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."
If you want to be on this right wing, monarchy, paleolibertarianism and nationalism ping list, but are not, please let me know. If you are on it and want to be off, also let me know. This ping list is not used for Catholic-Protestant debates.
As I wrote earlier, I am not Charlie, but I stand with Charlie. The world can live with the juvenile vulgarity of Hebdos, but it cannot live with the juvenile thuggery of Islamic terrorism. To a Christian, Charlie Hebdos is the opposition, but Islam is the enemy.
A prince? Who cares what ANY member of ANY monarchy has to say?
What’s he supposed to be prince of anyway? It can’t be France, they fixed that “royal” problem back in the day.
o this will tweak the medianistas.
“Who cares what ANY member of ANY monarchy has to say?”
If he’s right, he’s right whether he’s a nobleman or not. And...he is right.
“What’s he supposed to be prince of anyway? It can’t be France, they fixed that “royal” problem back in the day.”
The title is passed down anyway. There has always been a strong monarchist tradition in France - even 2020 year after the French Revolution.
Oops, that should be “220 years”.
Bingo. This is one of my pet peeves. This gent is no more a prince (of anything) than I am.
I’m sure the Muzzies will appreciate that as they cut off his head.
There’s always a few dumb asses left I guess. Does anyone there actually believe that divine right exists and that God has picked a monarch?
And anyway, I don’t think he’s right. He is just mad because his religion was probably lampooned too.
Jerks like this “nobleman” (whatever THAT is) would prefer moslems not be laughed at as long as it protected HIS religion too. A total low life. He has more in common with ISIS than he does Americas founders and the enlightenment.
The next cartoons should be aimed at this clown.
He’s so bright that he doesn’t even click that it’s funny for a guy named “Charles” to stand up and proclaim “I am not Charlie”! lol
They didn’t fix the royal problem, as they kept getting kings and emperors after 1789.
The final removal of the last king (Napoleon III) was courtesy of the Germans in 1870.
As for why they should listen - the French, like all Europeans, are a tribal people. They have been straining very hard to deny this but its obviously not working for them, this business of a France defined by a purely legalistic identity. Only the US has made a go of building a nation out of a philosophy, and its often been quite a stretch. Ol’ Charlie here is the hereditary, traditional chief of the French tribe, the heir to the ancient Kingdom of the Franks (or at least by some theories of the matter). He is head of his branch of the house of Bourbon, of the house of Orleans, and his lineage goes back directly to Charles Martel (albeit through various female lines when dynasties changed).
For some strange reason, monarchism has always been somewhat common in France. The problem for the monarchists - and this is a problem for monarchies everywhere - is that everybody likes the of having a king so long as they're the king. Hence the three major factions.
Don’t have to have a divine right.
Tribal tradition is enough.
There are excellent historical reasons for monarchy.
Its not something the US has needed, but the French are not the same as the Americans.
It neither valorizes the murdered nor does it excuse the savages who murdered them.
True. There hasn’t been a legitimate succession to the French throne since @1824, so the question of who is the legitimate heir is rather confused.
Still, this is something that the French have several times worked out in assembly in other past cases.
No, that irony is intended - it is a play on words.
Ohhhhhhh, so this is a Catholic thing then. Ok, -now- I get it. I couldn’t think of anyone in France who seriously wanted a royalty over there. Looks like they did indeed miss a few heads.
Catholic or Protestant, no monarchy is justified after Thomas Paine published “Common Sense”. Hereditary royal business just seems embarrassingly silly from that point on. And as for Martell, (good on him for fighting the moslems) does anyone believe God picked him and his descendants to rule France forever? Nuts.
And if so, why just France? Did God pick all the leaders of numerous districts in Europe?
No, Charles’ opinion matters less than any normal French citizen’s. They speak as ones who are free and decent, not as ones who believe they are divinely destined to lord over others.
Hey, he’s keeping it real. Speaking truth to power.
“Tribal tradition is enough.”
Booga booga. And what about those citizens of the Republic, who have a tradition of being free of Monarchs? Who should prevail when such a person and a monarch meet?
Does the monarch defer to the free citizen? Or must the citizen submit to the leadership of a nobleman because part of France (a tribe) thinks he should.
And in your thinking, is a Frenchman destined to be a tribe member and nothing more? Does this “tribe” trump their freedom and natural rights?
Remember, our constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes that all men are born with them. A Frenchman possesses these rights whether or not any French government will recognize them.
Fascinated.
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.