Prince Charles-Philippe d'Orleans, Duke of Anjou and Naomi Kern, 2023

[Blog Real]

The wedding of Prince Charles Philippe and Naomi took place yesterday at Orleans Town Hall.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CxA7i5jMwwh/

 

[Somebody]

Based on the hashtags. She will present herself both as Duchess of Anjou and as Princess of Orleans... (in violation of the communication of the head of the house Orleans)

 

[iceflower]

Histoiresroyales.fr has photos of the wedding:


** histoiresroyales.fr: Le mariage du prince Charles-Philippe d’Orléans et Naomi à Orléans en présence de prestigieux invités **

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Based on the hashtags. She will present herself both as Duchess of Anjou and as Princess of Orleans... (in violation of the communication of the head of the house Orleans)

Her husband announced it in August.

Prince Charles-Philippe has revamped his website, featuring biographies of himself and his soon-to-be second wife Naomi-Valeska Kern.

I wonder if the Sovereign Prince of Monaco can be expected at their wedding since Charles-Philippe is an ambassador for Prince Albert II of Monaco's foundation and Naomi-Valeska Kern is a longtime resident of the principality and competes internationally for Monaco as a speed shooter.

https://www.ducdanjou.com/

Unsurprisingly, his website omits any mention of the Count of Paris's statement and states that "As tradition would have it, by being joined in the bond of marriage with Prince Charles-Philippe, Naomi-Valeska Kern will bear the predicate of Royal Highness and the courtesy titles of Princess Charles-Philippe of Orléans and of Duchess of Anjou."


Interesting that Naomi-Valeska stated in her Gala interview that she would be "Princess Naomi-Valeska of Orléans" whereas her future husband says she will be "Princess Charles-Philippe of Orléans". And Charles-Philippe's reference to "courtesy titles" appears to imply that the couple will not attempt to have titles for Naomi-Valeska legally recognized by the French authorities.

 

[Countessmeout]

So his parents, siblings and daughter were the only family there unless I am missing a photo. I guess not really surprising after proclamation.

Not sure why the proclamation shocked the couple. Even if his cousin approved the marriage it would not be enough. It also requires a catholic ceremony under their house rules. And since he is only civilly divorced that was not an option.

The couple using titles they are not entitled to will not help family dynamics.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Based on the hashtags. She will present herself both as Duchess of Anjou and as Princess of Orleans... (in violation of the communication of the head of the house Orleans)

True.She is not Duchess of Anjou or even a princess according to the laws of the French Royal House or Roman Catholic canon law.

And unless I am mistaken French civil law by which she was married yesterday does not recognize French Royal titles.

Charles-Philippe being the grandson of the formidable Isabelle Countess of Paris is surely aware of this whether he agrees with it or not.

For me she is simply Naomi d'Orleans.

 

[Marengo]

He divorced his wife a while ago, he has seperated much longer ago. I can't see any reason for the pearl clutching against a remarriage. They are married by civil law.

The count of Paris seems to think that his judgements need to equate those of the pope. In that case he may want to look in the distant and not so distant past of his own family to see that many of his predecessors have not exactly lived in line with the commandments. And for those who can calculate: neither did count of Paris, as his son was conceived before the religious wedding. A great pity that the count -like his grandfather- prefers conflict with his relatives over a more dignified approach. And a pity that the great house of France is headed by such a -IMHO- farcical nonentity.

The bride looks lovely and the groom has a nice suit. Lovely to see his daughter there. The link above claims that two sons of Pss Clothilde are engaged to be married.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I agree that he has every right to remarriage and I for one do not begrudge him that. I loved the couple and family he formed with the Duchess de Cadaval and I was sad to see it end. But I don't know the entire story.

More than half of all weddings end in divorce. That's life.

My problem comes with Charles Philiipe and Ms. Kerns taking a title that CP knows does not belong to her by any of the established laws and rules of the family and Church he belongs to, and not even by French civil law.

