Martha-Louise Affair

[Somebody]

Ok .... in a nutshell ... from what I remember....

Martha-Luise was part of the Norwegian horse-jumping team or otherwise sponsored. While in England, she fell in love - like really in love - with an English rider, who unfortunately was married.

For what ever reason, the English guy's wife found out about it (obviously the marriage was already on shaky ground), a divorce action was launched by the English guy's wife, and Martha-Luise was either named in the action, required to appear or was served so that she had to appear.

Consistent with many presidents of many countries, the royal heads of Europe are "above the law", so to speak. They can not be sued, etc. So, it came about that the ML's father, the King brought daughter home, and in doing so freed her from the onerous duty of having like a commoner in a commoner court of law. As I recall, a diplomatic note or something to that tune was also delivered to the court in question.

Inasmuch as it may be controversial, I think the King did his daughter a good turn .... of removing her from a situation where I'm pretty sure she had her heart broken, because she couldn't marry her love. If she had been anybody else, like a commoner, who knows what the future would have held then?

Naturally there would have been a stigma if she had married the English guy, because that would confirm she was the cause for the divorce. And naturally marrying a divorced guy would have been an awkward situation for the King, seeing I just read he is sworn to uphold the Norwegen Lutheran faith.

The King is not alone in this, QE2 is sworn to uphold the Church of England, and so on through Europe.

Trust the above goes some way to satisfy your curiosity.

As an addendum .... Martha-Luise's "high-jinks" of back then, seem not to have been tolerated by the advisers to the Royal Household and/or the government. There is naturally an element of politics in everything.

But it is another 'thing' when the Crown Prince comes along and threatens to surrender his crown if not allowed to marry a single-mom.

In ending, its too bad that the politics of changing the constitution at or before Martha-Luise's time weren't as liberal as the Danes who allowed Margrethe to become Queen, or later as the Swedes did to allow their first-born (a gal) to have the opportunity of becoming the future Queen.

By now I'd say that most Norwegians are happy that Haakon remained the crown prince... including ML herself who apparently never wanted to take over from her brother anyway.

And this is just another example of ML's controversial picks as lover.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I remember this case. The wife went after ML very aggressively in the Press. She meant business.

I was relieved when King Harald brought his daughter back to Norway. It was about to become really ugly.

 

[Prinsara]

It might still.

Do we have any idea whether Märtha Louise even realized she could be sued in a divorce case, or that she simply didn't care or didn't expect it until happened? I know no one has ever gone into the particulars in public.

Did the wife obtain her divorce anyway?

 

[Somebody]

Martha Louise’s private life has long provided fodder for her homeland’s tabloids;*in 1994 she was named as co-respondent in a divorce case by Irene Morris, a cashier in an Asda in Chester, who claimed the princess, a keen horsewoman, had been having an affair with her showjumper husband, Philip.*She was spared an appearance in court only after lawyers acting for the King successfully argued she was entitled to diplomatic immunity.

For those wondering why this affair was brought up again; the above was published in a recent article about ML and Durek kn the Times.

 

[B__ll]

One need only to look at the Harry Dunn case to see the damage that can be caused by those claiming diplomatic immunity.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

One need only to look at the Harry Dunn case to see the damage that can be caused by those claiming diplomatic immunity.

Yes, but Harry Dunn was a much more serious situation and in ML case, no one died or was physically injured.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

The poster Somebody posted this quote from the Times in a post both here in this thread and in the Märtha and Durek thread in October last year:

Martha Louise’s private life has long provided fodder for her homeland’s tabloids; in 1994 she was named as co-respondent in a divorce case by Irene Morris, a cashier in an Asda in Chester, who claimed the princess, a keen horsewoman, had been having an affair with her showjumper husband, Philip. She was spared an appearance in court only after lawyers acting for the King successfully argued she was entitled to diplomatic immunity.

Other posters replied in the Märtha and Durek thread:

It's not new. I've heard that about ML and Harald pulling her out for a long time (this would be a "spoiling" example), but these would be the concrete details.

I think it's a very good example of the lack of parenting skills of Harald and Sonja. I like them both, but I don't think they were tough enough with ML if she felt entitled to date a married man at such a young age.

And for Harald, yes, now, it seems like not letting ML face the music was an awful decision but if your panicky early-twenties child gets themselves into trouble in a foreign country and you can not only relieve them but spare yourself and your country bad international press, why wouldn't you fix it? I don't think Harald could have envisioned she wouldn't have grown up much almost thirty years later.

