The government has rejected replacing Buckingham Palace guards’ bearskin hats with “faux fur”, claiming the alternatives do not look right and are too uncomfortable.
The Ministry of Defence says it has tested four different types of synthetic fur for use on the iconic military caps, but that none of them are good enough.
It comes as around 50,000 people have signed a parliamentary petition urging the government to switch to an alternative which does not involve killing bears to make hats.
Animal rights and anti-cruelty groups say alternatives are available – and are much more humane than skinning animals. Campaigners said the government’s claims about the skins were “cynical and misleading” and that the MoD had “actively thwarted” attempts to find a replacement.
But Jeremy Quin, the minister of state for defence procurement, said fake fur does not “meet the required standard for the Queen’s Guards ceremonial caps”.
The Ministry of Defence says it has tested four different types of synthetic fur since 2015, assessing the hats in laboratory tests in the five areas of “water absorption, penetration, appearance, drying rate and compression”. The hats would also have to be judged to meet the same standards “for shape and comfort for a parade length of duty”.
The defence minister Mr Quin said that while newer synthetic hats performed well in wet conditions, the MoD was concerned that they might not be breathable enough or maintain their shape well.
He also said even the best-performing alternatives “performed poorly on the visual assessment”, meaning the Ministry of Defence judged that they looked bad.
Fur for the guardsmen’s hats is currently procured from Canada, where around 20,000 wild black bears are killed every year as part of a regular cull.
The issue of replacing the bearskin caps was reportedly among objections raised in Boris Johnson’s Cabinet against a a general ban on fur imports – which has now been shelved.
Claire Bass, executive director of Humane Society International told The Independent: “At a time when most of the British population rejects the cruelty of the fur trade, and after the Queen herself made the decision not to buy any new furs, the Ministry of Defence’s determination to keep using Canadian black bears for guards’ hats looks very out of touch.”
She said humane alternatives made by Stella McCartney and top faux furrier Ecopel reportedly “met all the requirements given by the MoD, including passing the MoD’s water shedding test”.
And she warned: “Canada allows awful cruelties to be inflicted on black bears, including hunters using bows and arrows and even spears. The Queen’s guards are a symbol of ceremonial pride, but there is nothing remotely majestic about inflicting lingering painful deaths on bears. We urge the MoD to move with the times and go faux.”
Sonul Badiani-Hamment, UK director at animal welfare charity FOUR PAWS UK, said the MoD’s objections were “unjustifiable”. She told The Independent: “In a day and age when huge strides are being made to improve animal welfare, it is shameful that animals are still being slaughtered for an item that can be easily replaced with artificial fur.”
Elisa Allen, director of animal rights charity Peta said: “The Ministry of Defence is taking the British public and Parliament for fools by falsely claiming nothing short of real bearskins will do for the Queen’s Guard’s caps.
“The idea that a viable faux fur is unattainable for ornamental headgear – when the world’s most celebrated and accomplished designers have all ditched real fur in favour of faux – is utter nonsense and insults our intelligence.”
Ms Allen said the MoD had “assured Peta that it would do a trial run of any suitable faux fur we developed” but that “instead, it has been actively thwarting attempts to replace the bearskins used for the caps with a humane equivalent”.
Ms Allen added: “The high-performing faux fur, created by PETA and world-renowned faux furrier ECOPEL, is the exact length of real bear fur and is waterproof to the MoD’s standards.
“Tests conducted by the ministry’s own accredited laboratory show that the fabric looks like and performs in a remarkably similar way to real bear fur.
“The MoD’s cynical and misleading responses to the proposed use of faux fur for the Queen’s Guard’s caps must be challenged. When we reach 100,000 signatures on our government petition, we’ll force a parliamentary debate on the issue, restoring power to the British public to demand a modern, humane alternative that would save taxpayer money and spare bears’ lives.”
In a written answer to a question by Labour MP Rachel Maskell, the minister Mr Quin said: “There is currently no faux fur alternatives that meet the required standard for the Queen’s Guards ceremonial caps.
“Bears are never hunted to order for use by the Ministry of Defence (MOD). Our suppliers source pelts made available by the Canadian authorities following a licensed cull as part of a programme to manage the wild bear population. Where appropriate the MoD uses faux fur alternatives for ceremonial wear, providing they meet the specific user requirements.
“In order for an alternative fabric to be considered for use in the ceremonial caps, it would need successfully he perform in the following five areas: water absorption, penetration, appearance, drying rate and compression.
“In addition to passing initial laboratory tests, any new fabric would have to gain user approval for shape and comfort for a parade length of duty. This would assess whether the fabric could maintain its shape over time and whether it is comfortable and safe for the user. For example ensuring any waterproof backing is breathable and whether the alternative fabric is waterproof after the shaping, sewing and perforation during production. Consideration would also be given to its sustainability compared to the current natural fur fabric.”
The minister added: “There have been four synthetic furs tested since 2015. The artificial fur tested in 2018 failed in all five areas. Tests conducted in 2019 and 2020 on another two samples showed that, while the water penetration was reduced, it still did not meet the necessary standard.
“It also performed poorly in the remaining areas. The most recent test results, provided by PETA, have also been analysed. The analysis concluded that the fabric only met one of the five basic requirements necessary to be considered as a viable alternative for ceremonial caps.
“While it met the basic standard for water penetration, it showed unacceptable rates of water shedding and performed poorly on the visual assessment. Results for the artificial fur’s drying rate and compression were not presented.