It's not a question of whether Jean is a religious hypocrite because he impregnated his wife before their religious wedding. He is and he did.

But that does not mean that what he said in his communique was untrue. The French Royal House does not recognize civil marriage alone as sufficient to confer a French Royal title. Neither does the Vatican, whose rules the Royal House has played by since its inception.

CP's bride is not a princess.

I think it's fascinating that the the article claims the couples' rings were "blessed in a private religious ceremony the previous day" without explicitly verifying that it was a Catholic ceremony. How/why would a Catholic priest bless wedding rings of a couple who are marrying outside the Church? Unless he is a rogue prelate who was sworn to secrecy, the blessing must have been a Protestant one, which would make sense if the bride isn't Catholic.

ETA: I love Naomi's outfit, I hate her hairstyle.

 

[maria-olivia]

Mistakes in the article of Histoires Royales.

 

[Somebody]

He divorced his wife a while ago, he has seperated much longer ago. I can't see any reason for the pearl clutching against a remarriage. They are married by civil law.

The count of Paris seems to think that his judgements need to equate those of the pope. In that case he may want to look in the distant and not so distant past of his own family to see that many of his predecessors have not exactly lived in line with the commandments. And for those who can calculate: neither did count of Paris, as his son was conceived before the religious wedding. A great pity that the count -like his grandfather- prefers conflict with his relatives over a more dignified approach. And a pity that the great house of France is headed by such a -IMHO- farcical nonentity.

The bride looks lovely and the groom has a nice suit. Lovely to see his daughter there. The link above claims that two sons of Pss Clothilde are engaged to be married.

What would the Roman Catholic stance be about those married civilly but not yet religiously? Are they supposed to abstain until their religious marriage?

 

[rominet09]

What would the Roman Catholic stance be about those married civilly but not yet religiously? Are they supposed to abstain until their religious marriage?

I think that yes if they followed Catholic rules.

 

[Prinsara]

What would the Roman Catholic stance be about those married civilly but not yet religiously? Are they supposed to abstain until their religious marriage?

It was the case 100 years ago (see Leopold III and Astrid of Sweden, who were only given a few chaperoned hours after their civil wedding). Someone more familiar with the Catholic Church would have to tell you if that stance has been updated.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I don't think it's likely that the average Catholic couple who has been civilly/legally wed is willing to wait weeks or months to consumate their union which is why the two ceremonies are usually so close together.

But today with so many couples cohabitating outside marriage anyway the point is moot.

However in the case of the uber Catholic Prince Jean, he apparently chose not to wait.

And people took notice. And eyebrows were raised.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

He divorced his wife a while ago, he has seperated much longer ago. I can't see any reason for the pearl clutching against a remarriage. They are married by civil law.

The count of Paris seems to think that his judgements need to equate those of the pope. In that case he may want to look in the distant and not so distant past of his own family to see that many of his predecessors have not exactly lived in line with the commandments. And for those who can calculate: neither did count of Paris, as his son was conceived before the religious wedding.

The Orléans no longer hold any official role in France, though, so if he were to base his house rules on France's civil marriage laws, he would still be holding them to someone else's judgment – in that case, it would be the French government's rather than the Catholic church leadership's. And members of his family have surely violated civil laws at times, so the same argument could be made there.

Royal watchers often say that adoptive, female-line, etc. descendants of deposed royal families have "no right" to succession or titles because they never had those rights under the laws that were in place when the monarchy still held power. I very much disagree with that view, but if we are to accept that argument, then the Count of Paris is right because in the days when France was still a Kingdom, the country's marriage laws were based upon the rules of the state church, i.e. divorce was not legal.

His following the historical legislation of the Kingdom of France is in the same category as the behavior of, for example, the numerous heads of German ex-royal families who continue to exclude their family members outside of legitimate male lines even though the civil laws of the Federal Republic of Germany have granted equal succession rights (even to titles) to daughters and illegitimate children.