It was also mentioned by Adda in a later post:

I'd feel sorry for Harald and Sonja if they hadn't been the first ones to allow her to be this entitled and delusional. 20 something year old ML sleeps with a married man? No worries hon, Daddy will get you diplomatic immunity and out of the UK immediately.

Let's go through the King's involvement because this was not about him spoiling and enabling Märtha or not letting her face the music, etc.

Not much information on the internet about it, but I found an article from the regional newspaper Fædrelandsvennen from April 13, 1994 (link), which is only available on PressReader, so I don't think you will be able to translate it into English.
Summary of the article: The palace said the King took the decision that Märtha should not answer questions in any court (Norwegian or British) after the Norwegian Ministry of Justice conducted a legal investigation on the matter.

I've also read an article in the print edition of the national tabloid Dagbladet from the same date, which is only available in Dagbladet's digital newspaper archives, which are under a subscription and not possible to copy links from, so you just have to take my word for what they write.
Summary of the article: The government told Dagbladet that the palace had contacted the Prime Minister's office and said they wanted a legal investigation into whether Märtha was obliged to appear in court or whether she was covered by article 37 in the Norwegian constitution, which states that ''The Royal Princes and Princesses shall not personally be answerable to anyone other than the King, or whomever he decrees to sit in judgment on them.''
And after a week-long legal investigation by the Ministry of Justice, the government decided that she was indeed covered by article 37 as long as she stayed in Norway.

The King (IMO, in all likelihood, after advice from the Norwegian government) then decided that Märtha should not answer questions in any court (British or Norwegian).

And here's an article from the gossip-mag Se og Hør (link), which is, unfortunately, also under a subscription.
It says that the Norwegian government sent a letter to the British Foreign Office where they wrote the following: ''His Majesty the King has decided that Princess Märtha Louise shall not be held responsible in any court. It follows, according to the constitution, that the princess cannot answer accusations or give evidence.''

And that decision by the King/government was IMO the right and only thing to do. I mean, having the then 22-year-old princess and daughter of the monarch be part of a British court case regarding her alleged relationship with her then 40-year-old married rider-friend Philip Morris would have been extremely embarrassing for not only the Norwegian monarchy but also for Norway as a whole!

And here is a press release from the Norwegian Prime Minister's office on April 12, 1994, which is only available as a pdf (link).
Due to forum rules, I can't translate the whole of it, but here's the most important part:
''As long as HRH Princess Märtha Louise stays in Norway, a British court will not be able to order her to appear and give evidence directly before the court. The princess is also under no obligation to testify before a Norwegian court if a British court asks for evidence to be taken in Norway. This is evident from a report that the Ministry of Justice's legal department has drawn up for the Prime Minister's office. In the report, reference is made to article 37 in the constitution, which states that royal princes and princesses are not answerable to anyone other than the king or whomever he decrees to sit in judgment on them. Reference is also made to section 208 of the Civil Procedure Act, where it is stated that a witness may, among other things, refuse to answer questions that are of such a nature that the answer could expose the witness to loss of civil esteem.''

--------------------

BTW: Märtha did part of her horse training at the riding centre Arena UK, which was owned by a man named John Lanni, who gave an interview to Dagbladet, which was published on April 6, 1994 (and is only available in their digital newspaper archives). Lanni, who knew both Märtha and Philip Morris, said that he could guarantee that there was no love affair between Märtha and Morris and that Morris' wife Irene was only out after money.
And in an interview with Dagbladet, which was published on April 11, Philip Morris himself said that he had never had anything that could be characterized as a relationship with Märtha and that his wife was only out after money.

And I also think I have read somewhere that Märtha had another boyfriend at the time, who was even invited to spend time with the Royal Family.
And although Märtha is many things, she doesn't give me the impression of being a person who would have had a relationship with a married man, but that said, she was very young!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It has been fantastic to have you posting here again. It is a pleasure to read excellent posts such as this one, where you share and translate detailed sources (especially here, where they are only available behind paywall and/or inaccessible with Google Translate) and explain the full context of stories of which the rest of us only have surface-level knowledge.

When I first read Article 37, I wondered if it had ever been applied in an actual case, so that answers my question. (If the Prime Minister's Office press release has any other interesting information on the history or legal issues of Article 37 and you ever have the time and interest to summarize, or to tell me which sections to translate, I would be very interested.)

King Harald V has my respect for asking for a full legal investigation by the government into whether it applied to Princess Märtha Louise's situation, instead of relying on his personal lawyers or judgment. I hope that, as you speculated, he also consulted the government on his decision to invoke Article 37 on her behalf.

