Jean d'Orléans, Duke of Vendôme, is the son of Henri, Count of Paris, one of the two major pretenders to the French throne, the other being Louis de Bourbon. Jean d'Orléans is therefore the Dauphin, the heir apparent from the House of Orléans.

While some insist Louis is the true King of France, and others take the side of Henri, I think most will agree on the validity of this message from Jean d'Orléans, subsequent to the recent vote in Versailles:

Does the Europe they offer us correspond to the wishes of the French and European peoples? Does it respond, in its projected form, to the aspirations of young people in search of meaning? I have traveled a great deal, these past ten years, in France and in Europe. Not as a politician seeking a term of office, but as a citizen attentive to the everyday life of his compatriots, and concerned about the destiny of France and of this continent. I have taken the time to listen and I know - because we have discussed it together - that many Frenchmen do not understand where they are being led. This incomprehension creates anxiety throughout the land and confusion in the young. France is not bored, she is worried.
 
The French people tried to express it, when they were permitted to. In 2005, they rejected, through a referendum, the constitutional treaty that was submitted to them. This time, they will not be allowed to voice their opinion on a document that repeats the essential points that they had rejected. The Treaty of Lisbon provides for a president of the European Union and a vice-president in charge of foreign affairs. It extends the powers of the Union in numerous areas, to the detriment of the States. It assures the preeminence of European law over the laws of the nations. [...]
 
I am 42. I was 13 when John-Paul II became Pope. I belong to the generation of young persons who lived in step with this Pope of modern times. We saw him accelerate the fall of the Soviet Union, through the strength of his words and his actions. That empire, that was thought to be unshakable, was built on a Utopia. The bureaucracy that governed it disdained the human and spiritual exigencies. It promised men a material happiness that would never replace their profound aspirations. It forced them to worship idols, that they demolished as soon as they could. The Soviet Union was founded on a lie, at least by the omission of the cultural roots of the people whom they wanted to subjugate to their laws.
 
Because I am attached to Europe, like the majority of those of my generation, I want it to be spared from this dangerous presumption. The Union is too often ignorant of the culture and riches of the countries it wants to enfold. Even though it is responsible to no one, the Court of Justice imposes on the States its own jurisprudence. European law consecrates the power of a technocracy that desires to regulate people's lives in the smallest detail. Now the current Pope, Benedict XVI, sent a forceful reminder last year: "You cannot hope to construct a real common house if you neglect the very identity of the peoples of our continent." And this identity "consists of values that Christianity helped to forge."
 
This obvious fact did not convince the writers of the charter of fundamental rights, annexed to the Treaty. No reference, in the text, to the Christian roots of our Europe. Even though the Union says it is "conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage", the wording is vague enough to allow many interpretations. Anyway, it is enough to read it to understand: the inspiration of this charter is basically individualistic. It dissolves the natural solidarities and communities, just as the Treaty submitted to the French Parliament dissolves European nations. Can we really believe that this is what young Europeans want? If we want it to resist the storms, we must found Europe on something more solid. Not on a Utopia, but on Truth.

.