An animal rights group has accused the Prince and Princess of Wales of being "staggeringly out of touch" for breeding their family cocker spaniel.

Animal shelters are "overflowing with puppies desperate for a second chance at a loving home", said People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and nobody should be "churning out a litter" during an animal homelessness crisis.

Peta is well known for its outspoken views and use of shock publicity tactics but this is not the first time that members of the royal family have been caught up in controversy about their relationship with animals.

What's happened in the past?
The way royals treat animals has brought them both praise and criticism over the years. When Queen Victoria and her husband Albert bought the Balmoral estate in 1852, they were "largely responsible for introducing grouse shooting to Britain's upper classes", said anti-hunting campaign group Protect the Wild.

In 2004, a "smiling" Prince Harry was photographed crouching over the body of one-ton water buffalo, said the Daily Mail. The picture was taken moments after he shot the animal dead on a hunting trip in South America. His brother, Prince William, was taken to task for going boar-hunting in Spain, and his wife Catherine has been criticised for taking part in grouse and pheasant-shooting with the rest of the royal family.

What about all their charity work?
The royals have also supported many animal causes. Prince Philip was long associated with the work of the World Wildlife Fund, becoming its UK president – ironically, in the same year as he shot a tiger in India.

Queen Elizabeth II, who famously owned corgis and was an expert on racehorses, was a patron of more than 30 animal charities and helped to raise awareness of issues such as the illegal wildlife trade. She was also a regular visitor to the pigeon lofts at Sandringham and was known for her love of cows.

What about Charles and Camilla?
King Charles is a patron of the RSCPA and the charity has praised his "continued" and "invaluable" support for animal welfare. And, last year, Queen Camilla promised that she would not buy any new fur products. In a letter to Peta, Buckingham Palace said the Queen "will not procure any new fur garments". Welcoming the development, The Independent said Camilla was using her "privilege to set a moral example". 

Careless selfie-seeking behaviour has prompted the Uffizi Galleries in Florence to limit visitors taking pictures, as a row over smartphone etiquette in museums intensifies.

This week, an 18th-century portrait at the Uffizi was damaged by a tourist who fell into it after posing for a photo in front of it and, in April, a tourist broke a crystal-studded Nicola Bolla chair at a gallery in Verona after slipping as he pretended to sit on it for a selfie.

'Crass behaviour'
Most breaches of museum etiquette can be blamed on the mere "stupidity" of ordinary visitors but, even if unintentional, the consequences can be as "destructive as the wilful vandalism of protesters", said Richard Morrison in The Times. And "such crass behaviour is not confined to Italy", with museums around the world full of visitors far more intent on "taking selfies" than "looking at the masterpiece itself".

Some galleries and museums have tried to "ingratiate themselves with the young" by making themselves "selfie-friendly", otherwise fearing a "crackdown would deter visitors", said Celia Walden in The Telegraph. But that approach runs "the risk of alienating their core clientele".

'Part of 21st-century life'
Older art-lovers may view selfie-taking as a "lack of appreciation, ignorance or even a touch of narcissism" – including several museums that have already "banned selfies altogether" – but people taking photos in front of famous works is an "inescapable part of 21st-century life," said Rebecca Carlsson at Museum Next. When practised responsibly, it can be a "fun and harmless way to engage with the exhibits" and, for some visitors, it can even "enrich the entire museum experience".

It's "pure snobbery" to "assume anyone is failing to appreciate art" because they are taking a selfie, said Jonathan Jones in The Guardian. Passing judgement on how others enjoy the works on display in galleries is "a dubious activity", especially when most people take photos "responsibly and politely: taking turns, not hogging".

The occasional "selfie disaster won't spoil the incredible Italian art legacy" and the trend will eventually fade. The history of tourism is rife with "fads, absurdities and ignorance" that have never stopped it offering a "culturally uplifting experience".

Norfolk: Willow House, Holme Lane
A striking country house with attractively landscaped gardens and an impressive lake, set within grounds of approx. 10 acres. Main suite, 4 further beds (1 en suite), shower room, kitchen, 3 receps, study, garden room, cart lodge, outbuildings, double garage. OIRO £1.75m; Sowerbys.

Suffolk: The West Front, Bury St Edmunds
An impressive Grade I property within the remains of the Abbey of St Edmund, constructed during the 12th century. 4 beds (1 en suite), family bath, kitchen/breakfast room, 2 receps, communal garden and courtyard. £825,000; Bedfords.

Norfolk: Brandiston Hall, Norwich
Grade II country house with 17th century origins. 6 beds (1 en suite), 3 baths, kitchen, 3 receps, 8 acres of gardens and grounds, outbuildings, double garage. £1.7m; Savills.

Norfolk: The Clock Tower, Old Hunstanton
Grand Victorian coach house within the historic grounds of Old Hunstanton Hall, in approx. 2.4 acres. 5 beds, 4 baths, 4 receps, kitchen/dining room, outbuildings, gardens, moat. £1.7m; Sowerbys.

NATO's 5 percent spending pledge is a threat to people and the planet
Nick Buxton on Al Jazeera
"NATO has committed" to a "huge escalation of military expenditure", from "an already very high level", writes Nick Buxton. The extra money will be "diverted" mainly from "social and environmental spending", and this will "worsen the climate crisis". "NATO seems most concerned" with driving the growth of its arms firms, and its "bellicose stance" makes it "one of the greatest threats to global security – even to life on this planet".

NDAs Are Problematic. That Doesn't Mean We Should Ban Them
Rosa Prince on Bloomberg
Non-disclosure agreements are "increasingly used to cover up wrongdoing", including "sexual harassment and even assault", writes Rosa Prince. Banning them "outright" isn't "the answer"; there are times when employers need to protect "market-sensitive material". But "there's no doubt they have become a problem". UK ministers are now considering following other countries in restricting them. They "should legislate" to ensure NDAs "can no longer be used to silence" complaints.

In defence of exorcism
Francis Pike in The Spectator
When I told colleagues "that I hired someone to perform an exorcism" at my house on the "ghost of a young girl", there was "suspiciously demonic laughter", writes Francis Pike. But I was "so convinced" by the results that I arranged for my new flat to have a "psycho-spiritual once-over". In Britain, exorcism is often seen as "an archaic medieval hangover" but demand is rising. Belief in ghosts "still has a place in modern life".