That said, I think those who are critical of the King for enabling his daughter not to appear in divorce court would point out that even though Article 37 was legally available, the King had the option not to invoke it. (I understand your point about her testifying in court being potentially embarrassing for Norway, but I think both Britons and Norwegians could separate the statements of a junior royal from the views of the country, much as they are doing now.) And those who are critical of royals' use of legal immunity would consider it unfair that Article 37 exists at all.

But given that someone who knew both the princess and Philip Morris went on the public record to strongly back up Philip's statements that his wife was making it up entirely, I understand the King's decision. It is one thing to accept responsibility and testify in a case when one is actually involved, and another to let the royal family's name be used by someone who, from the family's perspective, appears to be making false accusations for financial and possibly publicity reasons.

On a side note, I wonder if Article 37 would be interpreted to cover the untitled people who are in line to the throne, the way Article 6's rule that names of newborn Princes and Princesses should be notified to the Storting was (if I remember correctly) interpreted to apply to the Behns?

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

It has been fantastic to have you posting here again. It is a pleasure to read excellent posts such as this one, where you share and translate detailed sources (especially here, where they are only available behind paywall and/or inaccessible with Google Translate) and explain the full context of stories of which the rest of us only have surface-level knowledge.

Very kind of you to say!

And let me say it back to you that it is always a pleasure to read your informative posts here on TRFs.

--------------------

When I first read Article 37, I wondered if it had ever been applied in an actual case, so that answers my question. (If the Prime Minister's Office press release has any other interesting information on the history or legal issues of Article 37 and you ever have the time and interest to summarize, or to tell me which sections to translate, I would be very interested.)

Here's another quote from the statement:
''Paragraf 37 er til hinder for at en prins eller prinsesse gjøres til alminnelig part i en skilsmissesak uten kongens samtykke. På den annen side kan bestemmelsen i utgangspunktet neppe tolkes så vidt at den fritar prinsene og prinsessene fra å avgi vanlige vitneforklaringer i en sivil sak eller straffesak.''

''Article 37 prevents a prince or princess from being made an ordinary party in a divorce case without the King's consent. OTOH, the provision can initially hardly be interpreted so broadly that it exempts the princes and princesses from giving ordinary witness statements in a civil or criminal case.''

--------------------

King Harald V has my respect for asking for a full legal investigation by the government into whether it applied to Princess Märtha Louise's situation, instead of relying on his personal lawyers or judgment. I hope that, as you speculated, he also consulted the government on his decision to invoke Article 37 on her behalf.

That said, I think those who are critical of the King for enabling his daughter not to appear in divorce court would point out that even though Article 37 was legally available, the King had the option not to invoke it.

After the royal court had informed the government about the case and asked for a legal investigation, I'm pretty sure that it was the government who advised the King on what to do. And he would, of course, listen to their advice in a matter like this.

--------------------

(I understand your point about her testifying in court being potentially embarrassing for Norway, but I think both Britons and Norwegians could separate the statements of a junior royal from the views of the country, much as they are doing now.) And those who are critical of royals' use of legal immunity would consider it unfair that Article 37 exists at all.

In 1994, when the world was still pretty conservative by today's standards, it would IMO have been (as I wrote) extremely embarrassing for the Norwegian monarchy but also for Norway as a whole to have the then 22-year-old princess and daughter of the monarch be part of a British court case regarding her alleged relationship with a 40-year-old married man!

--------------------

On a side note, I wonder if Article 37 would be interpreted to cover the untitled people who are in line to the throne, the way Article 6's rule that names of newborn Princes and Princesses should be notified to the Storting was (if I remember correctly) interpreted to apply to the Behns?

Article 37 is very clear: ''The Royal Princes and Princesses shall not personally be answerable to anyone other than the King, or whomever he decrees to sit in judgment on them.''

And I would never in my wildest imagination think that the Royal Family and the government would be so unwise as to try to use article 37 to protect untitled family members like the Behn girls from any legal trouble. I mean, that would provoke an extreme wave of criticism from politicians, media and people alike!
And pretty sure it wouldn't be used to protect titled family members either! I mean, this isn't 1994!

And when it comes to the Behn girls and article 6, well, the King didn't have to notify the Storting when they were born since he didn't give them any princess-titles. However, since they were born with succession rights, he chose to do so.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you for your excellent responses! Regarding the last question, I would like to discuss it further, but as it is a general issue of constitutional interpretation and not specifically related to Princess Märtha Louise, I will move it to a different thread.