text:
Prince William took 7-year-old Prince George grouse hunting at Balmoral
Kate Middleton, Prince George of Cambridge, Prince William, Royals
I was so moved by the symbolism of Prince Harry and Meghan's volunteer work on the 23rd anniversary of Princess Diana's passing. They were with preschool aged children, Diana worked at a preschool. They planted flowers and vegetables and sang and danced and played with the kids. Harry brought seeds for forget-me-nots, his mother's favorite. The entire visit was something his mother would have loved, and something designed by Harry to remember his mother.
Meanwhile, Prince William is in Balmoral. He and Harry were in Balmoral 23 years ago when Charles had to wake them up to tell them their mother died. Charles and the Queen kept Harry and William in Balmoral for days, barely allowing them to speak about Diana or mourn her. I would think Balmoral would be such an awful association, and I would have thought that William would do anything to avoid being in Balmoral on August 31st of any year. But that's where he took his family. And they were probably hunting on the anniversary.
Prince George has been immersed in a key royal family tradition — the annual grouse shoot that takes place at his great grandmother's Scottish estate. The young royal was taken by dad Prince William and mom Kate Middleton on the game bird shoot with other members of the extended royal family towards the end of their annual summer break at Queen Elizabeth's 52,000-acre estate at Balmoral Castle.
George, 7, watched the adults take part in the shoot on the 7,000-acre grouse moor at Corgarff — about 10 miles from the castle. They were joined by Princess Anne and her husband Tim Laurence, Prince Edward, and his son Viscount Severn and Peter Phillips.
Kate loves the royal country life — and that includes an enthusiasm for hunting. She reportedly took George on his first grouse-hunting expedition during a visit to Balmoral Castle in 2018. George's siblings Princess Charlotte, 5, and Prince Louis, 2, were not on the outing.
Queen Elizabeth, 94, who is on her summer break at Balmoral Castle, has been welcoming family members to the estate in recent weeks.
[From People]
I believe William and Kate arrived at Balmoral late last week, which doesn't really explain why they went completely dark throughout the month of August. I kind of suspect that they did manage to go on a "holiday" somewhere and they were able to keep in quiet. As for the hunting at Balmoral… I mean, William went hunting just after his mother died. Maybe that's his way of marking the day. I find it… not as moving and symbolic as Harry's activities. I'm not even saying that as some avid anti-hunting person, I'm not like that at all. People hunt, they teach their kids to hunt, I get that. But I do think George is too young and I just think… I don't know, maybe it was the wrong look, in general?
Update: William can mourn however he likes. I just think the optics of killing animals on the anniversary of his mom's death is bad optics, and clearly William thinks so too, because the photos of the family hunting disappeared pretty quickly.
Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Avalon Red, Kensington Palace.
154 Responses to "Prince William took 7-year-old Prince George grouse hunting at Balmoral"
Wooòaaah when did William's hair get like that?! Haven't seen a side view in a while. It's going white?? Or just majorly thinning?
So, its either thinning or he is keeping it cut super close to his head, and it did happen pretty fast – I look back at pictures even from two years ago and it didn't look like that. BUT, in the picture with Kate and the kids going to school, the sunlight is falling across his head to make it look super thin/pale. (you can see the light across Kate's face too.)
Noki says:
Prince William and Justin Timberlake have had one of the moat tragic and rapid decline in looks I have ever seen. JT looks like a different person.
There was a time he made a really big deal about cutting his hair and it was basically just like the photo above – cutting super close to the head. Some men can really pull of the bald head look but I don't think he has the face for it.
yinyang says:
Its the sun
I think Will is a jerk, but he doesn't owe us anything for Diana's anniversary. He owes the public more work in general, but I think he should follow whatever grieving process he needs to go through on the anniversary of his mother's death. For Harry a big symbolic gesture might have made him feel better, but it's okay that Will preferred to spend that time privately.
Nikki* says:
Yes to all of this. Hope he passed the day in a manner that brought him peace.
GG says:
I don't think William or Harry have any obligation to anyone other than themselves for how they choose to Mark the anniversary of their mother's passing. Neither brother should be expected to perform their grief for the public to the public's satisfaction. People work through grief differently, and whether or not one or both choose to spend the anniversary of Diana's death in private or in public, that's is their call to make.
L84Tea says:
I have to agree. I am not a fan of William at all, but he can do whatever he likes on 8/31 and I'm not going to question or judge it. I lost my mother very unexpectedly when I was only 16, and it left a huge scar on my life, and my family has never fully recovered from it. That was 25 years ago and it still hurts badly. Some years when the day comes, I like to think of her and cook something she liked, and some years I really don't want to think about it at all and just want to carry on with my day because it's too painful to deal with. Whether William wants to do hunt, do cartwheels in a field, or sit alone in a room and stare at the walls all day, good for him.
WigletWatcher says:
As the future king shouldn't he mourn as he pleases privately while still being aware he must do something publicly?
That he and his people chose to showcase that was bad for numerous reasons and can't be defended in the same way private mourning can imo. we all have our jobs.
Why would someone -owe- anyone else a public display of grief? It's been 23 years since she died and people are still acting like they should have a say in how her own flipping sons remember her. Unreal.
The grief can and should imo be private. The celebration of her life is what I meant to be public. She is not just his mother. She is a figure of power still that is used to his pr image benefit. Visiting her garden and past memorials were all classified as work. As the public figure he is how is this suddenly a bridge too far? It never was before.
While I see what you are saying WW, I don't think they are obligated to do something public every year. They participated in the documentary for the 20th anniversary of her death, and commemorated the garden in her honor, and I think in the documentary they both said it would probably be the last time they spoke about her publicly like that.
Everyone here knows how I feel about William, but I don't need to see him honoring his mother's death every year.
MissMarierose says:
Yes, I agree with this completely. The problem wasn't that the boys were kept at Balmoral after Diana died. It's that they were forced to go back to London to stoically perform their grief for the masses.
I'll never forget the sight of them being made to dress up in suits and walk outside the palace gates to shake hands with perfect strangers laying flowers for their mother. Then being made to walk behind her coffin.
As little boys, they were told how they were supposed to grieve for their mother. As men, we should finally allow them the right we all have to grieve in our own way – in private.
kerwood says:
Very well said. It was disgusting to see those poor boys forced to go out and look at the flowers and be groped and grabbed at by the 'mourners' outside. The walk behind the casket was basically child abuse that was forced on them by the prime minister at the time as a political move.
I don't care for William at all, but his grief over his mother's death is his own business.
Jolie says:
@kerwood
That's not the first time I hear someone say that, can you explain why? Walking behind the coffin of a public beloved figure is actually quite common for funerals, at least in Europe. Not sure about kids, but royal kids aren't just kids. Why can't it be a tribute, why is it child abuse? If they grew up thinking this was how you paid the last respects, they could have very well wanted to do that for their mother, hard as it was, I'm sure.
paddingtonjr says:
ITA. As kids they had to take on the public's grief instead of grieving in private. They have done the public memorial since with the Concert for Diana and will do it again next year with the unveiling of her statue. Let the H&W deal with the anniversary how they want. There are another 364 days in the year to criticize William.
MargaritasForBreakfast says:
I don't get why "Bring made to walk behind Diana's" coffin is universally lambasted as a bad thing? I walked behind my mother's coffin holding my father's hand although I was not as young as Harry. Aren't funeral processions a normal thing?
Lizzie Bathory says:
@El, I can't speak for Kerwood. My personal take is that royal kids are, fundamentally "just kids" & should be treated as such. William was the heir, but he was also a child. He & Harry should still have been treated as the children that they were. "Walking behind the coffin of a beloved figure" might be expected of adult royals undertaking official duties. Asking any child to walk behind their own mother's coffin (while thronged by crowds of strangers & reporters) after her horrific, shocking death is inexcusable. It would traumatize any child, as it clearly did both of those boys. That display was neither normal, nor should it be normalized.
Jules says:
Agree. There is a lot of projecting in this post.
Prairiegirl says:
(There's a lot of projecting in ALL the posts about the BRF.)
I think it will be low key until the landmark 25th anniversary, with a possible concert or other tribute event.
I guess if he wants to publically ignore the anniversary of his mothers death it's up to him. Kudo's to Harry for doing something meaningful.
Rather harsh Lizzie, we don't all want to make annual public displays. We each grieve in our own way.
Nic919 says:
Publicly promoting the murder of animals is a pretty odd way to grieve and even William got the photos pulled down because he knew it looked off. There was no need for an article with a jovial "7 year old George is watching his dad kill birds! Royal tradition! So cool!"
But keep bootlicking a man who has no idea you exist.
Maevo says:
I agree. I'm no Will fan but the way someone marks a loved ones death is so personal. Maybe he doesn't like to mark the day and prefers to celebrate her on her birthday etc. Also I think he has a more fraught relationship with his mother's memory than Harry does. He's seems to not have rose colored glasses when it comes to Diana (which is understandable).
Perhaps Diana and Charles saw William too much through rose colored glasses. I think he got very spoiled and cosseted. I think he is high maintenance and thinks he's low maintenance.
True! I think he's controlling and selfish but thinks he's down to earth and normal. But then again how could you not be f*cked up when you've been told your whole life you're a special chosen one destined for the throne.
