Princess Michael of Kent refuses to back down over animals don’t have rights claim
The Princess was criticised for suggesting only those who pay taxes have rights
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Princess Michael of Kent has defended suggesting animals don’t have rights because “they don’t pay taxes”.
The Princess was criticised by animal rights groups and activists over her ”ignorant” comments, which she was said to have made at the Henley Literary Festival during a discussion about her new novel, Agnes Sorel: Mistress Of Beauty.
“I'm a great animal lover and I'm involved in a lot of conservation, but animals don't have rights. They don't have bank accounts. They don't vote,” she was quoted as saying.
“They don't have rights. You only have rights if you pay your taxes. You earn your rights.”
Reacting to the backlash on Thursday, Princess Michael, who is married to the Queen’s cousin, said she was actively involved in three conservation charities and is “passionate” about animals.
However, she refused to backtrack on her remarks, telling The Huffington Post: “We have enormous obligation to animals. I feel, personally, that humans have an obligation that we have to fulfil but when you say rights, you're talking about something quite different.
“[My work is] Helping the animals in a practical way, making sure they have room and territory, this sort of thing. You can't start a law case on the part of the deer that's just been killed by the cheetah. It's just a misnomer.”
“We need to protect animals, not go to court over them.
“So I think that obligation is the terminology, instead of the word 'rights', because humans have rights when they carry our certain activities: for their country, for their family, they perform their duties.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments