# Wedding of Prince Jean d'Orleans



## Bezalel (Oct 6, 2008)

Here's a photo from the religious wedding of Prince Jean d'Orleans and his wife Philomena:

https://www.hellomagazine.ca/royalty/2009/05/04/dorleans-wedding/imgs/bride-a.jpg

Now, here's a picture of the page boys:

https://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/8...CC42B7A3FA40DD2B4B4E356026BBC49AAE4E13EDE9114

What exactly are the boys wearing, and why?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Some kind of national costume maybe?

I can't say I care for the cut of his clothes.


----------



## rmanoj (Mar 6, 2009)

I think both the waistcoat (single breasted, no lapels and not even a slip) and the tie are bit too bland for a wedding. And what are those shoes the prince is wearing?


----------



## Bezalel (Oct 6, 2008)

An article: 
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2009/05/04/dorleans-wedding/

Prince Philippe and Princess Mathilde of Belgium were there. His tie matches her dress:









People were wearing all sorts of wild clothes:

Princess Astrid wore pants:
https://picture.belga.be/belgapicture/picture/13671177.html

Others:
https://picture.belga.be/belgapicture/picture/13671173.html
https://picture.belga.be/belgapicture/picture/13671070.html

Prince Laurent and Princess Claire of Belgium were more conservative:
https://picture.belga.be/belgapicture/picture/13671060.html


----------



## Nigel W (Apr 14, 2009)

This is almost exactly what I wore for my wedding, but with a proper starched collar like the Belgian. This all looks pukka to me.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

I prefer Prince Laurent's morning dress. Looks better composed and fits well while the others look like they got their's from the local rent store...


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Whoever he is he certainly seems to be adopting a cringing, diffident posture. Maybe it's the look of someone who just realized, "Holy crap! It's the Twenty-first Century and everybody's calling me a prince!"


----------



## egerland (Aug 18, 2008)

*"What exactly are the boys wearing, and why?"*

I'm guessing some sort of Spanish folk or court dress. The bride has family links to Spain.

*"Whoever he is he certainly seems to be adopting a cringing, diffident posture. Maybe it's the look of someone who just realized, "Holy crap! It's the Twenty-first Century and everybody's calling me a prince!"*

Well, getting married is pretty stressful. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Not his fault that he was born a prince.

Lots more pics here. I thought the Duke of Wuerttemberg was correctly dressed.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> Maybe it's the look of someone who just realized, "Holy crap! It's the Twenty-first Century and everybody's calling me a prince!"


That made me laugh. I am by no means anti-monarchist (if anything, I'm indifferent), but exactly what do these claimants to long-defunct thrones actually do for a living? One would imagine thay still have land holdings to be able to afford all those silly-looking hats for their wives.


----------



## egerland (Aug 18, 2008)

*"...but exactly what do these claimants to long-defunct thrones actually do for a living?"*

His biography states that he has a degree in philosophy from the Sorbonne, a degree in international relations, and an MBA from a university in Los Angeles.

He served as an officer in the French army. After a course of training at the cavalry school in Saumur, he was assigned to the 7th Regiment of Chausseurs of Arras.

After the army he was involved in business management and banking. Since 2007 he has been involved with a private foundation promoting French cultural values (with a monarchist slant). The short answer is that he really does not need to work for a living.


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

Bezalel said:


> Here's a photo from the religious wedding of Prince Jean d'Orleans and his wife Philomena:
> 
> https://www.hellomagazine.ca/royalty/2009/05/04/dorleans-wedding/imgs/bride-a.jpg
> 
> ...


possibly some sort of traditional costume.
the trouser has a sort of cummerbund/sash arrangement on top.
a faux broad fall front. that's the buttons. 
looks as though the bridal costumer made them. 
by guess and by golly sizes.

why don't men wear broad falls anymore? sailors wear them proudly.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

a tailor said:


> why don't men wear broad falls anymore? sailors wear them proudly.


