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."
The consequences of fixing the “royal problem” in France nearly annihilated European civilization over the following two hundred years.
In fact — it may have succeeded.
He is a prince because his father was a prince. He has not rejected his family or his family tradition.
As a practical matter, he supports republican government and ran for office as a conservative pro-family candidate.
He might be right.
“There are excellent historical reasons for monarchy.”
Thomas Paine, “Common Sense” destroyed them one by one.
LOL
He may not be a magazine, but he is an uptight dick!
God didnt choose these kings, and “divine right” is not a justification for ruling that has been generally accepted. It is purely a philosophical argument from the 16th century. No medieval king would have asserted his right in this manner, it would have been blasphemy. The king was king because there always had been kings, his legitimacy came from pre-Christian customary law, and the acquiesence of the people.
Paine, unfortunately, assumed that people would or could order their opinions through reason (”common sense”). Maybe some can, but certainly not everyone, not all the time, and some societies, arguably never.
You are demonstrating a gap in your education on this thread, a gap that explains but does not excuse the weakness of your analysis.
“The consequences of fixing the “royal problem” in France nearly annihilated European civilization over the following two hundred years.”
Its quite the opposite. The wars after were mostly monarchs. Crimea, the German attacks. Or maybe you mean like WWI? When the Royals of Austria and Germany, fought with their cousins in Russia and England, and the British Royals changed their family name to sound less German?
And again, please tell me about this “peaceful” Europe that the Monarchs created prior to the French Revolution. lol
Holly says, his royal pompous ass still speaks of his royal self in the third person doesn't his royal self?
I didn’t say it was peaceful
“Protestants believe in the divine right of kings - Luther, Calvin, Knox,”
Im a protestant. And I think Calvin was a murderous tyrant. Luther was a wise man on the internals of the Roman church, etc etc. I do not look to them for opinions on civil government.
But none of that star chambers opinions on government stack up against Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, et al.
Booga indeed. As Napoleon said (regarding medals, but the concept is the same) - “ by these baubles are men led”.
Or Macaulay’s “ashes of their fathers and the temples of their gods”.
As for rights and powers, there is no need to compromise. We do have functioning constitutional monarchies all over. The real threat to liberty in our world is the unelected “ permanent government”, the choking bureaucracies and their corporatist collaborators, who spit on individual rights and democracy alike. The tyrants of Europe today are more tyrranical than any absolute monarch ever dared be.
Go back to the original story at the top of the thread and see for yourself that he refers to himself as "I" - that is called "the first person singular."
But you did imply directly that it became worse after the monarchs were deposed.
Europe was a nightmare before that. The individual amounted to almost nothing.
“The real threat to liberty in our world is the unelected “ permanent government”, the choking bureaucracies and their corporatist collaborators, who spit on individual rights and democracy alike. The tyrants of Europe today are more tyrranical than any absolute monarch ever dared be.”
100% agree. But this does not make monarchy a better idea. A free constitutional republic like the original America is the only moral way. Not a lesser despot. What happens when someone disagrees with a monarch? Must they submit? Nobody should ever need to submit to a person who cannot face election. Period.
His statement is also translated from French, so its not necessarily the case that stylistic items like this came across in a valid manner. You would need the original French text and long experience in French public speaking to be in a position to criticize on style.
There’s nothing wrong with a constitutional monarchy. Especially an absentee one.
Seems to work fine for Canada and Australia.
Take a long walk off a short pier, I’ve heard Charles-Philippe d’Orleans speak, in person. Was it absolutely necessary to insult me?
Oh yes, I forgot, some people live for those moments. It must really suck to go through life, searching for those “high points’ of said sad life.
Good public statement. He makes sense.
Sincerely,
Leaning Right
Duke of Earl and Count of Chocula
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.