Ah, Joan of Arc, one of the only women I truly admire from History (the other being Queen Victoria). The anti-Republican logo was not really necessary though, in my opinion. Yes, "a mort la Republique", and all that, but the tricolor and the Marriane are symbols not only of the government system. They represent the ideals of the Revolution, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity (which are all admirable, and possible of achieving in a monarchy), and as a patriotic Frenchman, it makes me a little upset to see them crossed out. The Revolution is now intricately tied to our History, and no amount of political change can remove its presence, for better or for worse. I appreciate the Republic for its ideals, if not for its system. The Sovereign People is an important aspect of all political systems, even a monarchy, for the monarch exists to serve his people. Anyway, I do like all your shameless plugs, and its always nice to see France, especially with all the problems we have over there at the moment, it makes me regret not being there myself.
If you "appreciate the republic" or view it as anything other than a treasonous, illegitimate monstrosity -you are probably going to be offended by any/everything I have or will over post on the subject of France. Just a word of friendly warning.
The problems France is enduring at the moment can be traced directly to the culture of mob rule that began with the revolution; when a whole country can by tyrannized by a violent minority on the streets of Paris. Any/all symbols of any of the French republics can expect no reverence from this reactionary.
Monsieur Nicot, you make a legitimate point about "liberté, égalité, fraternité" being great ideals, but one must ask which system was a better safeguard of those ideals, the ancien régime or the present republic (or by extension, any legitimate monarchy or any republic).
First, every state, even North Korea, claims that their people have liberty. One must ask what one means by liberty. If it means merely the absence of external compulsion, then I would ask who was freer: a peasant in the time of Louis XIV, or a citizen of the vast bureaucratic, technocratic, managerial state?
As for equality, again what is this supposed to mean? Certainly I know not uniformity, for indeed the march of the republics starting in the 19th century left us not with a more equal society, but rather a more uniform society across the globe. This came only with the grandees of the past being levelled--only to be replaced by new, less virtuous grandees. Much egalitarianism fails truly to understand the inherent differences between persons, between classes, between ethnicities, and so forth, and how these, though often in conflict, could work in concert to create a harmonious society in all its aspects.
And lastly, the false promise of fraternity. How is a sense of common purpose possible if a nation is ruled by one who campaigned not to represent impartially the nation as it is, but an ideology? And this ideological despot can then go forth to lord it over those who are not of his ideology. This creates no real sense of brotherhood, but rather of contempt, of rich for poor, of town for country, of white for minority, and vice versa in all cases. Fraternity has indeed never been as tenuous a concept as in these days of electoral politics.
MM points out that the French Revolution was a bloody tyranny; this fact cannot elude anyone who has ever studied the Terror or the Vendée. The republican period may be engrained in the French consciousness, but one cannot forget the fact that France was a monarchy for over ten times longer than she ever was a republic. I long for the day when the Revolution is remembered not as a glory, but as a cautionary tale of a misplaced idealism gone mad.
I do not defend the French Revolution. It is indeed treasonous, and illegitimate, and its application was nothing short of monstrous, as you put it. But there was a certain amount of goodness that came out of it, as there is in anything that goes wrong. Also, I think the problems can be linked not only to the Revolution, but also to plain French laziness and outrage at loss of "liberties". Hard times require hard measures, I say.
Perhaps my defense of the republic is purely patriotic, and not ideological. It's the soul of the French state we have now, and if it comes under external threat, I would defend it against defamation(if there was the promise of a monarchical restoration, that is a different matter), since it is still our country.
And of course a monarchy can best see to the ideals of freedom etc... Napoleon saw to that, illegitimate monarch though he was. A Republic is weak by its own design, I think we can agree on that.
In fact, its best if I sort of renege what I said earlier. It was more my displacement at seeing a symbol of France (no matter how illegitimate that symbol is, perhaps) defaced as opposed to a symbol of the Republic.
My advice; defend your country, not your government. No less a reactionary hero than Pope Pius IX said that not everything that came out of the revolution was bad though when pressed on it I think 'equality under the law' was all he could cite as an example. There were also certainly monarchists who fought for France when Louis Napoleon was in charge and there were Bourbon princes who wanted to fight for France against the Germans (had to join the Belgian army because of anti-royal bigotry) so it is perfectly understandable to want to defend your country no matter what government holds power.
Patriotic love of country is a noble sentiment. My intention was certainly not to take a swipe at France but a simple "no" to the republic, illustrated by the official logo of the fifth French republic. That attitude will not change you can be sure. You can also be sure that the traditional symbols of France will always be respected here, hailing as I do from a part of the world once under the reign of the Most Christian King of France and where the fleur-de-lis still flies in many, many places.
Indeed! But to me, I think France ceased to be in 1789, and I long for the day when she, and her sisters in Christendom, such as Mother Russia, awaken back to life in a glorious Resurrection. No more talk of Egalitarian Ideals that can never exist, or the slow march to blind conformity and loss of true Liberty, a True Band of Brothers united by King and Cross, risen to glory on the basis of a Shared History, Traditions, and Culture, all bound in their Sovereign.
Ah, Joan of Arc, one of the only women I truly admire from History (the other being Queen Victoria).
