Remains of last Russian czar's heir may have been found

International Herald Tribune ^ | August 23, 2007

[Niuhuru]

“Bourbon, Orleans and Napoleonic contenders.”

I would have to say the Valois have a much more ancient claim and thus more legitimate. Then the Bourbons. The Orleanist branch were a bunch of monarchist backstabbers and the Napoleonic pretenders are just that...pretenders.

Napoleon never had any royal blood, he was just a Corsican peasant who became a general, who was then coronated after the fickle French decided they wanted a ruler who wasn’t part of the messy and incompetent Directory. After Napoleon was exiled on Elba the Bonapartes should have renounced all claims and lived discreetly.

Of all, if I were to select anyone, I would have selected the Head of the House of Valois, or the Head of the House of Bourbon. They have the best claim at at each time the House ruled.

If neither were decent enough, then the House of Capet should be chosen. They were the first French monarchists before the Valois.

[SunkenCiv]

Note: this topic is from 8/24/2007. Thanks 3AngelaD.

[Yollopoliuhqui]

All this hand wringing over the execution of the Czar and his immediate family is an exercise in fascist nostalgia. From what I’ve read of history, the Nicholas II was as much an airhead as Obama. He was murdered why? because his subjects were happy, contented workers living fulfilling lives under a benevolent monarch?! As a Republican, I find monarchy a hideous concept that needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth. I have no sympathy for monarchs, oligarchs, royalty, aristocracy, plutocracy or kleptocracy. European history is one long tale of discontent, rebellion and hatred for the tyrannical excesses of the nobility. Frankly, the Czar got what he deserved. Had his assassins been religious mystics, lone nuts or midget circus clowns, I’d raise my flagon to them with a “well done”.