One of the things I find embarrassing about Canada is its devotion to the monarchy; it seems remarkably childish to me. As columnist Allan Fotheringham once remarked, "Grown-up nations do not need, as head of state, a woman -- however nice --who lives across a large ocean in a castle in a foreign country."
But on a recent trip to France, I saw something even more strange: a poster for the Alliance Royale. This is, believe it or not, a political movement to restore the monarchy in France. It seems largely spearheaded by someone named Yves-Marie Adeline, who actually has a blog for his royalist views. There is also an FAQ which is remarkable for its obliqueness, although it does forthrightly admit that "A law that applies uniformly to everyone leads to injustice".
Luckily, this party hasn't won any seats, as far as I can tell. Indeed, they seem to be garnering something like .03% of the vote.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I am very glad that French Royalists take part in the political life. After all, it is refreshing to have a different approach to politics and the Alliance Royaliste is not as unsuccessful as the percentage you mentioned coukd suggest.
Sunday, 16th March saw the second round of the local elections in France. The Alliance Royaliste gained five seats in this March's local elections, out of them four with an overall majority.
In the Parisian 7th arrondissement, the list of the Alliance Royalists gained 1 percent of the votes, preventing the conservative UMP's candidate, Rachida Dati, to be elected in the first round. Her score was 49.5 percent. Obviously Royalists make a difference. However, Ms. Dati, Attorney General in the French government, was elected in the second round.
Five royalist local councillors may a tiny minority, but they will help to implement the Royalists in the political landscape. Party leader Yves-Marie Adeline tried to stand as a candidate in the presidential elections last year, but he did not the succeed to receive 500 supporting signatures from dignitaries (like senators or mayors). However, he collected nearly 150 signiaures, which was a small success in itself.
Thanks for the update. It is refreshing to know that lunatic behavior exists outside of North America.
I am curious to know if the Alliance Royale believes the position of monarch should be inherited or elected.
When I lived in Canada I always made a point of purchasing stamps "without the Queen's picture". The postal clerks, who in Ottawa were invariably Quebecois, were always most happy to oblige.
Calling Evan Tanner...
Yes, the Alliance Royaliste believe in hereditary Monarchy. The Count of Paris is the King in waiting.
I consider it "lunatic behaviour" to believe that in republics always the best candidates wins.
"I consider it "lunatic behaviour" to believe that in republics always the best candidates wins."
Congratulations. You are adept in the debating technique known as the "straw man".
Whoever said that in a republic (or a democracy) the best candidate wins? No one. But what is indisputably true is that being the son or daughter of a previous leader is no qualification whatsoever.
Those advocating a return to leadership by descent fail to grapple with this.
Ewwww. I just read the website of the Alliance Royale, and they definitely are not my favourite brand of Royalistes after all: they're the usual theocratical (« France is Christian by nature »), anti-abortion fascists (in the precise sense that they support the same social structure that Mussolini installed in Italy). In shorthand, it's Pétain. Their websites features the particularly ugly standard-family-from-Versailles, who probably boasts a few quarters of nobility and whose members display proudly an isocline haircut, and who is probably « not racist, since they employ an Arab janitor and a black nanny ».
Those guys are simply disgusting.
Laws that apply equally to all create injustice?
So if France enacts a law that says the monarchy must use 16th century means of transportation while commoners may use any they choose (like planes trains and autos), that's a just law?
Somehow, I think these pretentious, narcissistic gits would have the reverse, if they could.
Listen, lunatic doesn't begin to cover what the AR is about. It's beyond that. It's out there in fundie loonie territory. It's the French version, which means an obsession about bloodlines rather than sex. That's how you know it's crazy--bloodlines over sex? Or maybe it's a sign of how out of touch these crazies are.
Every post-Revolution royalist or imperialist reign in France has been a disaster, and ended in chaos because the French royals always end up acting like jerks to the people. There's a reason why the social structure proposed by the AR looks so much like Mussolini or Vichy France. Guess who were big supporters of the Vichy? Yep, the monarchists. What a surprise.
I don't think this will ever get anywhere. After all, these idiots are still arguing over who is the legitimate successor to the throne.
I mean, what happens if the monarchy is restored and Luis-Alfonso de Borbon makes a claim? He could strangle the Comte de Paris's bid with the AR's own entrails: First, he might have a more legitimate claim to the throne; second, how's Henri's divorce gonna fit in with their theocratic impulse?
Surely someone of the ancien regime would be Catholic. After how deeply they've dug in their heels about divorce in the no-fault era, the Vatican can't endorse a king who's divorced. They just can't. It would be a display of hypocrisy that would hurt the church more than having a powerful European nation back under their thumb would help them.