ReplyDeleteThe anti-Republican logo was not really necessary though, in my opinion. Yes, "a mort la Republique", and all that, but the tricolor and the Marriane are symbols not only of the government system. They represent the ideals of the Revolution, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity (which are all admirable, and possible of achieving in a monarchy), and as a patriotic Frenchman, it makes me a little upset to see them crossed out. The Revolution is now intricately tied to our History, and no amount of political change can remove its presence, for better or for worse.
I appreciate the Republic for its ideals, if not for its system. The Sovereign People is an important aspect of all political systems, even a monarchy, for the monarch exists to serve his people.
Anyway, I do like all your shameless plugs, and its always nice to see France, especially with all the problems we have over there at the moment, it makes me regret not being there myself.
If you "appreciate the republic" or view it as anything other than a treasonous, illegitimate monstrosity -you are probably going to be offended by any/everything I have or will over post on the subject of France. Just a word of friendly warning.
ReplyDeleteThe problems France is enduring at the moment can be traced directly to the culture of mob rule that began with the revolution; when a whole country can by tyrannized by a violent minority on the streets of Paris. Any/all symbols of any of the French republics can expect no reverence from this reactionary.
Monsieur Nicot, you make a legitimate point about "liberté, égalité, fraternité" being great ideals, but one must ask which system was a better safeguard of those ideals, the ancien régime or the present republic (or by extension, any legitimate monarchy or any republic).
ReplyDeleteFirst, every state, even North Korea, claims that their people have liberty. One must ask what one means by liberty. If it means merely the absence of external compulsion, then I would ask who was freer: a peasant in the time of Louis XIV, or a citizen of the vast bureaucratic, technocratic, managerial state?
As for equality, again what is this supposed to mean? Certainly I know not uniformity, for indeed the march of the republics starting in the 19th century left us not with a more equal society, but rather a more uniform society across the globe. This came only with the grandees of the past being levelled--only to be replaced by new, less virtuous grandees. Much egalitarianism fails truly to understand the inherent differences between persons, between classes, between ethnicities, and so forth, and how these, though often in conflict, could work in concert to create a harmonious society in all its aspects.
And lastly, the false promise of fraternity. How is a sense of common purpose possible if a nation is ruled by one who campaigned not to represent impartially the nation as it is, but an ideology? And this ideological despot can then go forth to lord it over those who are not of his ideology. This creates no real sense of brotherhood, but rather of contempt, of rich for poor, of town for country, of white for minority, and vice versa in all cases. Fraternity has indeed never been as tenuous a concept as in these days of electoral politics.
MM points out that the French Revolution was a bloody tyranny; this fact cannot elude anyone who has ever studied the Terror or the Vendée. The republican period may be engrained in the French consciousness, but one cannot forget the fact that France was a monarchy for over ten times longer than she ever was a republic. I long for the day when the Revolution is remembered not as a glory, but as a cautionary tale of a misplaced idealism gone mad.
I do not defend the French Revolution.
ReplyDeleteIt is indeed treasonous, and illegitimate, and its application was nothing short of monstrous, as you put it. But there was a certain amount of goodness that came out of it, as there is in anything that goes wrong.
Also, I think the problems can be linked not only to the Revolution, but also to plain French laziness and outrage at loss of "liberties". Hard times require hard measures, I say.
Perhaps my defense of the republic is purely patriotic, and not ideological. It's the soul of the French state we have now, and if it comes under external threat, I would defend it against defamation(if there was the promise of a monarchical restoration, that is a different matter), since it is still our country.
And of course a monarchy can best see to the ideals of freedom etc... Napoleon saw to that, illegitimate monarch though he was. A Republic is weak by its own design, I think we can agree on that.
In fact, its best if I sort of renege what I said earlier. It was more my displacement at seeing a symbol of France (no matter how illegitimate that symbol is, perhaps) defaced as opposed to a symbol of the Republic.
Carry on with your wonderful blog, as ever.
My advice; defend your country, not your government. No less a reactionary hero than Pope Pius IX said that not everything that came out of the revolution was bad though when pressed on it I think 'equality under the law' was all he could cite as an example. There were also certainly monarchists who fought for France when Louis Napoleon was in charge and there were Bourbon princes who wanted to fight for France against the Germans (had to join the Belgian army because of anti-royal bigotry) so it is perfectly understandable to want to defend your country no matter what government holds power.
ReplyDeletePatriotic love of country is a noble sentiment. My intention was certainly not to take a swipe at France but a simple "no" to the republic, illustrated by the official logo of the fifth French republic. That attitude will not change you can be sure. You can also be sure that the traditional symbols of France will always be respected here, hailing as I do from a part of the world once under the reign of the Most Christian King of France and where the fleur-de-lis still flies in many, many places.
Amen to that then. Vive le Roi and vive la France!
ReplyDeleteIndeed! But to me, I think France ceased to be in 1789, and I long for the day when she, and her sisters in Christendom, such as Mother Russia, awaken back to life in a glorious Resurrection. No more talk of Egalitarian Ideals that can never exist, or the slow march to blind conformity and loss of true Liberty, a True Band of Brothers united by King and Cross, risen to glory on the basis of a Shared History, Traditions, and Culture, all bound in their Sovereign.
ReplyDeleteBut this is just me.