Posted on 01/11/2015 4:36:11 PM PST by annalex
On his personal Facebook page, the Prince Charles-Philippe d'Orléans, Duc d'Anjou explained himself following the attacks in Paris. No, the prince is not a part of this vast movement "I'm Charlie" although obviously he condemns these acts that have so shaken France and worldwide.
Here is his statement:
"I will go against the tide of emotional propriety by separating me from the movement "I'm Charlie." No, I'm not Charlie because I never liked that Manichean newspaper. Charlie Hebdo is a vulgar paper, despising all opinions except its own, which, under the guise of freedom of expression, will allow provocative behavior to all. Charlie Hebdo is an aggressive newspaper that produces hatred of religions through its, supposedly, humor. Charlie Hebdo is the very image of the European atheist society which creates enmity and distress instead of respect and brotherhood among peoples and men, regardless of their differences, race, color, religion.
So I refuse to take part in a "republican sacred covenant" to defend Charlie because, simply, I do not understand what I have to defend.
I am neither disrespectful nor indecent and do not want to offend the memory of the killed cartoonists. Words fail to tell the horror of the attack that hit the newspaper. I condemn this barbaric act and present to families and relatives of the deceased my deepest condolences.
I denounce justly this sterile attempt to bring about national unity and I denounce the hypocrisy of the citizens who have never read this humor publication and who have always criticized the weekly. To honor the victims, yes. Honour Charlie Hebdo, no."
Because France does not have nobility. Thus, anyone claiming to be French nobility is a figure of fun.
From the dictionary:
pre·tend·er
From the Wikipedia:
Prince Charles-Philippe Marie Louis of Orléans, Duke of Anjou (French: Charles Philippe Marie Louis d’Orléans; born 3 March 1973, in Paris) is a member of the House of Orléans. He is the older of two sons of Prince Michel d'Orléans, comte d'Évreux, and his wife the former Béatrice Pasquier de Franclieu. His paternal grandfather was Henri, Count of Paris, the Orléanist pretender to the French throne. As such, Charles-Philippe takes the traditional royal rank of petit-fils de France with the style of Royal Highness.
The grandson of a pretender is a pretender.
Nobility has been obsolete since George Washington bailed out after two terms, setting the precedent that there should be no King of the United States. If the United States does not need a king, no nation does.
Not that there is anything wrong with the Pretenders!
Neither Washington or anyone else removed nobility from noblemen. They are noblemen forever, — unless, of course a narrow circumstance emerges when they are disgraced and then a court capable of deciding such matters removes the status. In the US the titles of nobility are not recognized. That is all.
Of course a noblemen — or anyone can be a pretender to the throne. That is no different than, say, a GOP pretender to the presidency. Different word, same meaning. If His Grace ever ascends to the throne, God bless him and God bless the French people. Clearly he will do good. As far as I know he did run for presidency too. I don’t’ know, however, if His Grace ever advocated a return to the monarchy. At this point there is no environment in France to have a realistic expectation of a restoration. However, if the royal house of Orleans keeps educating the French public about right and wrong, it already will be doing the job of the royals.
You might wish to look up what a pretender to the throne/crown IS before stating that this man is a “pretend” prince, using the word in its common American usage.
So are you a Legitimist, an Orleanist or a Bonapartist?
Absolutely don’t care. I am not French; I am simply a monarchist. I believe that any nation will benefit once it establishes a monarchy, if it can. We, for example, cannot, — in the foreseeable future that is. But some nations have living royals that could step up.
Well, of the three I would not think the Bonaparts have any claim at all, — for them the title comes from a revolutionary usurper of power. But it is for the French to choose.
Go back far enough and every monarchy started with a revolutionary usurper. In France, both the legitimists and the Orelanists (dubiously) claim descent from Charlemagne. But Charlemagne’s own family were usurpers - aides to the Merovingian dynasty they usurped. Go back in any line and you’ll see thugs with clubs, not any kind of enlightened rule. I’m having trouble seeing a principle other than “it was a long time ago” that makes dynastic thuggery by one family ok, but wrong when done by say, the Clintons.
The truth is this. Take the worst politician of today and tell him: "You keep your role forever. Then you pass it on to your children. Only a popular uprising might eventually topple your rule. Go govern." The result will be positive. Some will succeed and some will fail but all will improve. Why? Because there will be no need to sell government services to the electorate. The renter will become an owner. It is, for example, unthinkable that in peacetime a monarch will accumulate government debt, -- because it is his own children that will have to pay it.
We've already tried these experiments. Having the surname "Bush" basically guarantees election to high office or at least the GOP nomination. A generation ago, the name "Kennedy" did the same. I'm not convinced the results have been altogether positive.
Nepotism and political dynasties are the WORST aspects of American politics. As bad as they are now, they'd be a thousand times worse if they were institutionalized and made official.
No, we did not have the experiment. We had two Bush presidents, one lost the re-election and both had to fight in competitive campaigns each time. That meant that they had to sell increased government service, either in the form of welfare or in the form of military expenditures. I simplify, of course, but no matter how popular a politician is, he is still a politician and has to find his client group and feed it, usually by borrowing from someone else’s children.
The point is, we have political dynasties and family nepotism now. Unless you think that this is a great thing in and of itself, I fail to see how making it an official institution could make a bad thing better rather than making it worse.
Nepotism is not a good thing, and yes, we have that. We don’t have monarchy though: the property arrangement based on inalienable rights.
Hereditary privilege is just officially, legally sanctioned nepotism. If unofficial nepotism is a sign of corruption (which it is), then hereditary office is just corruption by legal fiat.
Wrong. hereditary rights are simply property rights. Ever inherited anything? Was it nepotism?
So let the nobles buy/earn property and pass that on to their children, just as everybody else does. A nation is not “property” that can be inherited.
A nation as a whole is, of course, not property. However, the inanimate national infrastructure: institutions of authority, posts, roads, the military hardware and structures, - are property and under monarchy have an owner. Under democracy they only have renters.
IF this Prince Charles is indeed in direct lineage to Charles Martel, then we must remember who Charles Martel was and what Martel means - he became ruler of the Franks(a Germanic tribe) and Martel means Hammer of the Muslims as in he defeated them in 732 AD at the Battle of Tours as in Tours, France! People, history is about to repeat itself! As the Archbishop of Mosul has stated, “... you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.