SJR says:
The loss of their Mom when they were so young is still a tragedy.
It is for everyone who loses a parent so young.
Not gonna speak on how they choose to recall Diana.
S808 says:
Eh, if that's how he wants to spend that horrible day then that's his right. I do think 7 is too young to be hunting but I'm not a parent and I don't like hunting so I'm probably very biased.
Same here, I don't think any child needs to be show that killing things is sport/fun/competitive and from reading the quotes it sounds like Kate took him in 2018 when he was five. Pretty sure that would just have traumatised me at that age.
Aang says:
I'm guessing the birds are eaten? Does anyone know for sure? If they are I have absolutely no problem with it. I think it's worse for kids to grow up thinking meat just appears on the plate. As someone exposed to hunting from my earliest memories I think it gave me an appreciation for what I was eating. I understood it had been alive a short while ago and we always thanked the animal for its sacrifice.
I don't think they are eaten, there are too many of them. My guess is they used to be, but probably aren't at this point in time.
Jellybean says:
Kids are actually pretty robust. I am not a hunter, but I think educating children about the food chain is a good thing. Some kids have no idea where their food comes from and I think ignorance leads to poor standards and animal welfare issues. Maybe some kids who see an animal killed will become vegetarians. Maybe some will decide that they will only eat animals which have lived well and died humanely. To me those are both good outcomes.
notasugarhere says:
The birds are bred specifically to be over weight and poor flyers. No they are not eaten, as they are completely filled with buckshot.
Yes, grouse are eaten. Apparently they are much higher in protein than chicken and much lower in fat. Most of the birds shot will be sold to restaurants and it is actually a big industry in Scotland. If I remember correctly the season starts on the 12th August and it is a big thing to be the first restaurant in London to serve Grouse.
I have eaten wild grouse, pheasant and rabbit. You always have to be a bit careful about the buckshot and pellets.
Elisa the I. says:
" I think it's worse for kids to grow up thinking meat just appears on the plate. " @Aang: so much THIS!
I grew up on a farm and went hunting with my dad at a young age as well and it taught me to respect animals and made me fully aware that the food on the plate once had eyes. This also played a key role in becoming a vegetarian – which I am until today.
Sofia says:
@Aang and @Elisa: I think you're giving William too much credit. Grouse shooting is a game for the upper classes. They openly brag about how many they can kill and go to estates that are used simply for grouse shooting – some of which are 1000s of acres. It's a game and a sport for these people. I doubt William was taking George to see where his food comes from but to simply teach him that this is a sport that people of his class and age are learning to partake in.
I think it might be overwhelming for a 7 year old. I think parents would get nervous about a child perhaps running around while shooting is going on. He also may have been upset at it.
KidV says:
I used to go quail hunting with my dad at that age. Not only do you learn how food gets to the table, you learn very important gun safety. You also learn to pick out the buckshot before putting it in your mouth, and that your mom really has no idea how to cook quail.
So, I'm not into hunting, at all, besides as a necessity, and I'm not sure this grouse hunt counts as that.
But if I put that aside – I will say that I think William and Harry have always processed their mother's death very differently, and I cant really fault William for how he may have chosen to spend the day.
I did laugh at the line about Kate "loving the royal country life." We know that, since its so hard to get her out of the country to do….anything.
The new Cambstan defence for the grouse shooting is that it's population control. Sorry no that's bullshit. And bringing a child to a hunt is just dumb. White trash families from the south get made fun of for their carelessness around guns and bringing a child to a made up hunt where the adults have the birds basically tossed in front of them is also trash. The royals need to be criticized for this dumb and destructive hobby as much as anyone else. And if William is going to be about conservation then participating in this nonsense is hypocritical.
OriginalLala says:
The royals are such hypocrites about conservation – it's not like their hunting is subsistence hunting, they literally kill hundreds of animals in one shooting day for funsies. It's obscene and gross.
Some stans were staying they were going to eat what they shot. I have a hard time believe that.
They have no clue was grouse shooting is about. Basically hundreds of birds are forced to where the shooters are standing and hundreds of birds end up killed. No one is eating all those birds. Plus if they are using shot guns the chances the birds are any good to eat when that many shooters are discharging at the same time are slim.
It's population control when the grouses are literally raised to be basically thrown in front of them so they can feel like they succeeded at something in life other than being born? Their stans will really reach, won't they.
I really don't care how William chose to mark the day as it is his right to do what he wants, but I do think 7 is too young to go hunting. But since he apparently also went at age 5, I'm surprised Charlotte didn't go this year.
windyriver says:
The issue is not just that the grouse are being shot, it's also the amount of other wildlife that are killed (and how they're killed, including cruel traps) to "protect" the grouse so there's plenty for the season. On a trip to Scotland in early August last year I saw large brown sections scattered through part of the landscape; apparently this was areas of heather burned for better grouse habitat.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/scotlands-grouse-shooting-estates-are-waging-war-wildlife-must-stop-robbie-marsland-2957472
https://theecologist.org/2019/nov/13/wildlife-killings-scotlands-grouse-moors
Anyone who is part of this has no business talking about conservation.
@ Nic "White trash families from the south get made fun of for their carelessness around guns"
Any evidence of this? IE how many accidents in the UK through carelessness around guns.
Seriously this is what you critique? There are gun accidents in every country so just because the royals haven't shot each other doesn't mean that it isn't irresponsible to bring young kids into the mix and condition them to kill living beings as if it's not a cruel thing to do. But keep bootlicking the royals. They don't give a shit about your existence either way.
@NIc919 I'm with you. This doesn't sit well with me, in this era I think we should focus on killing less animals for consumption and sport. I know if I took my children they wouldn't allow me to shoot one ever.
Isabella says:
I knew nothing about grouse shooting until I saw this photo of Pippa Middleton and her friends standing over 50 dead birds in Scotland. I was stunned.
https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/434998/Pippa-Middleton-goes-all-autumnal-as-she-arrives-back-from-hunting-trip-in-Scotland
TrixC says:
Yeah, grouse hunting is a completely different type of pursuit to the sort of hunting many readers of this website will be familiar with. I don't like hunting but I have family and friends who do, they mainly do it to enjoy being in the outdoors, and also to feed their families. They like the skill and challenge and the sense of self-sufficiency that comes with hunting wild animals for food.
Grouse shooting is quite different to this. There are huge estates which are managed exclusively for grouse shooting. Although they're a native species the ones that are shot are not wild animals. They're bred up and released in great numbers, purely for rich people to come and shoot. The land needs to be managed intensively so that it is optimal for grouse and wild animals or birds that might prey on the grouse are killed. Sometimes the grouse are eaten, but that is by no means the point of the activity. Grouse shooting is quite controversial these days and there have been petitions to Parliament to ban it, mainly on conservation grounds.
Shannon Bullock says:
This is how pheasant hunting works in much of the U.S. at this point as well. The wild pheasant population is lower than demand for hunting so the pheasants are farmed and released on hunting land at the start of the season.
The farmed pheasants have no sense of self-preservartion so it isn't much of a challenge. Those that are lucky enough to live through hunting season and predation from other animals are few and far between.
I grew up in a hunting family but I don't really see the point of shooting animals that are so unequipped to escape from humans. I've switched to photography instead – the birds just stand around and let me get close enough to take good pictures. And then I shoo them into the prairie grass to hide from the hunters.
I will say in the case of pheasants that they don't go to waste, we do eat them.
TeamAwesome says:
I used to live across from a farm that bred birds for hunting parties. We occasionally would have escapees who made it across the road to us. There is no sport in killing something that has been raised just for you to shoot at.
The Other Katherine says:
Yes, I'm creeped out by this too. I grew up in a ranching area, I eat meat, and I don't have an issue with people who hunt skillfully and humanely and eat their kills, but that's not what this is about. I also have a 5-y.o. who already won't eat poultry because he likes birds. (I explained we wouldn't raise all these chickens if people didn't eat them! He is not swayed!) If I took him to a grouse hunt, I think he would be incredibly traumatized and our relationship ruptured in a way difficult to repair… well, ever. I don't understand what these people are doing.
They were not allowed to mourn her? Is that another Royal thing to be stern and not show any emotions? I always wonder how these little boys didnt break down behind the casket,maybe they drilled into them to remain subdued or even received a sedative.
The stories about it are murky but I do think the Queen was coming from the right place re: her grandsons, and just didn't know how to do it. She was trying to protect them from the public to give them space, but she really bungled the whole thing, at least for her own part in it. She didn't want Charles to go to Paris to bring Diana's body back. They went to church the morning the Sunday she died, and the boys knew about the death – the minister was told not to talk about it, so didn't, but afterwards apparently Harry asked if she was really dead, because why didn't they pray for her or something like that.
I think Harry was the one who said in an interview that he didn't really process her death for years, until he started therapy.
I also imagine it would be hard to mourn your beloved mother while completely ensconced in a family that treated her the way they did.
Ainsley7 says:
The Church of Scotland specifically doesn't do the prayers for the dead the way the Church of England does. A lot of things were misreported at the time because the press wanted access they couldn't get while the family was at Balmoral. So, the press created a whole narrative about the Queen not caring. If they had reported the truth, that the family wanted the boys to be able to mourn in private, the public would have been more understanding. The boys never should have been forced back to London and definitely shouldn't have been forced out in order to give the press the story they wanted.