But in this case: I don't think even the present-day laws of the French Republic automatically entitle Naomi Kern to a royal title, so there would seem to be no conflict there.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

What would the Roman Catholic stance be about those married civilly but not yet religiously? Are they supposed to abstain until their religious marriage?

Their general policy is that they will (usually) recognize civil weddings between two non-Catholics, and they will recognize civil weddings of Catholics who requested and obtained advance permission from the church for their civil wedding, but other than that, they will not recognize civil weddings involving one or more Catholics. (Note that their rules deem anybody who has underwent a Catholic baptism to be "Catholic", regardless of which (if any) religion they actually follow.)

https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2015/06/11/why-would-non-catholics-get-an-annulment/

This is what enabled Letizia Ortiz to wed the then Prince of Asturias in a Catholic ceremony without difficulties, despite being divorced: They had never recognized her first, civil wedding.

They apparently did not recognize the civil wedding of Jean and Philomena, as the couple would not have needed to wed a second time in church if their first (civil) wedding had been religiously recognized. So, in the Catholic Church's eyes, the couple would have remained unmarried until their religious wedding.

 

[Countessmeout]

Jean as a Human and cousin can and may likely be happy for the couple. He certainly didn't follow the religious rules to tee.

But as the Catholic head of a conservative catholic royal house, he is held to uphold the strictly conservative house rules. If he recognised their marriage and allowed Naomi the titles, he would be accused of accepting adultery and bigamy. Not the message he wants to send to the rest of the world, and other contenders for the French title.

The reason the couple could not marry in the church is because he is still considered married. Catholics don't recognise divorce simply annulment. Unless he annuls his marriage to his first wife, the church still recognises him married until she dies. That is why his first wife retains her titles and status.

As for if Jean is a hypocrite depends on the Catholic priest you ask. Since they were civily married and about to be religiously, many priests would not find it a sin. Certainly a minor one if they did. Certainly not comparable to religious bigamy and adultry.

 

[Benjamin]

According to the Histories Royales article, Charles-Philippe and Naomi had a religious blessing before their civil marriage.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Many faith traditions have religious blessings.

I don't think a Catholic priest would bless a marriage that the Church views as illicit...and if such a "blessing" did take place it is not valid unless the bishop authorized it.

Again, the groom is well aware of this which is why there will likely be no pictures published.

 

[MARG]

I think it is a matter of common usage rather than correct or legal usage. Just as Diana Princess of Wales was colloquially called "Princess Diana", so too now is Catherine, Princess of Wales commonly called "Princess Catherine".

Princess Michael of Kent is the only one who was, and still is, referred to as Princess Michael rather than her given name of Marie Christine. I put that down to the time at which they were married, and that society tended to follow the "proper" usage of her title.

In this day and age, I don't think it would fly with the general public being as it is both antiquated at best and whiffs of patriarchal authority at worst. Either way, "Princess Naomi" made a lovely bride, straight out of the 1950's fashion with her dress, hair and hat.

 

[maria-olivia]

Charles Phiippe and Noami will now be very rich jetsetters in Monaco and other places..
Prince and Princess , or duc and duchesse d' Anjou...etc..
Amen to them.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

They are already "very rich jet setters" and they have been for quite some time.

The only difference is that now there are three Duchesses of Anjou-the Spanish one(Margarita), the French/Portuguese one(Diana) and the pretend one(Naomi).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Mistakes in the article of Histoires Royales.

Can you explain what you believe is mistaken?

A great pity that the count -like his grandfather- prefers conflict with his relatives over a more dignified approach. [...]

But unlike his father and grandfather, he at least hasn't disinherited anyone so far (we'll see what happens when his children are grown).

 

[Marengo]

But that does not mean that what he said in his communique was untrue. The French Royal House does not recognize civil marriage alone as sufficient to confer a French Royal title. Neither does the Vatican, whose rules the Royal House has played by since its inception.

