Can you explain the difference, please? I don't see the practical difference between the two translations.
They also seem semantically equivalent to me.
Can you explain the difference, please? I don't see the practical difference between the two translations.
So if Maud, Leah or Emma have descendants while Haakon is king, they’d be in line of succession.
So when IA accedes to the throne, do they lose their place in succession? Or no newer descendants of theirs would be added?
Thanks for the info.
Can Mette-Marit -as the mother of IA and Sverre- say "no" for the succession line, or about this case she couldn't decide?
Only the regent can write people in and out of the line of succession.
She didn't give up her title it was altered for Her Royal Highness to Her Highness so she would be able to lead a normalish life with her husband and children.
Intresting but quiet reasonable too. It not make any sense that on line of succession is tens of names or even hundreds or thousands of names like on British line of succession. Has other monarchies too limitation to numbers of names on line of succession?
Question: if ML doesn’t get permission, does marry, and does lose her place in the line of succession, does that affect only her, or also her daughters?
Haakon has said in interviews that when he told his parents about MM's past, the King said, "Is it more?" To which Haakon replied "no" - and the King said that "Dette klarer vi!" (''We'll manage this!'')
And then to the constitutional stuff:
According to the then Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, the King called him to the palace before the engagement - and informed him that Haakon wanted to marry MM.
He told the PM that he knew about Article 36 in the Constitution, which states:
A Prince or Princess entitled to succeed to the Crown of Norway may not marry without the consent of the King. Nor may he or she accept any other crown or government without the consent of the King and the Storting. For the consent of the Storting two thirds of the votes are required.
If he or she acts contrary to this rule, they and their descendants forfeit their right to the throne of Norway.
He explained that he understood that when the word "King" is written in the Constitution, it had to be interpreted as "the King in Council of State'' (which, today, means the government).
But after that, the King said the following: ''Men akkurat når det gjelder denne paragrafen om at kongen må godkjenne kronprinsens ekteskap, vil jeg mene at kongen faktisk er kongen, det vil si meg – og ikke deg''.
("But just when it comes to this Article about that the King must approve the Crown Prince's marriage, I would think that the King is actually the King, that means me - and not you.")
And then it was done, neither Stoltenberg nor any other prime minister could do anything about it.
I agree that the intention surely was focused on the off-spring of that marriage (and any future marriages) not on those of a previous marriage.I wonder if the legislators truly had the intent to strip even descendants born from a previous marriage of their right to the throne when a prince or princess marries without the consent of the King. If not, and supposing there is preparatory work in evidence that the intention of Parliament was merely to exclude descendants born from the unapproved marriage, could that interpretation be defended by the monarch or government?
That sounds like a Swedish interpretation/loopholeOn another note, it is strange how even as the constitutional changes in 1990 introduced the possibility of non-royals being in line to the throne, Article 36 was amended to read "a Prince or Princess entitled to succeed to the Crown of Norway" instead of "a person entitled to succeed to the Crown of Norway". If Maud Angelica Behn marries without the King's consent, could she argue that she maintains her right to the throne because she is not a princess?
Article 6
The order of succession is lineal, so that only a child born in lawful wedlock of the Queen or King, or of one who is herself or himself entitled to the succession, may succeed, and so that the nearest line shall take precedence over the more remote and the elder in the line over the younger.
An unborn child shall also be included among those entitled to the succession and shall immediately take her or his proper place in the line of succession as soon as she or he is born into the world.
The right of succession shall not, however, belong to any person who is not born in the direct line of descent from the last reigning Queen or King or a sister or brother thereof, or is not herself or himself a sister or brother thereof.
When a Princess or Prince entitled to succeed to the Crown of Norway is born, her or his name and time of birth shall be notified to the first Storting in session and be entered in the record of its proceedings.
For those born before the year 1971, Article 6 of the Constitution as it was passed on 18 November 1905 shall, however, apply. For those born before the year 1990 it shall nevertheless be the case that a male shall take precedence over a female.
Why isn't the king's sister Princess Astrid in the line of succession to the throne?
Because until 1971 women were excluded; both Harald's older sisters married before the changes came into effect and were never included in the line of succession. In 1990 absolute primogeniture was introduced for those born after that date.
The final paragraph on kongehuset.no on the order of succession refers to these rules.
The King's children are still ranked according to male-preference cognatic primogeniture, which was the norm between 1971 and 1990;
Because until 1971 women were excluded; both Harald's older sisters married before the changes came into effect and were never included in the line of succession. In 1990 absolute primogeniture was introduced for those born after that date.
The final paragraph on kongehuset.no on the order of succession refers to these rules.
Had they decided to include Harald's sisters in the line of succession and place them and their children ahead of Harald, the line of succession would look very different....
(this thought came up after reading this news) - of course, I know it's not realistic... Among other reasons because the chances are very slim that they would have been able to marry the partners they ended up marrying.
In this hypothetical situation, we would have: KING HAAKON & QUEEN MARTHA
Line of succession (and partners for a view of all the members of the extended royal family)
1. Crown prince Olav (with Crown princess Ingrid)
2. Prince Christian (with Princess Mariah)
3. Princess Sophia
4. Princess Ingeborg (with Paulo César Ribeiro Filho)
5. Victoria Ribeiro (Felipe Sampaio Octaviano Falcão)
6. Frederik Falcão
7. Princess Raghnild (with Aaron Matthew Long)
8. Alexandra Long
9. Elizabeth Long
10. Princess Astrid (widow of Johan Martin Ferner)
11. Cathrine Ferner Johansen (with Arild Johansen)
12. Sebastian Johansen
13. Madeleine Johansen
14. Benedikte Ferner
15. Alexander Ferner (with Margaret Gudmundsdottir Ferner)
16. Edward Ferner
17. Stella Ferner
18. Elisabeth Ferner (with Tom Folke Beckmann)
19. Benjamin Beckmann
20. Carl-Christian Ferner (with Anna-Stina Slattum)
21. Prince Harald (with Princess Sonja)
22. Princess Märtha Louise
23. Maud Angelica Behn
24. Leah Isadora Behn
25. Emma Tallulah Behn
26. Prince Haakon Magnus (with Princess Mette Marit)
27. Princess Ingrid-Alexandra
28. Prince Sverre Magnus
Went with surnames of the fathers for the non-male line descendants following the way this was handled for ML and Ari Behn (even though in reality Raghnild's and Astrid's descendants use different (combined) surnames).
Descendants of King Christian IX of Denmark1.2.1.2.5.1.Fay Slattum Ferner (*2018)
1.2.1.2.5.2.Fam Slattum Ferner (*2021)
One of the discussion has been whether Märtha Louise's children would loose their place in line to the throne if ML's second marriage would not be approved. Based on Article 6, I would argue that the three girls meet the criteria and a subsequent unapproved marriage of their mother would not negate their status as being born in lawful wedlock of one who is herself or himself entitled to the succession.
Article 6.
The order of succession is lineal, so that only a child born in lawful wedlock of the Queen or King, or of one who is herself or himself entitled to the succession, may succeed, and so that the nearest line shall take precedence over the more remote and the elder in the line over the younger.
Interesting observation, but I'm not sure if that legal argument would succeed, because Princess Märtha Louise herself was born in wedlock of someone entitled to the succession to the crown, but she undeniably could be deprived of her succession rights by article 36.
By her own actions.
Big difference to the girls losing their rights because of the actions of their mother. The law requires them to have been born to a parent who was in the line of succession at the time of their birth. Not that their mother has to continue to be in line of succession. They met that criteria.