I'm not part of the church of England, so have no clue what their prayers are.
I also specifically said in my post "I think the queen was coming from the right place re: her grandsons….she was trying to protect them from the public" – but again like I said, she bungled her own part in it.
I never said the boys should not have been allowed to mourn in private etc.
Rules can be set aside so there would have been prayers at the service for Diana. The boys were raw with emotion and shock and I think it would be of some comfort. At wakes, prayers are said to comfort the mourners.
Carolind says:
Kate was also with William and George on last week's shoot.
Going back to Diana's death, the boys apparently asked to go to Church on the morning of their mother's death. I am Church of Scotland and although we may not pray for the dead we do pray for family and friends of the dead.
I don't think the Queen handled Diana's death well but for the life of me I cannot see the benefits of all of them going down to London right away. In Scotland the boys were away from the shoals of people mourning their mother. They had space. Their Philips cousins were there and Tiggy whatsername. The Queen was also head of state as much in Scotland as in London.
I have read and believe that the press deliberately tried to turn the public against the RF because at the beginning the public were gunning for the press because what are paps but extreme press.
Diana last phoned Balmoral early on the Saturday evening to speak to William and Harry. She had only short conversations with each as they had not really wanted to talk with her as they were with their Philips cousins.
I think both boys were just deeply traumatized and/or in shock at being forced to walk behind their mother's coffin in front of the entire world. Harry just looked so small & lost. William said years later that he kept his head down, trying to make his hair fall in his face to hide from everything. If you look at the pictures, that's exactly what he was doing. No child should experience that.
I'm glad to see commenters saying William should be allowed to spend the anniversary of Diana's death however he chooses. William & Harry didn't get a choice when she died. At the very least, they should be allowed to spend the anniversary of her death how they each see fit.
I remember William keeping his head down. I've always thought that he didn't want anyone to see his grief and he didn't want to give the reporters (who he believes kills his mother) a 'good shot of grieving William'.
I can't imagine being forced to walk behind your mother's casket. Especially when it wasn't their choice. That's on the politicians AND the British people (who basically lost their minds over Diana's death).
The family wanted to protect the boys but the rabid media whipped up such a storm that pretty much backed them into a corner – the public felt that their grief was greater than that of 2 young boys who had just lost their mother in a horrific way. The RF had no choice but to put those 2 grieving young boys out there for public consumption – it was that bad. I remember the press headlines and the public feeling that was being whipped up. If Harry and William had not been at the funeral the press would have ripped them all apart.
It was a traumatic event made worse by the media coverage and public frenzy that was created – coverage that likely added to H&W's trauma.
They should have been at the funeral. If they had been prevented, they would have regretted it for the rest of their lives and a funeral honors the deceased. What was wrong was taking the boys who found out they lost their mother, the next morning, to CHurch and NO mention of their mother or prayers for her were in the service. Talk about coldhearted by the RF. It was not just the press that would have complained, it would have caused resentment in the boys about their not going. It's not like they were infants or toddlers.
Nyro says:
Everyone gives the queen way too much grace. She was wrong, wrong, wrong. She wasn't protecting those boys. She was stifling them because she didn't want to be bothered with their grief or anyone else's grief for that matter. Lord knows she can't be uncomfortable, not for a an a minute, to hell with what's actually happening. And those two kids were out out there to walk behind their dead mother's body because they were being used as a shield to protect queen and crown from having to face the wrath of that crowd. They were a distraction and a shield. The people weren't demanding to see that.
You are totally wrong about the Queen regarding the boys. She was wrong about many aspects of Diana's death but she was genuinely concerned about the boys who were much, much better of in the privacy of Balmoral and its many acres. They were able to get out and be with other family
Don't forget the actions of the toxic press in this. They were being blamed for Diana's death. What are paps after all? They deliberately made an issue of the Quern staying at Balmoral to deflect the blame from themselves. Don't forget either that the Spencers banned all of the tabloid press from Westminster Abbey for Diana's funeral.
I think it was pure shock when they were walking behind the casket and nothing else.
They were grieving and then thrust in front of all those crowds which had to be disorienting.
Harry in particular just looked totally stunned, which makes sense because he was so young. William seemed to have to stifle himself a few times to keep from crying in front of the crowd (which I imagine he didn't want to do as a teen being so keen to be a "grown up") and kept looking down to get through it but also just had a shocked thousand yard stare like a soldier does.
Not a fan of William, or hunting, but I'm not going to judge how he chooses to grieve and remember his mom.
This is the only correct answer.
Chickaletta says:
Maybe he doesn't want to spend the anniversary of a horrible day dwelling on that horror? He just wanted to do something else and not think about it, I could see that.
I'll grill William for a lot of things but how he chooses to mourn his mother is not one of those things. It's up to him and Harry to decide how they grieve her. If William wants to do it through hunting, then so be it.
As for the actual activity, the Cambridges always try to portray themselves as a normal middle class country loving family yet they continue to engage in this very elitist activity that only the upper classes do. This isn't related to Diana or the day he did it on. I would have the exact same comment if he did it 2 weeks later.
Don't like William one bit, but how he mourns, or even if he mourns, is his business. He owes us nothing in that regard.
He and Harry (and everyone else) have no responsibility to show the world anything at all about their inner life (if they have one).
Hunting: I hunt, and began teach my children the important of safety very early on. Seven isn't too young to teach safety and to begin to learn proper form. Good habits are easier to teach correctly from a young age, versus correcting bad/dangerous habits later. As an example, "keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot" is a good/safe habit.
I personally think that seven is too young to safely and actively hunt large game, but don't bird hunt so I don't know…
toro says:
why do you hunt?
LW says:
People can dislike him for other reasons, but he can remember/mourn/celebrate his mother how he chooses. Grief is individual and not to be judged.
Everyone grieves differently. My step-dad died 8 years ago. I don't grieve the way others in my family do. I ignore the day. Grief hits me on random days, not so much on 'anniversaries'.
AMM says:
I'm not gonna hate on William for how he mourns his mother. I didn't know he went hunting after his mom died, so maybe that's his thing now and how he processes.
But I do not understand hunting for sport. I do not understand hunting with small children that will not grow up needing to hunt for survival or to eat. It just seems like killing to me, and I don't think children need to be exposed to that. Surely there are other aristo hobby's they can do together.
I have been hunting since I have been five it's incredibly normal to do so at a young age it's a bonding event with ones parent or parents if you chose to just as if you don't like killing animals that's okay as well
I will say everyone mourning is different my dad died on father's days which is always either mine or my brothers bday or the day before or after and I wear his flannel shirts and cry for three days and my brother goes fishing( my dad never fished) it just his way to get through those days. Maybe harry is okay with or wants to share his grief with others because he knows how much his mother meant to everyone and William would rather just bond with his children through an activity to get through the day . Both are perfectly fine
Grouse hunting is a "key royal tradition"? Must be right up there with "posing by the gold piano" and "interfering with Brexit." That's such a weird thing to write, or even think.
The white privilege party of the British monarchy is SUCH a useless anachronism.
I just read that Prince Phillip would strive to meet a goal of 10,000 kills every summer at Balmoral. Absolutely disgusting. I'm not against hunting if it's an actual challenge and if the animal is eaten. But those birds are literally bred for that family to be killed and with no skill or challenge involved at all. It's just wrong.
February-Pisces says:
Prince Phillip gives me psycho vibes and I think Willie is leaning toward being the same. They seem to get a hell of a lot of pleasure from these blood sports, so it creeps me out, especially as a lot of serial killers started off hurting animals because they got pleasure from it.
Wasn't there a rumour that Willie shot a cat?
There is a photo of Philip some decades ago with dead tigers at his feet that he shot. THey were not thought to be 'endangered' then but they are endangered now. William and Charles went foxhunting and foxes are inedible and can't be used. A torture for the foxes. Thankfully foxhunting is outlawed now.
Hm. Where's Waity? She hasn't been around for a while, even for a helicoptered-in fake photo op.
Kate was at the shoot with William and George.
Annie .. says:
The photos that "disappeared" were from 2008
I'm confused – were there photos, initially?
FHMom says:
That picture on the swing is so adorable. William can mourn however he wants. I don't get the joy of hunting, but it's traditional, and little George will be king one day. If I've learned anything from Midsomer Murders, it's that the British upper class love their hunts.
Chrissy says:
LOL! I love Midsomer Murders and miss Tom Barnaby.
I miss Tom, too. I refused to watch the other Barnaby for years. Then in desperation, I started watching John about a month ago, and he has grown on me. Tom is still the best, though.
John's original dog was worth watching the programme for!
JT says:
I don't think it matters whether the photos were new or old, KP clearly had a problem with them or else they would still be on the site. There were also many negative comments on the DM about the hunt. Why was only George there? Are the hunts only for the boys?
I think it matters if there were photos of George being pulled. Did they exist in the first place? Or were older (pre-children) photos being referenced? If so, those are easily searchable.
I think they were older photos that were already published. So W&K were fine with the photos a few years ago, but now they are unhappy with them. The press only publish photos of the kids with W&K blessing, which leaves me to believe they removed the photos because they were getting dragged in the comments.
I recall Kate's parents were seen shooting animals with the royals a few years ago.
