Introduction

Belchem, John

doi:10.1007/978-1-349-24390-7_1

Popular Radicalism in Nineteenth-Century Britain 1996

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-24390-7_1

|View full text |Cite

Introduction

John Belchem¹

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2004

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

‘Pig‐Sticking Princes’: Royal Hunting, Moral Outrage, and the Republican Opposition to Animal Abuse in Nineteenth‐and Early Twentieth‐Century Britain

Taylor

2004

History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article locates monarchy in the debates arising out of the anti-animal abuse campaigns of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Through a close examination of urban republican criticisms of monarchy, it seeks to question the role of royalty as the custodian of shared national values concerning animal welfare. It demonstrates that hostility to monarchy based on its role in encouraging and patronizing hunting belongs to a long tradition. Much hostility to royalty crystallized around the royal patronage of foxhunting and of pheasant-shooting. The nineteenth-century precedents for recent concerns about the visible presence of royal figures on the hunting-field articulated many of the component elements of a republican position. For many urban radicals the connection of reigning monarchs with the hunt demonstrated the dysfunctional nature of royal existence, the limitations of royalty's attainments, and the perceived need by monarchs to satisfy the baser, more carnal urges arising from a life devoted to indolence and pleasure. This article shows that hunting, as a marker of a robust masculinity and of the opulence of royalty, brought the reform community into collision with supporters of the monarchy, and provided an example of royal ritual that failed to work in the interests of the throne. The article concludes by revealing the connections between the land debate, criticisms of the royal house, and animal welfare politics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

show abstract

‘Pig‐Sticking Princes’: Royal Hunting, Moral Outrage, and the Republican Opposition to Animal Abuse in Nineteenth‐and Early Twentieth‐Century Britain

Taylor

2004

History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Introduction

Cited by 1 publication

References 11 publications

‘Pig‐Sticking Princes’: Royal Hunting, Moral Outrage, and the Republican Opposition to Animal Abuse in Nineteenth‐and Early Twentieth‐Century Britain

‘Pig‐Sticking Princes’: Royal Hunting, Moral Outrage, and the Republican Opposition to Animal Abuse in Nineteenth‐and Early Twentieth‐Century Britain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About