Too much hassle when using the restroom, and too indiscreet when using a public one.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

OMG! It looks to me as if HRH the Prince is wearing a light blue vest/waistcoat...and he is wearing a pinned-on corsage, not a boutonniere!

Oh, hell with him! The Libourels were all fervent Bonapartists anyway.


----------



## Phileas Fogg (Oct 20, 2008)

Not bad, I would have chosen a silverish tie or better a cravat but all things considered he is doing fine.

Most of the heirs of former Royalty and former Kings do work and have jobs as bankers, managers, politicians and the like. A few just do not care and live out of their inherited wealth.

The boys are wearing some kind of interpretation of a pageboy uniform which is rather customary in Europe, at least if you belong to a certain social class. Their uniforms could have been somewhat nicer but are still in line with what is usual.
Yours,

Phileas Fogg


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> Whoever he is he certainly seems to be adopting a cringing, diffident posture. Maybe it's the look of someone who just realized, "Holy crap! It's the Twenty-first Century and everybody's calling me a prince!"


*Prince Jean Carl Pierre Marie d'Orléans, **Dauphin de France** and **Duc de Vendôme*, is the heir to the throne of France. If the French government ever decides to give it back.

He turns 44 on the 19th of May. She's thirty-two. The prince's late father, Henri VI, called off Jean's wedding in 2001 to Duchesse Tatjana of Oldenburg because they were afraid that the tenuous grasp they have on the throne would be severed if Jean produced a Protestant heir.

(In England, it's the opposite - being or marrying a Catholic gets you booted out of the line of succession.)

I didn't take the time to look through all 237 poorly-captioned photos on the Getty Images site - were there any real, active royals there besides the Belgians?

And while I'm very fond of the idea of monarchy, I can't help thinking that someone in Jean's family tree we would find Simon Bar Sinister:


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Miket61 said:


> *Prince Jean Carl Pierre Marie d'Orléans, **Dauphin de France** and **Duc de Vendôme*, is the heir to the throne of France. If the French government ever decides to give it back.
> 
> He turns 44 on the 19th of May. She's thirty-two. The prince's late father, Henri VI, called off Jean's wedding in 2001 to Duchesse Tatjana of Oldenburg because they were afraid that the tenuous grasp they have on the throne would be severed if Jean produced a Protestant heir.


This is rich. These people are still arranging their affairs so as to preserve the guy's chances of becoming the king of France?

As a total anti-monarchist I have to say it doesn't get much better than this.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> This is rich. These people are still arranging their affairs so as to preserve the guy's chances of becoming the king of France?
> 
> As a total anti-monarchist I have to say it doesn't get much better than this.


It gets better...I did a quick Google and found that there are three different families that claim the French throne: the Orleans, to Bonapartes and the Bourbons. How long has it been since France has had (some type) of king...since 1870? I think it's time to stick a fork in it, give it rest and spend the family money on better quality morning suits.


----------



## egerland (Aug 18, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> This is rich. These people are still arranging their affairs so as to preserve the guy's chances of becoming the king of France?
> 
> As a total anti-monarchist I have to say it doesn't get much better than this.


Since we seem to be veering away from the sartorial to the political/personal, I feel compelled to point out that most former ruling families in Europe have quasi-legal house laws (think of a family trust) governing such things as the religion of spouses marrying into the family. Had the prince married a Protestant, he would likely have had to give up his right to succession as head of the House of Orleans and control of whatever fortune the family has left.

I don't find the prince particularly sympathetic, but, like all of us, he was born into a family heritage. I would not expect him to renounce it, just as most of us would not want to renounce ours, be they ever so humble or grand.

Anyway, families like this are part of the heritage of almost every country in Europe. Most of them live quietly and many are useful citizens. For instance, Karel Schwarzenburg, also holder of a princely title, is Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic. I'm not sure what anti-monarchists would like them to do to atone for being born. Perhaps a mass suicide would satisfy them.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

^Interesting viewpoint...as I said, I'm basically indifferent to the subject of titled nobility and royalty. My apologies to any part I played in the "thread veering."