They arranged a pheasant day shoot on Boxing Day for William because he wasn't at Sandringham that year. Instead of having their own traditions Carole made sure to placate billy with his need to kill things that don't stand a chance. It's pretty sad that the desperate social climbers decide to emulate one of the worst hobbies of the elite just to try to fit in. The fur hats in temperate England are another feature of this sad attempt to seem elite.
The way Becky English wrote this story (and whoever carried this for People) is an example of how the RR are sycophantic fools. William can mourn how he wants and he can go hunting, but he didn't need to make it an article and then make it look like George is having a grand ole time watching birds get shot. And the photos being pulled suggests that William in fact didn't like the article which is why I think this was a Kate or Carole special because of all the "Kate loves the country life" nonsense.
BnLurkN4eva says:
William can do whatever he like.
I feel that he's sold out and tarnished his mother's legacy by teaming up with the press that chased his mother to her death and being part of a smear campaign to drive his brother and family out of the country, so his actions re: Diana are meaningless.
He's all Windsor. I've noticed over the years just from interviews that he's given, that he thinks his mother was more often wrong about how she went about her role in that family. I think that he sees her as a silly hyper-emotional problem just like his grandmother saw her. I think he loves his mother but I don't see him being on her side at all. He and Harry talk about her in completely different ways and it's always been noticeable to me.
I agree. He identifies with the Monarch because he is set to be one and behaves like one, see his treatment of his brother and family. From my cheap seat, I think he loves Diana the way Thomas Markle loves Meghan.
Person3514 says:
Wow, maybe let's not speculate about how he loved his mother. Will and Harry had different relationships with Diana. I've never heard stories of her confiding in Harry, and she was a very emotional person. I'm sure Will has a lot of unresolved emotions about his mother and being her son in the huge shadow she cast. I mean, she threw herself down the stairs while pregnant with him. He probably has days where he madly loves and misses her, and he probably has days where he's bitter and angry towards her. Diana has been idolized and sainted since her death, and I'm sure that messes with both of the boys minds as well.
Diana tripped over a few steps she did not "throw herself down stairs". If she had she would have had to have been hospitalized. William also has issues with his father, who used him in PR to promote Camilla and admitted publicly he never loved Diana. I think DIana's "overconfiding" was exaggerated by Charles' camp. William was in school for much of the time. Diana explained things to him because he would be aware of the media. After Charles confessed he never loved her, she told the boys that Charles did love her but they could not live together anymore. Things like that. I don't see why he'd bitter and angry with his deceased mother. Maybe some guilt because he did pull some stunts on her too like barring his parents from the Eton picnic. He was allowed to be a brat a bit too much. I think that's the trouble. His father coddled him and even had to apologize for him. Diana did not confide in young Harry only in the most general terms like assuring him that she and "Papa" love each other. I don't see DIana as a monster mother. Queen Mary was cold and remote to her children but Edward dutifully visited her in the UK after the abdication.
William lacks Diana's warmth. However much he talks about her it does not come off as sincere. Harry inherited DIana's warmth and humanity.
Could william not have approved of Diana because she "fussed" over Charles' thinking he had a right to a mistress. Kate apparently looks the other way, and Wiliam quickly tried to stop the stories about Rose. Maybe he thinks women should put up and shut up.
Person3514 I call them like I see them. I'm sure Thomas Markle love Meghan in some kind of way too. It doesn't matter what his feelings are for her, they are his feelings. Facts remains, he has behaved to his brother in the same manner that those who made Diana's life miserable behaved, so…
I agree. BnLurkNeva. William seems very cold and has a mean streak. I was horrified at his setting up that Flybe stunt. In the midst of Harry being trashed every day in the DM especially. Something very wrong. Which is why I am totally on Harry's side. William also could have "advised" Harry about Meghan in an obnoxious way.
FridaKhaloLover says:
I agree with this assessment too. While I can't ever judge someone for how they deal with grief, as I've read elsewhere, don't confuse a lack of expression with a lack of emotion, I certainly think William has a more detached, level opinion of his mum and Harry has idealised and defied her. In the documentary 20 years after her death, William said she gave him some final words, and when the interviewer asked if he remembered what they were, he smiled and said yes, but never hinted at what those words were. Harry said that during that same phone call, he had been in a rush to get off to go play with his cousins and barely remembers what was said. This stuck with me because, in a way, William had some closure or a fuller experience with her and I think Harry's loss is more acute, and laced with guilt.
@ Tess – it never ceases to amaze me how much people know about something when they weren't there!
I don't think Diana was a monster mother, but she had her issues. In the recordings for Andrew Morton's book, Diana herself says she threw herself down the stairs to get Charles's attention. Maybe she did only trip down a couple of stairs, but she did it on purpose. She said so herself. Diana was messy as hell before she died. She was a wonderful person that did amazing things, but she was human, not perfect.
My3cents says:
This is just wrong. Killing is not a sport or a game.
The hypocrisy of these people advocating for wildlife and protecting the environment while killing and "hunting" for fun is just too much.
Andrew's Nemesis says:
Absolutely vile. Shooting hundreds of birds and decimating the local wildlife is absolutely vile. Even offering the gralloch prayer is vile, because it's for the humans participating in the killing, not for the animals who don't understand why they are being terrified before they are killed. Let's never anthropomorphise animals or pretend that their death is a sacrifice or holy thing. Never.
That being said, William can mourn in any way he likes. It's not some performance for the royal reporters and the wider public: it's his grief. Let him be.
Mina_Esq says:
My mom's uncles and brothers are all hunters, and they are all big animal lovers. They respect nature and worry about conservation. While hunting is a sport, it is organized in sensible ways that actually helps the local wildlife. For example, not controlling the numbers of one species may endanger the survival of another. That's why there are different seasons and why you need a licence. I'm of course excluding trophy hunting from all of this. I'm disappointed that you'd label hunting as "vile", as if they are out there shooting puppies. Wildlife is a whole different story. Animals aren't out there having tea with one another in the forest.
Destroying land/other wildlife and then breeding birds in that area with the sole intention of killing as many as you can For sport is vile. Hunting an adult deer with the intention of eating it is not vile.
The royals do not think, well I am being environmentally protective and maybe most of the birds will be eaten. The birds are shot from the sky and suffer while dying. This is for sport and who can bag the most game in one day. They even keep score.
Hunting the way it is done by indigenous cultures is fine. It is done for sustenance and the entire animal is used. Grouse hunting is a white rich person's way to hunt and it needlessly kills birds and affects the ecosystem purely for sport.
My father also grew up on a farm and they were familiar with shot guns and occasionally certain animals were pests and needed to be shot. They did not however shoot up hundreds of birds for shits and giggles like what happens here.
They could take up skeet shooting and it would be far less destructive on the environment and they could still target practice.
@MinaEsq That's not what I said, Mina. I'm protesting those who claim that they pray over the creatures they kill as if their killings are somehow a holy thing. Those who breed and fatten birds for an afternoon of mindless blasting away with a twelve bore in an effort to secure the largest bag.
Disclaimer: I'm vegetarian, so I find the killing of all animals awful. I respect the way they live and interact with each other and, if they are able, nature, and never impose human emotions or perspectives on them.
The gralloch prayer is a holdover from pre-Christian pagan religious practices (Celtic animism) and it made a lot more sense in the historical context of that culture. In the pagan belief system, all animals and natural elements (like rivers and trees and weather) had a spirit that needed to be honored. If you killed an animal without paying respect to its spirit, you risked being attacked by the offended spirit instead of it peacefully transitioning into the spirit realm. The prayer was not directed at a monolithic God, but at the spirit itself if the animal was considered a divine messenger, or a local hunter-god associated with that type of animal.
When Christianity arrived, most of these pagan rituals were co-opted to get the populace to go along with the new religion. For a while people had beliefs from both ideologies. A few generations into Christianity, this kind of prayer stopped making much sense because the belief in animal spirits largely receded. There are still pockets of Celtic cultures that maintain those beliefs, but the royal family definitely doesn't count as one of those cultures.
Whatever anyone chooses to do to help them grieve is up to them. But I don't like the idea of a 7 year old going on a shoot killing birds. I know those who grow up shooting consider it to be so normal, i just can't imagine what would go through a 7 year olds head when they are told it's ok to kill an animal. I get that hunting is something that has to be done to cull the estate, doesn't mean I have to like it or participate in it.
I find it weird that kate gets praised for participating in these shoots. She was once called 'quite the marksman' around the same time Meghan was getting sh*t for supposedly stopping harry from hunting. Kate is supposed to be the 'lovely, kind, caring one yet she runs round wielding a gun shooting baby animals, yet evil wicked witch Meghan was 'controlling her man' because of her love of animals?
I totally agree. Hunting for a 7 year old must be traumatic.
George should have spent the day with his siblings instead of going out hunting with Daddy. It could have been a not so nice experience for him and probably wasn't. Dad does it for fun and sports and does not have to live on those grouse.
I guess you have never watched the series on tv called Our Yorkshire Farm!
I'm from yorkshire, but I haven't watched it.
It is a true story about a farming couple and their 9 (nine) children who live on an isolated Yorkshire farm. The youngest kids are under school age but the 4 year old already knows how to deliver a lamb and has watched a dead lamb being skinned and the coat being placed on another orphan lamb so its mother will suckle the orphan. She takes it all in her stride!!
