No, it isn't. The point is that replacing loyal officers who had fought for France with those who had not further alienated the army against the Bourbons which was not a wise move on the Bourbons part. And the opinions of those who had served against France are irrelevant on that point. The bottom line is that the Bourbons made a hash of ruling France in 1814-1815 and they refused to honor the provisions of the Treaty of Fontainebleu which brought Napoleon back.
Well, yes, I believe it is. We were discussing what you termed " 'privilege' " and you cited the new nobility's record of military service as justifying their position and privilege. Alienating the army by replacing officers loyal to Naploeon (presumably) with Royalists, and the wisdom thereof, would seem to be a different point.
The discussion re. privilege related to legitimacy and to what extent Bonaparte might be seen a usurper. That in turn related to whether events following his return from Elba constituted a state of war in France in the form of insurrection against the restored monarchy, and how that reflected on Marechal Ney and his ultimate fate.
The questionable merits of Louis XVIII and his supporters should not obscure the fact that monarchy, in its varying forms, was the prevailing form of government in Europe and the process by which an individual succeeded to or otherwise came to the throne was key to the legitimacy of monarchical rule.
As a footnote, it seems at times that you do not distinguish between the polity of France, its population, and the regime established by Bonaparte as Napoleon I. That risks producing some sweeping generalisations.