And don't think the Catholic endorsement doesn't matter, because they wouldn't let the Dauphin (Crown Prince) marry a woman because she was a protestant. lest it hurt their chances to assume the throne again. Can you smell the desperation? I can.
That's how shaky all this is, folks, and how absolutely batshit insane the subject of the original post are.
I know way too much about this nonsense...
I think it's sad that people can't see the difference between 'Head of State' and 'Leader'.
Whilst Queen Elizabeth is the Head of State of Canada, the Leader - the person who calls the shots, is elected - the Prime Minister of Canada.
The Queen is represented in Canada by the Governor General - who is appointed on the advice of the Canadian Government. The current Governor General is Michaëlle Jean, who as a child was a refugee from Haiti.
So, in a de facto, the Head of State of Canada is a Canadian. - and from a minority background to boot.
Whoever said that in a republic (or a democracy) the best candidate wins? No one. But what is indisputably true is that being the son or daughter of a previous leader is no qualification whatsoever
Firstly, Canada (and the UK) are democracies. As to best candidates - yup - moot point. As to being related to a previous leader being a qualification - well in some republics it certainly can be a factor. In the US there's Bush senior and Bush Junior. It's more a function of dynastic politics than direct descent - but the end result is to lock out almost all but the rich from the highest office in the land.
In the Westminster-style system, leaders can come from a broader spectrum of society. Anyone's son or daughter has a chance at high office. I prefer that.
Why should the head of state be the queen of another country?
And I think you're too cavalier about the role of the Governor General. It can happen (and has happened in Australia) that the Governor General can dissolve Parliament. Do Canadians really want to allocate that kind of power to an unelected person appointed by somebody in another country?
What I enjoy about topics of this kind is how irate supposedly sane people become about something that is essentially frivolous, whimsical and humourous. That is not to say that the Alliance Royaliste don't take themselves seriously but is that any reason for the rest of us to do so. Reacting in the ridiculous manner in which people do in the comments posted here, is to be just as lunatic as the lunatics. Lighten up!!
Concerning laws that apply equally to all people, Anatole France wrote,
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids both rich and poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread"
I don't know about you, Scott, but I've been laughing at the Alliance Royale ever since I heard about them.
As for Anatole France - yes, you can even find that quotation on my web page. But surely it is rather grotesque to proffer that quotation in the present discussion. Anatole France was arguing that the poor man who steals bread to live should be treated more leniently than the rich man who steals, not that a tiny minority should be above the law by dint of their having the right father or mother.
I want a restoration of the French Empire! Any decadents of Napoleon want to make the claim! :D :D :D
In all seriousness, capitalist democracies, which end up being ruled by a particular political class--a class beholden to the pre-established interests of businesses, the wealthy and the state itself, is just as idiotic as monarchies (constitutional or otherwise).
There is only one country on this earth that ever really created a true "working" democracy and that is the United States of America. Every other state aside from the UK which managed to get it's hybrid system right is just ruled by what John Adams called "Mob Rule" of the worst kind. France was at its height under the King Louis XIV. What we remember and cherish about France is from that era. Just like saying democracy would work in Saudi Arabia, democracy cannot really work in Europe. It is a Christian land and it's underlying systems are built in Feudal tribal concepts.
Things that would have been prevented by Monarchy:
+ Holocaust, WWI, WWII, Cold War, Growth of Nuclear weapons, Decline of Education and the Arts in the West.
We are in a chaotic dark age that we are totally unaware of and order must once again be restored.
Presidents, MP's and Senators represent the minority, not the whole nation, only a King can do that and truly manage the Aristocracy of a nation...
Who can uphold the law when the democratic cartel boss's at the top are breaking it an letting their friends break it? While we have to follow it?
I'm no expert on politics, but as a Canadian I've observed that our current prime minister is not the voice of the people democratists would have you believe. There is a difference between how things work officially and how they work in reality. Our prime minister doesn't suggest that the GG prorogue parliament. He makes her prorogue parliament, and did so twice in the past few months.
Who the hell are you to call our head of state an embarrassment? Assuming you're American, I think you should examine the crap coming out of your President's mouth, the self-righteous measures he takes, and all his cronies behind the scenes before you consider whether you're in a position to say what's embarrassing about what nation.
In the US and all other "democracies", just because you're elected to the position doesn't mean it's not about the buttloads of money and power you'll get with it. It's about what rich white men want, and they'll tell you whatever they need to get you to check their name on a ballot. Ever notice how most democratic leaders spend all their time and money saying they *will* do something and never do it? There are exceptions, but they are no more exceptional than monarchs of the past, who truly had the responsibility to lead a nation against great threats. If the Spanish had successfully invaded England, thousands of Protestants would have been burned alive. There was no time to discuss what needed to be done, no time for idiots to argue over who had the best way to deal with the Spanish (one might be ready to convert, seize power once the nation was conquered and allow his countrymen to burn).