How many of us, when young, have watch films with people being shot and killed!
Just a thought!
I think watching a film and seeing an animal die right in front of you are two very different things. I have never seen an animal die in front of me, but I imagine it would be quite upsetting, so I can't imagine what a child would think. I also can't imagine what they would think when it's their own parents pulling the triggers.
I think growing up on a farm is different because there's the nurturing aspect with the animals, you are taking care of them from birth to death. Willie and Kate don't take care of any animals, so all George is seeing is that the local wildlife is there for the kill, and he is being taught that killing is for sport and a for fun.
Living on a farm and dealing with the life cycle of animals and watching it in tv are two different things. What a ridiculous comment. Until you see an animal have the life bleed out in front of you, you have no idea what it's like.
I think the problem is that children tend to see things in black and white, so something is either right or wrong. When you tell a 7 year old it's ok to shoot an animal dead, what's to stop him thinking it's ok to hurt other animals or family pets, or children? He's not old enough to understand. But then again harry turned out alright.
You have to have a certain level of detached empathy to do it. That's what makes side eye Kate. People who grow up around hunting think it's completely normal which is understandable, but what's Kate's excuse. People who don't grown up with hunting will never understand it, but Kate seems to have no problem shooting animals. It kinda conflicts with her mother Theresa image.
Some of those people who grew up with it don't understand it either.
Olenna says:
IMO, it is irresponsible and hypocritical for Willie and/or Kate to introduce any of their young children to hunting if they don't need to kill animals to put on their table. For months, people on SM and blogs have been calling for Archie to be physically taken from Meghan and given over to the royal family or even the government for mugxit lies about child endangerment, abuse, neglect and so on. Yet, these same people are avoiding commenting on DM, People Mag, etc. articles about Willie and George grouse hunting, or they're are making excuses like, "Seeing as it isn't trophy hunting nor shooting endangered animals…I see no issue". Futher, Harry has been repeatedly labeled a hypocrite for everything good he tries to do, and there's no shortage of people repeatedly posting old pics of him game hunting. In their twisted minds, the Keens can do wrong and the Sussexes can do no right. Disgusting.
I can only imagine the slamming of Harry if he takes Archie out hunting when he is 7. And then Meghan will be blamed for it. William has gone on hunting weekends and at least one of them he had missed some shifts on his Air Ambulance rescue team work. It is just unacceptable for those posters to accuse Meghan of child abuse, Those comments are defamatory and should be removed. The idea of the royals raising Archie is truly frightening.
809Matriarch says:
I have an issue with certain hunting practices. My bf belongs to a hunting club. The men share costs of maintaining the hunting area. They plant green flora irresistible to deer. Then they hide in a shy & kill the hungry animals. Its more like booby trapping rather than "hunting".
I don't like it either. If you wanna play at survivalist, then you need to hunt like one. Go into the wild and see what you can do. Dont give yourself easier odds than you already have being a human with a weapon.
It's only a sport if both sides know the rules and are equally armed. Personally, I cheer when the animal gets the hunter, *depending on the hunter. I know it's wrong and I know I'll pay for it, but if you're in it for the thrill of the kill and the animal gets you? That just means someone finally leveled the playing field. Do you know that grizzlies up north have evolved to the point they understand gun shots in the forest mean food is wandering their home? Ain't evolution grand.
*some have to hunt and I have no problem with that, same with fishing, but douche bros who want to pretend slaughter is fun? Game on.
AnneliseR says:
I'm not vegetarian, so if you're a hunter who kills animals for food, I have nothing but respect. However, hunting animals just for the sake of killing them is gross and wasteful.
James, Edward's son was more of the right age. George turned 7 only recently I think he is too young. William go slammed in the DM comments sections but the bots came to the rescue and put in a lot of fawning comments.
Merricat says:
It makes sense to me that William, who was older when she died, would opt to spend the day insulated by royal tradition, while Harry, more openly vulnerable and younger, would mark it with thoughtfulness and poignancy. It is hard to lose a parent, no matter your age. I still feel sad for the boys they were.
L4frimaire says:
I don't particularly like the guy based on what he has done in the past few years, but Diana was his mother too and he grieves and misses her. I'm sure he resents how everyone seems to put Harry as her natural successor, but that is partly due to how he has shown himself to be. Whatever attributes in terms of personality or traits he got from his mother are too often overshadowed by the palace games he plays.
William if he wants to be Diana's son and someone who carries forth her legacy, should think about how he has been behaving lately. The Flybe stunt was just gross.
I think we can grant both Harry and William grace on this day. Going back to the place where he learned his mother was gone, forever, must have been tough. Planting forget me nots, remembering his mother in such detail, must have been tough. This day must be hard, every year. Grief never goes away, it breaks my heart to think about them both now and then.
RoyalBlue says:
Thank God Meghan got Harry to see the error of his ways with this cruel sport. I hope a grouse sneaks up and pecks Willileaks in the nuts.
Regarding William and Harry and Diana I think William sticks up for Diana over his father and that Diana was closest to him. I remember reading a while back that Diana said when William and Harry were young that Harry was closer to Charles.
Have any of you ever seen the famous photos of Diana (Charles was apparently right behind) running to greet the boys who were on a boat at the end of a few days away from them? The boys were side by side but it was William Diana was looking at and William she went to first although she could have scooped them both into her arms. That, for me, said it all. I think William and Charles are closer now but until a couple of years ago William would barely acknowledge Charles. It was all about his mother and the Queen. Harry was always much fairer.
Julia K. says:
I had the same reaction when seeing that photo years ago! First time someone else said what I've been thinking.
I am so glad someone else saw it!
William was to have been Diana's pot of gold. Her aim was always to get Charles bypassed in the succession so that the crown would go from Elizabeth 2 straight to William. Diana then saw herself as regent. Where her reckoning went wrong was with who actually died.. It was always William and Diana though. As for the succession Charles xmillion William.
It makes me think though that Diana had maybe put some of this into William's head.
I'm wondering how Charles tolerates all the spin that he should step aside for the "brilliant" Cambridges.
This just is so uncomfortable to me. I don't like the idea of young kids being around guns or killing animals , but then I live in the US where guns are too plentiful and cause so many tragedies and violence. I'm not against hunting per se, but definitely against trophy hunting. I not against hunting or people eating what they hunt but I couldn't do it. I've never eaten wild game but might try it ( once saw elk on a menu but couldn't go there). I think a lot of people on principle are against sport hunting in general so can see why some get upset by this. I get the impression that the Cambridge's are going to lean in harder into older, more royal, even reactionary, traditions as they get on.
Jaded says:
As if…Willnot and Cannot couldn't attract a Netflix deal if they paid for it themselves. Which they wouldn't because they're lazy and only spend tax-payer money. Troll.
They wouldn't be allowed to.
sarah1 says:
My only thought is this: that obviously upon reflection, the hunting pictures were taken down, I guess along with commentary. Where was the reflection beforehand. Why not apply this reflection and judiciousness beforehand. Why not counsel William before he goes to Ireland and says something stupid about Covid that people ARE NOT going to forget. Are you telling me their Palace staff cannot be fired? Do they have a vault with things that they blackmail the royal family with so the royal family can't fire stupid people and get someone with brains and experience to counsel them against stepping on all the wrong toes and ringing all the wrong bells.
I guess that was more than one thought. Thoughts of comfort to all re the Anniversary. I was in Austin when Diana died. I cried. I genuinely mourned her.
Firefly says:
My father drowned while on a camping trip. My brother frequently spends the anniversary of his death at the campsite where he died, fishing with friends. I on the other hand, went back there once and never will again.
People get to grieve however they want, no matter the optics. What's right for one person will be horribly wrong for another. I'm not a Will fan, but if going to Balmoral and hunting brings him comfort, then so be it. It's gross that this is even a "controversy."
A Fan says:
Where I am from, hunting/trapping is absolutely the norm. And so is bringing along children. What is common and acceptable in one area may not be in another.
[*I actually just had some delicious grouse for supper!*]
Mariane says:
We can all have different views on hunting but I'm sure we can agree that taking a 7year old(started when he was 5) to shoot birds bread for this specific purposes in 2020 is a bad idea. Those supporting them are assuming they are eating the birds when we've seen how they leave balmoral immediately after this hunt is over.
The fact that we haven't gotten a church ride picture(at least with Billie driving & lizzy in backseat) is proof that they already left for their 5th holiday of the year curtsy of taxpayers ofcourse
Waleses visit food bank empty-handed
'How do we develop emotional skills?'
Inside Julia Fox's NYC apartment
NYT op-ed: Harry exposes corrupt press
Royalists want Meghan to promote Spare


Contractors sharing knowledge, supported by industry.
Rugged, seasoned individuals who started as their own foreman and salesperson.
Efficient (read underpaid) husband and wife teams.
Business people who see that a well-run roofing company can return economic profit.
Multi generation companies where knowledge and skills are shared and built upon.
Young entrepreneurs, eager to learn, open to new ideas and growth.
Having all of these traits in one company? Priceless. Our featured contractor is an example.
Brazil Quality Construction, Inc. serves the greater Sacramento area in Northern California. John Louis Brazil Sr. taught his son Michael D. Brazil from an early age to take pride in his work. Michael was hand taught by his father to be a master shake and shingle applicator on roofs and walls. In May of 1989 Michael began contracting in the local Sacramento area. His wife Cyndi plays a critical role in the company office.
Michael D. Brazil taught his own children, Michael J. Brazil, Nicholas & Anthony, roofing skills with the same principles of pride and quality. Michael J., Nick and Anthony have all joined Brazil Quality Construction Inc. and continue to work with their parents.
Michael D., Michael J., Nicholas and Anthony have all taken the Tile Roofing Certification Course along with several of their staff. They are an impressive combination of the best in our industry.
Michael J Brazil – Brazil Quality Construction, Inc.
1. In addition to the value of roofing knowledge shared, is there a shared understanding that helps create the culture at Brazil Quality Construction Inc.?
I think culture is key, and cultures are created by beliefs, morals, ethics, standards, knowledge, etc. Cultures always start at the top. Many companies value speed and efficiency over quality. We are just the opposite. We applaud our team if they see something that should be improved and go the extra mile to do it right by our standards.
One aspect of my Dad's (Michael D. Brazil) personality that I respect the most is that poor installation is completely unacceptable. It creates our culture of uncompromising quality. If there is something wrong with our work we'll go back and make it right. That "quality first" mindset makes an impression on everyone at the company from his sons, to his sales team, and our roofers. Our homeowners and builders have the confidence that we will always stand behind our work.
In roofing it's always the "little things" that matter: the solder weld on the flashing, the downspout location on a lower roof, the flashing size, the way the valley is cut in at the eave, the nailing pattern, etc. All these little things add up to make a quality installation. We are extremely proud of our finished product because it doesn't come about on accident. We spend extra time on the roof, and in sheet metal shops to make sure the roof system we put on your house is tailor made for your architecture, and meets the needs of your specific home.
Houses are like a custom made suit, one size does not fit all. In the complex architectural world we work in a good roofer must know how to address each situation. So, in the end we all know what the Brazil standard is, and we don't compromise, even if that means losing work at times.
2. Your focus on Quality gives Brazil Quality Construction Inc. the feel of a company able to tend to discriminating, high end clients. But you are also putting down a lot of squares. How do you maintain that standard of quality in production scenarios?
See the Michael's response and more on the TRI Blog.
A recent "Ask the Expert" response by TRI President and Technical Director Rick Olson, addressing concerns about tile loaded, but not installed.
Response – From the tile standpoint there is no time table for when they are installed. The real issue is the length of time that the underlayment might be exposed to the UV. We always recommend that you check the underlayment instructions to see how long the material can be exposed prior to covering. In areas like Arizona, some of the lower end materials and some of the synthetics have a very short exposure time. In other areas, they may last longer. With so many different types in the market, we are not able to make a blanket statement on exposure times.
Read more on the TRI blog.
Check for schedule updates at www.tileroofing.org.
Renew Your Certification* & Stay on the Map!
Companies with TRI Certified employees are listed on the TRI Website Find a Contractor page. TRI Certification is good for 2 years. If your certification is about to expire or has expired within the past 6 months, you can renew on-line* by following the instructions on the TRI website.
*Florida High Wind certifications are not currently eligible to renew on-line. We hope to have that option added soon.


Recorded in New York City on December 3rd 1930 with Bobby Stark trumpet, Jimmy Harrison trombone, Benny Carter clarinet, alto sax, & leader, Coleman Hawkins tenor sax, Horace Henderson piano, Benny Jackson guitar, and John Kirby tuba.
*"Cloudy Skies" was composed by Coleman Hawkins.
Differing dramatically from the Don Redman's "Chocolate Dandies" the name was also used by Benny Carter for his sessions with Coleman Hawkins held at the beginning of the 1930's.


text:
Q: Oracle - determine and return the specfic hour of data with the highest sum of the values I think I can do this in a more roundabout way using arrays, scripting, etc...BUT is it possible to sum up (aggregate) all the values for each "hour" of data in a database for a given field?   Basically, I am trying to determine which hour in a day's worth of data had the highest sum...preferably without having to loop through 24 times for each day I want to look at.  For example...let's say I have a table called "table", that contains columns for times and values as the follows:
Time   Value
00:00  1
00:15  1
00:30  2
00:45  2
01:00  1
01:15  1
01:30  1
01:45  1

If I summed up by hand, I would get the following
Sum for 00 Hour = 6
Sum for 01 Hour = 4

So, in this example 00 Hour would be my "largest sum" hour.  I'd like to end up returning simply which hour had the highest sum, and what that value was...the other hours don't matter in this case.
Can this be done all in a single ORACLE query, or does it need to be done outside the query with some scripting and working with the times and values separately?  If not a single, maybe even just grab the sum for each hour, and I can run multiple queries - one for each hour?  Then push each hour to an array, and just use the max of that array? I know there is a SUM() function in oracle, but how to tell it to "sum all the hours and just return the hour with the highest sum" escapes me. Hope all this makes sense. lol
Thanks for any advice to make this easier. :-)

A: The following query should do what you are looking for:
SELECT SUBSTR(time, 1, 2) AS HOUR,
       SUM(amount) AS TOTAL_AMOUNT
FROM test_data
GROUP BY SUBSTR(time, 1, 2)
ORDER BY TOTAL_AMOUNT DESC
FETCH FIRST ROW WITH TIES;

The query uses the SUM function but grouping by the hour part of your time column.  Then it orders the results by the summed amounts descending, only returning the maximum value.
Here is a DBFiddle showing the query in use (LINK)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Give your Sweetie some sweets from Caramel Creations. Only $10 for a $20 voucher. That's a savings of 50%!!!
Caramel Creations offers a great Deal!
From Dakota Soap Works, Hand-Crafted Jewelry by Pat Blair and Amanda Frink and Grammas Delicacies, to their signature caramel apples, fudge, and other creations. Caramel Creations has it all. Their Signature Caramel Apples are made with Granny Smith Apples dipped in creamy homemade caramel with an assortment of toppings to choose from. Caramel Creations now owns Dakota Pride and will be offering a full selection of cashews and other candy delights. Come and enjoy their creations!
This is the perfect gift for your Valentine.
Print off voucher and bring to Rushmore Mall or Ellsworth locations and start shopping!!
We invite you to come see our new store at the Rushmore Mall. We carry many new items at Caramel Creations such as Dakota Soap Works, Hand-Crafted Jewelry by Pat Blair and Amanda Frink and Grammas Delicacies, Dakotas Pride as well as, our signature caramel apples, fudge, and other creations.


GUNN – ANNE DUNCAN (nee Allan) died suddenly on February 5, 2005 at her "wee" home in Aldergrove. Born October 1, 1940 in Cambusbarron, Scotland. Anne is survived by her beloved husband of 41 years Dave, her 3 children, Fiona Hinman, Alex (Ena) Gunn, Aileen (Darren) Frycz. "Granny" is sorely missed by her 5 grandchildren, Ashley Gunn, Emily Hinman, Jonah Hinman, David Frycz and Stephanie Gunn. Anne is also survived by her 2 big brothers William (Jean) Allan of Wellington, New Zealand and George (Sadie) Allan of Cambusbarron, Scotland; and many nieces, nephews and friends.
A survivor of breast cancer, Anne would have preferred that in lieu of flowers, donations be made either to the Canadian Cancer Society, 565 West 10th Ave., Vancouver, B.C. V5Z 4J5 or to the Canadian Diabetes Association, 1385 8th Ave. West, Vancouver, B.C. V6H 3V9.
A Memorial Service will be held at the Aldergrove United Church, 2623 272nd Street, Aldergrove, Saturday, February 12, 2005 at 1:00 pm.


text:
Section 174 and Section 163(j) among key tax changes for 2022
January 26, 2022 Article 11 min read
Stephen Eckert Michael Monaghan Kurt Piwko Josh Bemis Jennifer Keegan
Several federal tax changes took effect on Jan. 1, 2022, which may require consideration prior to the first estimated tax payment dates of 2022. Our tax experts highlight some of these changes and what you should consider now.
As we began a new calendar year, several federal tax changes quietly took effect. During 2021, much of the tax focus was centered around the Build Back Better Act (BBBA), which remains on hold in Congress. However, other tax rules were already set to change based on existing law. Those changes will impact current year tax liabilities and will require consideration prior to the first estimated tax payment dates of 2022. Here are our thoughts on what these changes mean and what might be possible for tax legislation during 2022.
What tax rules changed on January 1, 2022?
The federal tax changes for 2022 come from a variety of sources. Those include changes created by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) with delayed effective dates, the expiration of many COVID-19 pandemic-related programs, and new types of tax reporting.
Changes to the treatment of Section 174 research and experimentation (R&E) expenses: One of the most significant tax changes for many businesses in 2022 is a requirement that taxpayers capitalize and amortize their research and experimentation (R&E) expenses paid or incurred after Dec. 31, 2021, under Sec. 174. Previously, taxpayers were permitted to either deduct R&E expenses in the year they were incurred or amortize them over different periods of time depending on the nature of the expenses. However, taxpayers must now capitalize and amortize all R&E expenses. The relevant amortization period is five years for research conducted within the United States or 15 years for research conducted outside of the United States.