I know there have been countless threads on AAAC about proper morning dress, but when I see images like these, I can't help but be a little envious that dressing in that manner as a guest of a wedding (or other ceremony like an inauguration) has fallen by the wayside in the states...if it ever was the norm.


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

egerland said:


> Since we seem to be veering away from the sartorial to the political/personal, I feel compelled to point out that most former ruling families in Europe have quasi-legal house laws (think of a family trust) governing such things as the religion of spouses marrying into the family. Had the prince married a Protestant, he would likely have had to give up his right to succession as head of the House of Orleans and control of whatever fortune the family has left.
> 
> I don't find the prince particularly sympathetic, but, like all of us, he was born into a family heritage. I would not expect him to renounce it, just as most of us would not want to renounce ours, be they ever so humble or grand.
> 
> Anyway, families like this are part of the heritage of almost every country in Europe. Most of them live quietly and many are useful citizens. For instance, Karel Schwarzenburg, also holder of a princely title, is Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic. I'm not sure what anti-monarchists would like them to do to atone for being born. Perhaps a mass suicide would satisfy them.


I was wondering why this thread has not been moved to the Interchange...

I'm sure that being a hate-monger and being constantly outraged makes an otherwise dull existence a bit more interesting. The wedding was a happy occasion, but why waste an opportunity to piss all over it and everyone involved?


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

jackmccullough said:


> As a total anti-monarchist I have to say it doesn't get much better than this.


If you're enjoying this, you must have *really* enjoyed 1918.


----------



## PocketTriangle (Apr 2, 2009)

bigchris1313 said:


> If you're enjoying this, you must have *really* enjoyed 1918.


And 1789 and 1649.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

But 1918 was by far the worst. It was an even greater evil, as it spanned across countries and continents.
"Scatter her enemies
And make them fall"


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

PocketTriangle said:


> And 1789 and 1649.


And 1215.

Even took a day off of torturing enemies that year, just to wear some pointy toed shoes and waltz in the mucky roads.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Seriously? You guys think that ridiculing someone who hopes to preserve his chance of becoming king of France is the same as wishing for the slaughter of innocent people?

Maybe you should stay away from any of my posts about ascots, or shirts with contrasting collars and cuffs. Wouldn't want you to come down with the vapors.


----------



## PocketTriangle (Apr 2, 2009)

jackmccullough said:


> Seriously? You guys think that ridiculing someone who hopes to preserve his chance of becoming king of France is the same as wishing for the slaughter of innocent people?


Er....no. (I was only pointing out additional years in which the monarchy's fortunes declined).



> Maybe you should stay away from any of my posts about ascots, or shirts with contrasting collars and cuffs. Wouldn't want you to come down with the vapors.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

PocketTriangle said:


> Er....no. (I was only pointing out additional years in which the monarchy's fortunes declined).


I second the befuddlement.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Sorry, my mistake.

The first thing I think about for 1918 is the influenza epidemic (follwed by the Red Sox World Series win). At least one of the other years given gets us to the beheading of an English king, and it goes from there.

1215--Magna Carta--definitely like this. Actually, before an unfortunate Vermont Supreme Court decision I was a semi-regular habeas litigant.


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

jackmccullough said:


> Sorry, my mistake. The first thing I think about for 1918 is the influenza epidemic.


I see. The first thing I think of--right after the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month--is the fall of the Russian Empire, the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire, God rest them.

That probably explains the disconnect.


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

JibranK said:


> But 1918 was by far the worst. It was an even greater evil, as it spanned across countries and continents.
> "Scatter her enemies
> And make them fall"


I don't follow. All I see is a reference to the second verse of Her Majesty's Royal Anthem.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

bigchris1313 said:


> I don't follow. All I see is a reference to the second verse of Her Majesty's Royal Anthem.


There isn't a direct connection. I was lamenting the events in your above post. I quoted that bit of _God Save The Queen_ because I don't want a repeat of such evil to be done to Her Majesty by the conniving and power-hungry republican traitors.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

JibranK said:


> There isn't a direct connection. I was lamenting the events in your above post. I quoted that bit of _God Save The Queen_ because I don't want a repeat of such evil to be done to Her Majesty by the conniving and power-hungry republican traitors.