The fact of the matter is that no form of government is best. Different situations warrant different ways of governing a nation. China suffered a great deal as a republic (and with exceptions still does as a retarded communist one ('retarded' referring to communism)) It's enormous population and diversity of social issues demands quick decision-making there's no time for rich people to fight over whose got "the plan". When an Emperor says it gets done, it gets done. The catch is that not all his decisions will be good for you. He might be a homophobic emperor, for instance, and outlaw gay marriage. That's where the trick is. We need leaders who have the authority to make immediate decisions on relevant issues(and we'll know if they work, otherwise they are removed from power). As for trivial matters, the people must decide, but the government should be neutral towards issues such as gay marriage and abortion.
Constitutional Monarchy is the best form in my personal opinion, but the way it should function is that issues should be clearly defined into two categories: The monarch should decide on relevant issues ie: what should be done about inflation or something like that, and parliament can advise them. For irrelevant matters involving lifestyle, the monarch must let their people decide and put it to a vote, the winner of which they must support.
The next Emperor of France will be the Great Catholic Monarch. He will be a descendant of King Charlemagne and will come from the House of Lilies. He will conquer the known world with soldiers, Priests, and doctors, and spread Catholicism across the earth. There will only be one true Faith. He will be the last king of the restored Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Aquila will be restored, Church and State as one. There will be no escape from the Great Catholic Monarch. Deus Vult!
TIme to restart the drugs, Gregory.
It was wrong of me to assume the full Catholic Church approved prophecy. Yeah, I do not know if it the next king of France. My God forgive my transgression and relieve me of swollen uvula that has sores. And I am sorry for not citing my sources.
St Francis of Paola, 1416-1507
The Spirit of prophecy is granted to me often to foretell most wonderful events in relation to the reformation of the Church of the most high…” 1
“By the grace of the Almighty, the Great Monarch will annihilate heretics and unbelievers. He will have a great army and angels will fight at his side. He will be like the sun among the stars. His influence will spread over the whole earth. All in all, there will be twelve kings, one Emperor, one Pope and a few Princes. They will all lead holy lives…” 2
“A new order will then be founded by the Cruciferi (cross bearers) because their members will have the cross on their banners. This order will be composed of 3 groups: the first will be armed horsemen; the second group priests and the third nurses. These knights of the cross (crusaders) will convert mohamedans, heretics and fallen-away Christians to Christ…” 3
“From your lordship (Simeon de Limena, Lord of Monalto) shall be born the great leader of the holy militia of the Holy Spirit shall overcome the world, and shall possess the earth so completely that no king or lord shall be able to exist, except that he belongs to the sacred host of the Holy Ghost. These devout men shall wear on their breasts, and much more within their hearts, the sign of the living God, namely, the Cross…”
“He shall be a great captain and prince of holy men, who shall be called "the holy Cross-bearers of Jesus Christ," with whom he shall destroy the Mahometan sect and the rest of the infidels. He shall annihilate all the heresies and tyrannies of the world. He shall reform the church of God by means of his followers, who shall be the best men upon earth in holiness, in arms, in science, and in every virtue, because such is the will of the Most High. They shall obtain the dominion of the whole world, both temporal and spiritual, and they shall support the Church of God until the end of time…” 8
“God almighty shall exalt a very poor man of the blood of Emperor Constantine, son of St. Helena, and of the seed of Pepin, who shall on his breast wear a red Cross. Through the power of the Most High he shall confound the tyrants, the heretics, and infidels. He will gather a grand army, and the angels shall fight for them; they shall kill all God's enemies…”
“One of your posterity shall achieve greater deeds and work greater wonders than your lordship. That man (the leader of the Crucifers) will be a great sinner in his youth, but like St. Paul he will be drawn and converted to God. He shall be the founder of a new religious order different from all the others. He shall divide it into three classes, namely: (1) Military knights, (2) Solitary priests, (3) most pious hospitalliers. This shall be the last religious order of the Church, and it will do more good for our holy religion than all other religious institutes. By force of arms he shall take possession of a great kingdom. He shall destroy the sect of Mahomet extirpate all tyrants and heresies. He shall bring the world to a holy mode of life. There will be one fold and one shepherd. He shall reign until the end of time. On the whole In the whole earth there shall be only twelve kings, one emperor, one pope. Rich gentlemen shall be few, but all saints….”
I am sorry for taking up so much space.
Post a Comment