They play by the Vaticans rules when it suits them. Living openly with a mistress is not in line with the Vatican's thoughts of marriage for example.

Times change. Even the House of Habsburg is more flexible these days. Prince Jean is free to follow whatever rules he sees fit. He choses the most conservative approach possible, unlike other non-reigning royal houses.

If the prince indeed follows the rules as set in stone he would support the future Duke of Franco as head of the house of France.

But as the Catholic head of a conservative catholic royal house, he is held to uphold the strictly conservative house rules.

It is not set in stone that the house is conservative. That is his interpertation. He can be anything between reactionary to very progressive. He choses to be extremely conservative up to the point that he is home schooling his children - which is very uncommon in Europe. He chose to support the extreme right yellow vests. Nobody stops him from seeking employment, sending his children to school or allowing his cousin to re-marry after a divorce without consequences to titles and such.

The only difference is that now there are three Duchesses of Anjou-the Spanish one(Margarita), the French/Portuguese one(Diana) and the pretend one(Naomi).

As an Orleanist I think the pretend Duchess of Anjou is the Spanish one . Why on earth the Dss of Cadaval would want to use the French title after the divorce would be a mystery to me. I hope she will have more self respect than that and is happy with another partner as well.

But unlike his father and grandfather, he at least hasn't disinherited anyone so far (we'll see what happens when his children are grown).

Let's give it time indeed . Not that there is anything left to inherit.

 

[kalnel]

While I'm sure there are many historical examples about the House of Orleans ignoring Church rules, Jean is actually on pretty firm footing here. Unless Charles-Philippe and Diana obtained an annulment from the Church, under canon law, they are still considered married (and will be for life).

Jean alludes to this in his press release about the marriage, noting that Diana has the right to retain her titles as she is still considered the wife and that Naomi does not qualify to receive titles, as her marriage to Charles-Philippe is not valid under Church or House rules.

Whether the royal house should or shouldn't recognize the marriage in this day and age is debatable, but if they're following the Catholic Church's rules, Charles-Philippe is still married to Diana, and he has no marriage to Naomi.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

The Orléans no longer hold any official role in France, though, so if he were to base his house rules on France's civil marriage laws, he would still be holding them to someone else's judgment – in that case, it would be the French government's rather than the Catholic church leadership's. And members of his family have surely violated civil laws at times, so the same argument could be made there.

Royal watchers often say that adoptive, female-line, etc. descendants of deposed royal families have "no right" to succession or titles because they never had those rights under the laws that were in place when the monarchy still held power. I very much disagree with that view, but if we are to accept that argument, then the Count of Paris is right because in the days when France was still a Kingdom, the country's marriage laws were based upon the rules of the state church, i.e. divorce was not legal.

His following the historical legislation of the Kingdom of France is in the same category as the behavior of, for example, the numerous heads of German ex-royal families who continue to exclude their family members outside of legitimate male lines even though the civil laws of the Federal Republic of Germany have granted equal succession rights (even to titles) to daughters and illegitimate children.

But in this case: I don't think even the present-day laws of the French Republic automatically entitle Naomi Kern to a royal title, so there would seem to be no conflict there.

The German government didn’t give equal rights to successions after the monarchy was abolished, they simply allowed the titles to be last names and allowed them to be diminished by allowing anyone including people who are not related to noble or royal families to use them. Titles before the end of the monarchy were used by both sons and daughters with the exception of illegitimate children.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Moved reply to the German forum, here:

The German government didn’t give equal rights to successions after the monarchy was abolished, they simply allowed the titles to be last names

So in other words, the governments gave equal rights in successions ... (since, after the conversion of titles to last names, the succession to such names was opened to all children regardless of legitimacy and paternal or maternal line).

And the laws of succession to property (also equalized) are separate from the laws of succession to names.

and allowed them to be diminished by allowing anyone including people who are not related to noble or royal families to use them.

No, surnames cannot be taken by "anyone" under German law; one would have to be related.