Legislative proposals have been introduced to modify the application of Sec. 174. The most recent draft of the BBBA contained a provision that would defer the effective date from 2022 to 2026. However, the BBBA has stalled in the Senate, and any legislative changes to Sec. 174 face a highly uncertain future.
Required capitalization under Sec. 174 will have a pervasive effect on most businesses. In particular, R&E expenses are broadly defined and will even eliminate tax deductions for businesses that are ineligible for the research and development credit under Sec. 41. Our webinar takes a deep dive into those definitional considerations and the expected impact on taxable income. Sec. 174 expense tracking is of great concern, as most businesses haven't historically tracked such expenses separately from general business expenses. While it's possible for Congress to defer these rules retroactively, we recommend clients consider the impact of these rules now to prevent future complications related to 2022 income tax filings, including estimated payments and short year returns due during 2022.
The most immediate impact of Sec. 174 will be on quarterly estimated tax payments, beginning with the first quarter of 2022. Corporations and individuals, including sole proprietors, partners, and S corporation shareholders, generally must make quarterly estimated tax payments if they expect to owe tax exceeding $500 for corporations and $1,000 for individuals. If a taxpayer doesn't remit an accurate estimated tax payment, the IRS may apply an underpayment penalty for each quarter that the taxpayer doesn't remit an accurate payment of estimated tax. A safe harbor applies to quarterly estimated tax payments for individuals, which requires that each payment captures one quarter of the lesser of:
90% of the tax owed for the tax year, or
100% of the tax owed in the previous tax year for individuals with an adjusted gross income below $150,000 (or $75,000 if married filing separately), or 110% of the tax owed in the previous tax year for all other individual taxpayers.
Large corporate taxpayers are provided a more limited safe harbor only as to the corporation's first quarterly payment. This first quarterly estimated tax payment may be calculated based on the lesser of the corporation's tax owed in the previous year or the tax owed for the current year. In order to avoid penalties, large corporate taxpayers who are impacted by Sec. 174 capitalization rules will need to account for those rules in quarterly estimated tax payments no later than the second quarter.
Below are some important steps businesses should consider taking now to prepare for the impact of these changes throughout 2022:
Understand the tax impact of capitalizing Sec. 174 expenses.
Identify steps that can be taken to prepare for changes to the deductibility of Sec. 174 expenses in their businesses.
Evaluate methods for tracking Sec. 174 expenses and develop best practices for tracking such expenses apart from other business expenses.
Model the impact of the required capitalization and amortization on current year taxable income, which may include indirect impacts to GILTI, Sec. 163(j), and other provisions.
Determine the methodology to be applied for estimated tax projections during 2022, such as calculating the actual impact of Sec. 174 or utilizing a high-level estimate based on assumptions. A related assumption is whether quarterly estimated tax payment calculations will be based on current year or prior year taxable income.
Modification to the Sec. 163(j) business interest expense limitation: Beginning in 2018, the TCJA required taxpayers to subject annual business interest expense deductions to a limitation based on a percentage of adjusted taxable income (ATI). The calculation of ATI begins with taxable income and includes a variety of additions and subtractions. A core feature of that calculation has been an add-back for depreciation, amortization, and depletion deductions, which facilitated enhanced deductions for asset-intensive businesses. However, in 2022 and subsequent tax years, the computation of ATI will no longer include that add-back.
The expiration of the depreciation, amortization, and depletion add-back will reduce the annual interest expense deductions for many businesses. The actual impact will ultimately depend on the amount of those deductions and the general profitability of the business. However, this will certainly reduce the aggregate amount of business interest expense deductions of businesses in 2022. Much like the changes to Sec. 174 expense deductibility, changes to business interest expense deductions must be factored into calculations for quarterly estimated tax payments. Fortunately, this change is a slight adjustment to existing rules, so the implementation process should be relatively simple.
Expiration of enhanced charitable contribution deductions: Several charitable contribution deduction rules also expired at the end of 2021. COVID-19 pandemic-related legislation provided increased and expanded charitable deductions in 2020 and 2021. Specifically, these included a temporary removal of the individual charitable deduction limit of 60% of taxable income, an increase in the corporate charitable deduction limit from 10 to 25% of taxable income, and an increase in the business food inventory charitable deduction limit from 15 to 25% of taxable income. It also created a temporary above-the-line charitable donation deduction of up to $300 for individual filers and $600 for married joint filers who claim the standard deduction. Those enhancements have all expired as of Jan. 1, 2022.
The charitable deduction enhancements allowed taxpayers to reduce their taxable income through planned giving during 2020 and 2021. Following the expiration of these enhancements, taxpayers are left with less generous options for planning 2022 tax deductions. When approaching tax planning and charitable contribution planning for this year, taxpayers should be mindful of the restoration of the 2019 charitable deduction rules.
End of the Employee Retention Credit (ERC) for current calendar quarters: The ERC was created by the CARES Act and has been a beneficial, refundable payroll tax credit for businesses that were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Our resource center provides important information for taxpayers who want to take advantage of the ERC. As of the end of 2021, the ERC is no longer available based on any current operations. The general ERC, based on either a partial or full shutdown or a decline in gross receipts, expired on September 30. However, the ERC for recovery startup businesses, which began on July 1, expired on December 31.
Although businesses will no longer be able to claim the ERC based on current operations and payroll tax returns, they may continue to retroactively claim the ERC for prior calendar quarters by filing amended payroll tax returns. Such filings are due within three years of the date their respective quarterly payroll tax return was filed or two years from the date they paid the tax reported on their quarterly payroll tax return, whichever is later. Since the qualifying tests and maximum allowable credit changed while the credit was in effect, businesses should reevaluate opportunities to claim the ERC during 2020 and 2021. If taxpayers want to avoid amending the credits claimed on their 2021 federal income tax returns, they should identify any ERC claims they are entitled to and file those claims before they file their 2021 federal income tax returns.
Expanded Child Tax Credit (CTC) and Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCC): The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) temporarily expanded the benefits of the existing Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCC) for middle- and low-income taxpayers. Under the expanded CTC, qualifying households were eligible for fully refundable maximum payments of $3,600 per child under six years old, and $3,000 for all other children. Monthly advanced payments of the CTC were also made to taxpayers between July and December 2021. Beginning in 2022, the CTC payments reverted to partially refundable maximum payments of $2,000 and the advanced payment feature also expired.
Similarly, the expanded CDCC made the credit refundable and increased the maximum payment for dependent care expenses from $3,000 to $8,000 for one qualifying dependent and from $6,000 to $16,000 for two or more qualifying dependents. Beginning in 2022, the CDCC returned to a nonrefundable credit and the maximum payments were reduced to $3,000 for one qualifying dependent and $6,000 for two or more qualifying dependents.
Taxpayers should plan for the lowered CTC and CDCC payments in 2022. Congress has considered further expansion of these programs as part of the BBBA. However, such legislation faces a challenging future given current developments.
Expanded Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): The ARPA temporarily expanded the EITC qualifications for taxpayers without qualifying children by reducing the minimum age of eligibility and increasing the maximum payments from $540 to $1,500. These changes are no longer available beginning in 2022.
Expanded Form 1099-K reporting requirements: The ARPA dramatically lowered the transaction thresholds requiring the issuance of a Form 1099-K, which reports payments received by a taxpayer through third-party payment settlement platform. This will apply to popular websites, such as PayPal, Etsy, and Venmo, among others. Qualifying payments for purposes of Form 1099-K are made for goods and services and don't include reimbursements, charitable contributions, or other similar transactions. For all qualifying transactions settled on Jan. 1, 2022, or later, the dual reporting threshold of greater than $20,000 in total payments and over 200 transactions will no longer apply. Instead, third-party payment settlement platforms will be required to issue a Form 1099-K to taxpayers for all qualifying payments when the total amount of such payments exceeds $600 in a single year.
Taxpayers should already be reporting 1099-K payment amounts on their tax returns, but the expanded Form 1099-K reporting will provide increased disclosure to the IRS. This will require taxpayers to exercise additional diligence in verifying that their Form 1099-K amounts are consistent with the income amounts taxpayers are otherwise reporting on their returns.
Will we see other tax changes during 2022?
The short answer is that the path forward for new tax changes is currently uncertain. The BBBA would make significant changes to existing tax rules, if enacted. However, on Dec. 19, 2021, Senator Joe Manchin announced that he "cannot vote to continue" with that bill. Since the Senate is evenly divided, and the BBBA doesn't have bipartisan support, a "no" vote from even one Democratic senator prevents passage of the bill. In the weeks that followed Senator Manchin's announcement, Democratic leadership indicated that negotiations on the BBBA would continue, although there have been few concrete developments beyond public statements. These developments stalled the BBBA and raise many questions about whether there is a path forward and what tax changes would be included in the bill if it does advance.
It's also possible for Congress to change tax rules during 2022 through legislation outside of the BBBA. One category to watch is taxpayer-favorable changes included in the BBBA that might have broader support in Congress (e.g., Sec. 174 modifications). A second category includes enhancements to tax rules that would address perceived gaps in existing law. Many of the proposals in the BBBA outside of the headline items would fall into this second category. Congress might also utilize tax changes to support businesses and individuals in response to either lingering challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic or broader economic concerns. Finally, Congress could alter rules that are set to change or expire on their own.
