I Apologize to Prince Albert (and his wife) ... Reservedly

The Times of London is to the United Kingdom what the New York Times is to the United States: the de facto national newspaper of record.

Prince Albert of Monaco kisses his new b Therefore, when the Sunday edition of the Times of London published a lengthy article – salaciously headlined “The Full Filthy Monte” – on the antics of Prince Albert’s reluctant bride, I had no reason to doubt that the facts reported were true.

Except that I had already written numerous commentaries damning Albert for his shameful, deadbeat treatment of children he fathered out of wedlock.

Here, for example, is how I was spewing indignation at him long before his private life became tabloid fodder even for the staid Times:

Regular readers know that I’ve been unsparing in my criticism of Prince Albert II of Monaco – not only for living a notoriously promiscuous lifestyle, but also for fathering children (2 that we know of) out of wedlock…

He incited my most indignant ire when he renounced the birthright of his Black son in favor of vesting it in his White nephew.

(“Prince Albert Getting Married; No More Babies Out of Wedlock?” The iPINIONS Journal, August 4, 2006)

And here’s how I paid homage to that Times article – with the unvarnished intent of making him look more like a frog than a prince:

I could not have been more cynical [in previous commentaries] in observing that Albert is no prince charming and woe betide the woman who marries him. This is why I suggested that only a gold digger would consider him a great catch, implying of course that Charlene had to be one.

Well, it turns out I was right about him, but only partially right about her. Because reports are that she ‘tried to flee three times’ to avoid having to go through with her three-day royal wedding, which began on Friday…

But it hardly reflects well on her that the only thing her attempts to escape reportedly accomplished was to force Albert to renegotiate the financial terms of their prenuptial agreement; i.e., to make them more lucrative for her.

(“Monaco’s Prince Albert Captures His Runaway Bride,” The iPINIONS Journal, July 5, 2011)

Well, after all that, Albert sued the Times for reporting that his wife was a reluctant bride and that he had to pay her a princely prenuptial sum to get her to marry him. And, much to my chagrin, he won:

Prince Albert of Monaco has accepted a high court apology and substantial damages from the Sunday Times over ‘seriously defamatory allegations’ that he had entered a sham marriage with Charlene Wittstock.

(London Guardian, January 15, 2013)

Of course, I’m sure Albert could not care any less about the defamatory things I might have written about him. Nonetheless, I feel a moral duty to apologize for my defamatory comments that were based on this now-discredited Times article.

About that black son though…

Prince_Albert_Nicole_Coste_Neue_Revue075_op_461x600 But, apropos of what incited my ire in the first place, I make no apology for this:

Unfortunately, Albert decreed that his son’s royal birthright will be neither conferred nor recognized. This is Europe after all. And, despite their cosmopolitan pretensions (and the predilection of their men for sex with Black women), the Hohenzollern, d’Orleans, de Borbón y Borbón-Dos Sicilias, Windsors and other European royals remain so provincially racist that the prospect of a Black prince in their midst is simply too scandalous even to countenance. (Of course, inbreeding or consorting with Nazis is fine… But this? Perish the thought!)

And so, by issuing his decree, Albert eagerly assured his peers that, while he acknowledges his bastard son, this black boy will have no chance of sitting on his throne. Hell, he’ll be lucky if Albert lets him use his royal name, Grimaldi.

(“Prince Albert of Monaco Renounces Birthright of His Black Son,” The iPINIONS Journal, July 7 2005)

Incidentally, Albert sired this “unsuitable” heir during a seven-year affair with an Air France flight attendant from Togo named Nicole Coste.

That said, it would be remiss of me not to note that: