmed shooting raptors, then this should be covered up, lest it create anti-Royalist sentiment, which would be counterproductive.
This is not about the existence or otherwise of the Royal Family. It is about raptors being illegally killed in a very orchestrated and organized way, by people employed by the owners of shooting estates, or by those who control shooting on big estates.
If someone does get caught, and the law is inexplicably written and enacted in such a way as to make it very difficult to prove, the person who gets caught is always a gamekeeper or estate employee. They are not some random member of the public, with no connection to the estate. Therefore, it is being done on behalf of the employers, whether they know about it or not.
Plus, the concept of plausible deniability, was written out by I think the CIA in the 1960s, and is anyway, widely understood. It isn’t necessary to give direct orders, just to hint that you don’t want any raptors on your estate, and to turn a blind eye to what happens. That is how the whole plausible deniability game works. It’s a legalistic contrivance to stop those at the top being legally liable. It is not an even relationship. The employee, especially in a deferential feudal system, wants to please their employer, especially when they are a powerful person with a title. I’m pretty certain, that if the estate owner spoke out, and made it very clear to their employees, that there was to be no raptor persecution, because they strongly disagreed, there would be a low chance of it happening. Because the employee wouldn’t want to upset their employer.
Take food establishments, licenced premises. They can be inspected, by the authorities, without warning. Because they know very well, if they visit by appointment, that the premises will be cleaned up for inspection. So why, when it comes to shooting estates, do the authorities forget that normal common sense? You see, the reason this is significant, is that the legal system, supposedly operates on behalf of the Crown. They’re not called Crown Courts for nothing.
Once again, it is not about whether the monarchy should exist or not. It is about the monarchy, abiding by the same rule of law it opposes on everyone else. This includes due diligence. So if the monarchy, becomes aware of actions on their estate, by their employees, that they take measures, to ensure their employees comply with the law. Complying in spirit, and not just in a contrived way.
Forget your patronising, servile ‘suggestions’, John; how about you try and not parrot royal PR talking points about their ‘charity work’, which is a complete sham and just a cover for their continued feudal existence. As for the rest of it, if you struggle to tackle more than one issue at a time, or worry about appearing ‘left wing’, then that’s your problem. The rest of us can clearly see the link between landed power and raptor persecution, even if you can’t (or refuse to!).
Whilst you might disagree with my comments, what I have written is neither patronising or servile.
I am sure many who have benefited from the charity work supported by the Royals would disagree with your suggestion that their charity work is “a complete sham”.
Most historians accept that feudalism in England ended during the 15th century, so perhaps you could explain why you believe the royal family continue to have a feudal existence?
Whilst there is correlation between game bird shooting and raptor persecution, and there is strong evidence that criminal persecution of raptors takes place on land owned by those with wealth and political influence. I very much doubt that any government will radically change land ownership rights. Therefore it makes much more sense to focus attention on achievable goals such as introducing proper regulations to the shooting industry.
My point of view is that if reforming the shooting industry and tackling raptor persecution is seen as a “left wing” or “anti royalist” attack on the countryside, the royal family or British values (whatever they may be) then there is a risk that potential support could be lost from large sections of the population.
If you can’t see this (or refuse to!) then there is no point in discussing this matter further.
Aye, ye canna get moving on driven Grouse Moors for Shop Stewards looking for aristocrats.
“Do people really believe that King Charles or other members of the royal family are fully aware of all the things which happen backstage on the royal estates, estates which also includes tenanted farmland?”
Yes.
“King Charles has long been known for his support in tackling environmental concerns, and the fact that members of the royal family have long supported wildlife charities, including RSPB, WWF and BTO would suggest they have a genuine interest in conserving wildlife”
Haven’t you seen him and the entire rest of his family shooting, then? He used to love hunting foxes, too.
“Bearing in mind that many parents are completely unaware of what their children are getting up to in their bedrooms when accessing the internet or social media, I would suggest it is very unfair to level criticism directly at members of the royal family who may be completely unaware of just what is taking place out of their sight on the royal estates.”
Jeez… how naive can you get?
“I would also suggest that whilst it might send a strong message if game bird shooting ceased on the Royal estates, this could be problematic for the king, as the ending of game bird shooting on Royal estates could well be seen as a political statement, and something he is advised to avoid?”
Amazing how far some people can bend over backwards, trying to excuse the inexcusable.
“I would also suggest that creating a link between raptor persecution and an anti royal sentiment is unhelpful.”
‘Unhelpful’ for your rose-tinted ‘royal’ glasses?
“If people want proper regulation of the shooting industry and things like grouse more licensing to be something which applies right across the whole of the UK, then it is no good alienating large sections of the community by creating unnecessary political divisions”
Why would exposing the illegal killing of birds of prey cause “unnecessary political divisions”? I think it would create highly necessary divisions, between those who really support wildlife and our environment, and those who obviously do not, but wield extraordinary power.
Do you know right from wrong?
the royal links with shooting why are we surprised by this news?.
Shooting birds is a sport for the rich, and the royals are no different, this is not new news, it’s been happening for centuries, and until the law is given the backing it needs to actually take action, be it alleged, or actual, if whiteness have seen these crimes happen that should be enough to charge, regardless of social standing, and regardless of title, a crime is a crime, and carries the same punishment for anyone who breaks the law.
But with money comes good lawyers, and more opportunities for evading the law, and punishment, but this is wrong, we should all be accountable for our crimes, and no lawyer should be able to change the outcome if a crime has been committed, not taking away the fact if a person is charged and it can be proved they didn’t commit the crime, obviously the lawyers can do their job.
This country has very much got a two tiered society , regular people, and those with money, regular people are more likely to be charged with crimes against birds of prey, than those with money, this has been proved so many times , estates managers have been able to hire the best defence for their gamekeepers and get charges dropped, but someone like me would be behind bars, and have a massive fine to pay.
Part of the system, charge the poor, and let the rich get away with it, until the cps are brave enough to start pursuing the rich these crimes will not go away.
Until we give the cps the power to charge all criminals, birds of prey will be at risk, I don’t care if these idiots with guns have a title, or a crown, if they kill a bird of prey they have committed a crime, wich carries a sentence, and a fine, there should be absolutely no reason for letting someone off because they have a crown or a title, this does not give them the right to do as they please, and as a royal they should be ashamed of themselves, they should be leading by example, not killing for a hobby, if only I could be in a position to bring these criminals to court, and make the charges stick, I would consider my life’s work done.
Ban all shooting sports unless it is indoor skeet shooting, or indoor game shooting using the latest video tech, and electronic guns, no bullet involved.
But again I am wasting my time, the wealthy have the upper hand, and will always be able to squash any challenge made regarding killing birds of prey.
Let’s just take a look at the date, we are in july 2023, and we have learned nothing, birds and animals are still being killed for fun, and while they charge a good amount for these people to take pot shots at fat slow moving birds, the red kites are just an innocent passer by, the buzzard will do what it does naturally, along with many other birds of prey, the title give us a clue about the birds, and as such it should be down to us to correct the behaviour of man and make those responsible for the killing take the punishment..