Tax changes advancing outside of the BBBA would likely be less sweeping in their scope and would instead impact more targeted types of taxpayers in either favorable or unfavorable ways. The process for any of these changes might also be subject to an elongated process, potentially being held until after the 2022 midterm elections. As the year unfolds, taxpayers should continue to monitor potential tax legislation, but the likelihood of significant changes become less likely with each passing day.
Tax rules have been continually modified throughout recent years, so it has been challenging to keep up to date with the current law. The changes that have so far taken effect for 2022 involve rules that have been known for months or years ahead of time. However, the general theme of these changes is a reduction in the available tax deductions for businesses and individuals. Ultimately, this means that taxable income projections will require greater scrutiny for both estimated payments during the year and the timing of when affected tax returns are filed. Sec. 174 is expected to demand the most attention given the work necessary to track expenses and apply the new capitalization and amortization rules. Throughout the coming year, taxpayers should keep these tax changes in mind so they can proactively plan for the impact to their 2022 tax position. Our experts can assist taxpayers in understanding the impact of these changes and develop a plan that makes sense for taxpayers and their businesses.
Changes to Section 174 research and experimentation expenses Outlook on tax rates and policy changes
Family Office Services Tax Tax Credits, Incentives, & Deductions
Automotive Construction Dealerships Energy Financial Services Food and Beverage Franchise Healthcare Higher Education Life Sciences & Medical Devices Manufacturing Metals Not-for-Profit Plastics Private Equity Professional Services Real Estate Restaurants Retail Technology Companies
Section 174 research expenses: What's changing and what are my next steps?
Webinar 60 min watch
Senate releases Build Back Better Act tax changes as progress slows
Infrastructure Act accelerates expiration of employee retention credit

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The CFPB recently announced the issuance of a proposal that would increase the number of "small creditor" financial institutions able to offer certain types of mortgages in rural and underserved areas. The proposed rule will be open for public comment until March 30, 2015. You can submit your comments online (Note: the proposal provides other methods to submit comments as well).
The loan origination limit would be raised from 500 first-lien mortgage loans to 2,000 and would exclude loans held in portfolio by the creditor and its affiliates.
The current total asset limit of less than $2.060 billion (as of January 1, 2015, adjusted annually) would not change; however, it would include the assets of the creditor's mortgage-originating affiliates in calculating whether a creditor is under the limit.
In addition to counties that are considered to be "rural" under the CFPB's current mortgage rules, the definition of "rural" would be expanded to include census blocks that are not in an urban area as defined by the Census Bureau.
Creditors that exceeded the origination or asset-size limit in the preceding calendar year would be allowed to operate, in certain circumstances, as a small creditor with respect to mortgage transactions applications received prior to April 1st of the current calendar year. The proposal would create a similar grace period for creditors that no longer operated predominantly in rural or underserved areas during the preceding calendar year.
The temporary exemption scheduled to expire on January 10, 2016 that allows small creditors to make balloon-payment Qualified Mortgages and balloon-payment high-cost mortgages, regardless of where they operate, would be extended to applications received before April 1, 2016.
Again, this is just a proposal. Should it be finalized, rest assured, we will be on top of it and update you via this blog and/or our Newsletter.


Win the race against yourself.
Speed training is like putting together a workout that will improve your bottom line. As you attempt to achieve your personal best, keep this equation in mind: Stride frequency + stride length = speed.
Every exercise you perform should connect to one or both parts of this equation. Here's what you can incorporate into your current exercise routine to improve your speed and make every run better than your last.
Triple flexion occurs during the front side of sprinting, when there is flexion in three joints: Hip, knee and ankle. Acceleration is a critical component to any training program to become faster. You need to be able to apply force into the ground as you run to increase your acceleration.
For example, if you wanted to step on an orange and crush it flat, how would you step on it? In order to generate the most power, you wouldn't lift your foot merely an inch or two above the orange. Most people would raise their leg as high as they could, with a bent knee and their toe flexed to the sky.
In raising your foot about twelve inches over the orange, you would actually flex your ankle at the same time, unknowingly creating triple flexion. The same is true with running. You have to have your foot in the correct position to be able to apply force to the ground to accelerate.
Triple extension occurs when the ankle, knee and hip joints are all extended. Triple extension is often overlooked or neglected when trying to increase speed. Triple extension and acceleration are driving forces to gain ground (stride length). Triple extension also affects triple flexion. The greater range of motion achieved with extension will allow for optimal flexion at the hip. This will allow you to apply more force to the ground. Again, think about creating power to step on an orange and crush it.
The better you are at maintaining balance and your center of gravity, the faster you can become. This is because, when sprinting, you're actually balancing on each foot for about 1/100th of a second. When most people think of balance, they envision a person standing on one foot. This is a type of balance known as static balancing. Runners benefit more from learning how to maintain balance dynamically during movements. If you can't balance well, your body will lack the stability to transfer speed from one leg to the other. Improving your balance will make you more stable with each stride.
For example, if you have trouble standing on one leg, you'll use a lot of energy trying to stay balanced. Leaning to the left and flailing arms are all wasted energy. The same principle goes for running. Your body uses a lot of energy to stabilize. As you improve your balance, your body uses less energy with each step. Balance training two to three days a week will help improve your speed.
Optimal stride length helps the runner gain ground. When you reach maximum speed, your stride will be 2.1 to 2.5 times the length of your leg. But it's also important not to overstride. Overstriding is when you place your front leg further than your center of gravity. This is also known as braking. Runners often think this will help them to gain more ground, but it decreases their speed. Overstriding can also lead to lower back pain as the heel hits the ground first and applies excess force to the lower back. What's more, you can't have triple flexion if you overstride to gain more ground. Recording your running stride and playing it in slow motion is a great way to see if you're overstriding.
This is the number of steps a runner takes in a given amount of time, or over a given distance. To achieve optimal stride frequency, runners generally use a cyclical motion, similar to riding a bike. The combination of optimal stride length and stride frequency will lead to an increase in speed.
The absence of optimal range of motion and flexibility in the upper body also decreases the range of motion during sprinting. That's why practicing upper body speed mechanics is important in a speed training program. While running, the arms and legs move in unison. This is the body's way of trying to find its center of gravity to maintain balance. It also allows for optimal range of motion in the upper and lower body during triple extension and triple flexion. The hands should be relaxed and the fingers slightly curled, as if they were carrying a light bulb.
While running, think of "cheek to cheek." Keep your front arm at a 90 degree angle toward your face by your cheek. Your back arm should be at 120 degrees with your elbow bent and your hand by your backside cheek.
Practicing these areas can help improve your running form and increase your speed. Practice them together, because one is not more important than the next. They'll all help your bottom line equation to becoming faster.
Remember, stride frequency + stride length = speed.
The information provided is for educational purposes only. It is not intended as medical advice. Always consult your doctor for appropriate health advice and guidance, including prior to starting a new diet or exercise program.


Don't ask why, but I love the industrial style residential interiors! I will not bore you too much with words today, instead I'll just show you some of the most beautiful, cozy and comfortable yet industrial homes I've ever seen! I definitely see our home in the same style as the following photos.
What is most striking about this style is that although it may seem austere (when you hear industrial you automatically think of big plants and production sites, right?), it can be combined with chic and lavish items, making it very cozy and suitable for a home.
First up is a former warehouse renovated into a stylish industrial loft by it's owner, Marius Haverkamp. Check out flow.nu for more of his work. I am just awe struck by this incredible window wall and the luxurious chandelier, not to mention the high ceiling!
The characteristics of the industrial style are the unfinished look of brick walls, exposed pipes and metal on walls and doors, just as seen above.
Here is another take on the industrial style coming from Tiltpixel, a studio of artists passionate about real estate, architecture and art (as they describe themselves). The room is like a men's only club, very masculine, industrial looking, with a splash of vintage. The big windows allow enough light into the room to save it from the "cave" look, but maintain a sense of mystery throughout the room. When I look at the leather couches and the minimalist table in the front I can't help but wonder what kind of conversations have happened here. This is the kind of space that inspires the big minds to create even bigger ideas!
The intricate details that make up the industrial style are the small chairs near the bar at the back, the small table on the left side, the exposed ventilation system at the top and the brick walls of course. And somehow it doesn't feel cold. Do you know what I mean?
Remember how I said that you can combine industrial with other items rich in texture and make the entire look a little more cozy or luxurious? Well, the following photo from a Paris residence was brought to my attention by Patricia Miyamoto (from Maison Miyamoto in Antwerp, Belgium), an architect specializing in premier residential and commercial projects. The space encompasses exactly this combination of cold and warm: industrial looking metal door right next to a rich chandelier and modern wooden chairs. Exquisite!
And now la pièce de résistance: the residence on Division Street, Portland, Oregon renovated by Emerick Architects. Hands down the most beautiful industrial home I have ever seen! The stainless steel cabinetry is absolutely amazing; the railings, light fixtures, concrete walls scream industrial design. And what a shock (in a good way) it is to see an elegant sofa and armchairs in such a cold environment. The wooden dining table adds a lot of warmth to the entire space.
You can see the entire renovation process and more photos of this amazing urban loft here: Emerick Architects – Division Street.