Speaking of Her Majesty, I once saw a photo of Prince Philip wearing a white linen waistcoat with his morning suit. Very dapper. Just trying to get back on point...:icon_smile_big:


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

JibranK said:


> There isn't a direct connection. I was lamenting the events in your above post. I quoted that bit of _God Save The Queen_ because I don't want a repeat of such evil to be done to Her Majesty by the conniving and power-hungry republican traitors.


Ah yes. Very good. Rule Brittania and all that.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Sigh.


Twas nice while it lasted.

Off to the interchange.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

These people are not hurting anybody, certainly not in the USA. If the various European countries want to have their Royal houses, that is their prerogative.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I guess I agree. I do cringe to think that a country would seriously go for crowning kings again. As bad as we occasionally choose in democracy, at least the twit can't hand power down to the kids in perpetuity (at least theoretically.)


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I guess I agree. I do cringe to think that a country would seriously go for crowning kings again. As bad as we occasionally choose in democracy, at least the twit can't hand power down to the kids in perpetuity (at least theoretically.)


Monarchy protects democracy in a way that the faux-egalitarian free-for-all cannot.

Republicans are ideologues; monarchists are pragmatists.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Orsini said:


> These people are not hurting anybody, certainly not in the USA. If the various European countries want to have their Royal houses, that is their prerogative.


I agree. I wonder if the fascination and allure of royalty (whether they're reigning or not) is the fact that the concept, in this day and age, is quaintly anachronistic. Whether some people fawn all over them because of a feeling that they somehow "better" than the rest of us is up for debate. Personally, they put on their shoes, go to the bathroom and probably have the same life stresses as the rest of us.

For some reason this makes me think of an acquaintance of mine. He's an elderly gentleman, dapper dresser, a second or third generation American, and just so happens to have inherited a German noble title (Baron or Count...I can't recall). Though he's not "royal," he could care a less about it. In fact, he prefers not to discuss the subject. I asked about it once and his reply (after a usual expletive) was "that and 25 cents will get you a cup of coffee."


----------



## Nigel W (Apr 14, 2009)

There are a number of advantages of having a constitutional monarchy, in which the king or queen is the titular head of state with practically no powers other than step in to preserve the constitution in very exceptional circumstances. 

This system, which evolved in Britain where the monarch's powers were much more restricted in practice than in almost all other monarchies, has proved so successful that very many countries around the world have copied it, either in the traditional form of having a royal house or by having a system of electing a non-executive president. 

The USA and France are the odd ones out here.

The idea that Mr Brown our Prime Minister should be the focus of national identity is risable. Many Americans, I suspect, may have felt the same about Mr Bush jnr or Mr Carter. Much better, surely, to have a dignified, impartial figure who can stand above the politcal fray.

The existence of our royal house also seems to satiate the human propensity to like dynasties, and in a fairly harmless way. Dynasties in politics really don't figure at all in the UK, and so much the better. No Kennedies, Bushes, Clintons, Nehru/Gandhis, Bhuttos etc


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Nigel W said:


> There are a number of advantages of having a constitutional monarchy, in which the king or queen is the titular head of state with practically no powers other than step in to preserve the constitution in very exceptional circumstances.
> 
> This system, which evolved in Britain where the monarch's powers were much more restricted in practice than in almost all other monarchies, has proved so successful that very many countries around the world have copied it, either in the traditional form of having a royal house or by having a system of electing a non-executive president.
> 
> ...


This very a interesting and illuminating post. Thank you.

Unfortunately, the US does not have a "dignified, impartial figure who can stand above the political fray."


