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."
You and I understand the concept of "I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it." PC Leftists, Islamists, and those of similar totalitarian mindset (no matter how different the religious or ideological content might be) do not.
So why stand with the "opposition"? The left gave us the islamization of Europe. They -- the leftwing agitators of course are citizens with rights, but it does not mean their idiotic magazines should be propped up like some kind of anti-Islam manifesto.
This is funny. You know, dukes and princes are the only people of whom you cannot ask the question without looking foolish. Who is Prince Charles-Philippe d'Orléans, Duc d'Anjou prince and duke of? Seriously?
Well, the word of a nobleman is worth more, because the nobility is the guardian of the national spirit more than any other group, outside the Church of course. It was very good of His Grace to speak out specifically as a nobleman.
I don't know anything about you, but royal titles cannot be removed from anyone.
There are more than one Charles in France. That is side-splittingly funny.
No, that is not the case at all. I am as commoner as anyone can get, -- I barely know my grandparents, -- but I am a monarchist, and yes, I will prefer most any king to most any democratic 4-year-lease government any time.
I agree with his message, but I don't see why I or anyone else should be impressed with a person's pedigree. My attitude is always "Well, perhaps your distant ancestors were illustrious and did great things centuries ago. Now what have you accomplished?" Keep in mind that the USA has its own de facto royal dynasties - Kennedy, Bush, etc., and none of them are too impressive.
That's why I posted it. Note that no one seems to be addressing the subject matter, -- because there is nothing to add or subtract.
Campaign finance law, gerrymandering, and the inertia of political machines pretty much rigs things in favor of incumbents, so many of our Senators and Congressmen have "served" (or I should say, been served by us) longer than many monarchs and dictators have been in office. Add to that the fact that we've been stuck with a Kennedy in office or the past century and will probably be stuck with a Bush in high office of the next, what we have is much closer to a hereditary monarchy than you might think.
Thank you.
Monarchy is a form of social contract that is more complex than what you get with periodic voting. But it is a social contract anyway, where all layers of the society collaborate to create a just government the best they can. Because the monarch is to pass the monarchic title to his child, the monarch naturally puts the long term interest of his country first, much more often than a 4-year term professional politician would. Hence the advantage of monarchies. After 2-3 centuries of experimentation with governments run by professional politician, I think, the future will see restoration of monarchies nearly everywhere.
The answer is found here, in a more recent post http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3245983/posts. It is the difference between the way the terrorists treat us, and the way the late Rev. Falwell treated Larry Flynt. In a sense, Falwell stood with Flynt when the latter was paralyzed, in the same sense that we should stand with Charlie, while not being Charlie.
I am not Charlie, but I stand with Charlie. If I must be someone, I am Yoav.
I agree. Could argue around the edges, but overall, good post.
May I suggest you behave? This is a serious thread.
I don’t know anything about His Grace, other than what I posted.
Yes. Yup, Pussy Riot was in the same category with the same left-wing knee-jerk responses all over the place.
After that cartoon, I'd have to say Monsieur le Président is a better man (even if I'm completely opposed to his politics) than this pretending prince.
I am sorry to cut in. You can agree or disagree with His Grace but why is he “pretending”?
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.