Replace the real bearskins used for the Queen’s Guard’s caps with faux fur
The Parliament petitions site records 106,354 signatures for this petition, which closed on 6 July 2022. The Government responded on 11 February 2022. MPs debated it in Westminster Hall on 11 July 2022.
The petition
The petition's creator is not named in the Petitions site's published record. Quoted in full from the UK Parliament petitions site.
Replace the real bearskins used for the Queen’s Guard’s caps with faux fur
There is no excuse for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to continue to effectively fund the slaughter of bears for ceremonial headgear since an indistinguishable alternative has been produced, which is waterproof, and mimics real bear fur in appearance and performance.
According to PETA, it takes the skin of at least one bear to make a single cap. There are concerns that some of the bears whose fur is used for this headgear are shot several times by hunters and can endure slow, painful deaths.
It is unconscionable to continue to spend taxpayers’ money (£1 million in the last seven years) on a product that 93% of British people refuse to wear. The MoD is not exempt from the ethical standards of the rest of society. For this national symbol to endure in a way that embodies modern society, it must be replaced with faux fur.
The Government's response
The Government published its response on 11 February 2022; the petitions site lists the Ministry of Defence as responsible. Its summary:
Currently we have no plans to end the use of bearskins. Bear pelts that are used are the by-products of a licensed cull by the Canadian authorities to manage the wild bear population.
The opening 365 words of the 458-word response:
Bears are never hunted to order for use by the MOD. Our suppliers source pelts made available by the Canadian authorities following a licenced cull as part of a programme to manage the wild bear population; Provincial, territorial, federal and international laws provide strict trade regulations to protect against unlawful trade in black bears both within Canada and internationally.
Bear pelts that are used for the Queen’s Guards ceremonial caps are the by-products of these licenced culls, as opposed to fur being harvested from an animal being bred for this sole purpose. Therefore, any reduction in the number of bearskins procured by the MOD would not equate to a reduction in the numbers of bears being culled.
Guardsmen take great pride in wearing the bearskin cap which is an iconic image of Britain. It must look smart but also be practical for the guardsman to wear in wet or dry weather. The material it is made from must therefore meet the five required criteria. MOD do use man made alternatives in their uniforms where these provide suitable, affordable and sustainable alternative to animal products. For example the smaller busby hats worn by the King's Troop are made from faux fur. Unfortunately, there is currently no non-animal alternative available that meet the essential criterion for the Queen’s Guards ceremonial caps.
A man-made fabric manufactured by Ecopel was passed to an independent testing house by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), and those results were shared with the MOD. However, our analysis of the results shows that it does not in fact reach the standards needed to provide an effective replacement for our bearskin ceremonial caps.
Analysis of these recent tests conducted on the fake fur fabric showed it met only one of the five requirements to be considered as a viable alternative for ceremonial caps. Whilst it met the basic standard for water absorption, it showed unacceptable rates of water shedding and performed poorly on the visual assessment. As the artificial fur sadly didn't meet the standards required for a ceremonial cap which is worn throughout the year and in all weathers, the MOD has no plans to take this fake fur fabric forward.
Read the full response on the petitions site.
Where the signatures came from
Signatures came from 650 constituencies on the boundaries used until the 2024 general election. The largest number, 368, came from Brighton, Pavilion.
104,119 of the signatures were from the UK and 2,235 from elsewhere, by the location signers gave.
| Constituency | Signatures |
|---|---|
| Brighton, Pavilion | 368 |
| St Ives | 357 |
| Isle of Wight | 343 |
| Wells | 324 |
| Hove | 314 |
| Hastings and Rye | 308 |
| Torridge and West Devon | 301 |
| Brighton, Kemptown | 300 |
| Folkestone and Hythe | 291 |
| Somerton and Frome | 291 |
| Region | Signatures |
|---|---|
| South East | 17,058 |
| South West | 12,365 |
| East of England | 11,013 |
| North West | 10,923 |
| London | 10,185 |
| West Midlands | 8,139 |
| Yorkshire and The Humber | 7,745 |
| Scotland | 7,649 |
| East Midlands | 7,368 |
| Wales | 5,717 |
| North East | 3,591 |
| Northern Ireland | 1,367 |
Debate in Parliament
MPs debated the petition in Westminster Hall on 11 July 2022. Read the debate in Hansard. House of Commons Library debate pack.
Source and receipt
- https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/602285.jsonUK Parliament Petitions API · read 2026-10-15 · SHA-256
85ca3994d79d4a66… - The petition on petition.parliament.uk
The petition's words are its creator's and the response is the Government's; this site quotes both and gives no view on either. Signature counts can still change while a petition is open. To report an error, send a correction request.