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

*To quote Alvy Singer*

Right. Well, I have to - I have to go now, Duane, because I, I'm due back on the planet Earth.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075686/quotes


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> I agree. I wonder if the fascination and allure of royalty (whether they're reigning or not) is the fact that the concept, in this day and age, is quaintly anachronistic. Whether some people fawn all over them because of a feeling that they somehow "better" than the rest of us is up for debate. Personally, they put on their shoes, go to the bathroom and probably have the same life stresses as the rest of us.
> 
> For some reason this makes me think of an acquaintance of mine. He's an elderly gentleman, dapper dresser, a second or third generation American, and just so happens to have inherited a German noble title (Baron or Count...I can't recall). Though he's not "royal," he could care a less about it. In fact, he prefers not to discuss the subject. I asked about it once and his reply (after a usual expletive) was "that and 25 cents will get you a cup of coffee."


You can get coffee for 25 cents??


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Nigel W said:


> There are a number of advantages of having a constitutional monarchy, in which the king or queen is the titular head of state with practically no powers other than step in to preserve the constitution in very exceptional circumstances.
> 
> This system, which evolved in Britain where the monarch's powers were much more restricted in practice than in almost all other monarchies, has proved so successful that very many countries around the world have copied it, either in the traditional form of having a royal house or by having a system of electing a non-executive president.
> 
> ...


This is exactly to what I was referring, old chap.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Nice pictures but what's with the different clothing?


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Howard said:


> Nice pictures but what's with the different clothing?


The morning dress or the children's clothing?


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> You can get coffee for 25 cents??


Considering how much coffee I drink, I wish that were so! I always loved that expression: "that and 25 cents will get you a cup of coffee." It's such a great way to say something's not very important, or "I don't give a sh*t.":icon_smile_big:


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Sorry. I just could not resist that line.


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

Orsini said:


> Unfortunately, the US does not have a "dignified, impartial figure who can stand above the political fray."


We did, once. His name was Washington, Philosopher King.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^I thought he turned the job down(!)? Well, at least he declined the title!


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

bigchris1313 said:


> We did, once. His name was Washington, Philosopher King.


Oh shucks, boss. That was a long time ago.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Orsini said:


> This very a interesting and illuminating post. Thank you.
> 
> Unfortunately, the US does not have a "dignified, impartial figure who can stand above the political fray."


How about Orsini!!! I'm thinking you might be interested if we explain that your duties will require you to wear bespoke uniforms and suits and would be funded by the taxpayers.

I'm certain you could negotiate an acceptable salary.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

flabbergast said:


> How about Orsini!!! I'm thinking you might be interested if we explain that your duties will require you to wear bespoke uniforms and suits and would be funded by the taxpayers.
> 
> I'm certain you could negotiate an acceptable salary.


Thank you for those kind words. And that would certainly solve my employment problem. I would declare the stroller the uniform of the day in the US and impose an onerous tax on the wearing of bluejeans in public.


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

Forget "onerous." Make the tax downright punitive!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Orsini said:


> Thank you for those kind words. And that would certainly solve my employment problem. I would declare the stroller the uniform of the day in the US and impose an onerous tax on the wearing of bluejeans in public.


You are quite welcome. I can think of few others who could be counted on to consistently exhibit the grace and deportment such a position would require. (Can I be court jester and musician?? My salary demands would be easily supportable by the government.)


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

bigchris1313 said:


> Forget "onerous." Make the tax downright punitive!


Draconian! Crushing!


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> You are quite welcome. I can think of few others who could be counted on to consistently exhibit the grace and deportment such a position would require.


 You are too kind.


forsbergacct2000 said:


> (Can I be court jester and musician?? My salary demands would be easily supportable by the government.)


That depend on how big a bribe you can come up with.

Seriously, thank you for those kind words.


----------



## Des Esseintes (Aug 16, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> The first thing I think about for 1918 is the influenza epidemic (*f**ollwed by the Red Sox World Series win*).


Now, with this insightful contribution in mind, part two in particular, which stinky Old European could ever dare to maintain the prejudice that Americans have no sense of world history whatsoever...

dE


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

JibranK said:


> The morning dress or the children's clothing?


The children's clothing,is that supposed to be some sort of tradition?


----------

