Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy

Tatiana Maria · Feb 18, 2024

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway

https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1814-05-17

English translation of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway

https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/1814-05-17

The following articles of the Constitution include mentions of the royal family (I am not including articles which refer only to the King in this list).

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.

Article 7.

If there is no Princess or Prince entitled to the succession, the King may propose his successor to the Storting, which has the right to make the choice if the King's proposal is not accepted.

Article 21.

The King shall choose and appoint, after consultation with his Council of State, all senior civil and military officials. These officials shall have a duty of obedience and allegiance to the Constitution and the King. The Royal Princes and Princesses must not hold senior civil offices.

Article 34.

The King shall make provisions concerning titles for those who are entitled to succeed to the Crown.

Article 35.

As soon as the heir to the throne has completed her or his eighteenth year, she or he is entitled to take a seat in the Council of State, although without a vote or responsibility.

Article 36.

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.

Article 37.

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.

Article 41.

If the King is absent from the realm unless commanding in the field, or if he is so ill that he cannot attend to the Government, the person next entitled to succeed to the throne shall, provided that he has attained the age stipulated for the King's majority, conduct the Government as the temporary executor of the Royal Powers. If this is not the case, the Council of State will conduct the administration of the realm.

Article 44.

The Princess or Prince who, in the cases mentioned in Article 41, conducts the Government shall make the following oath in writing before the Storting: «I promise and swear that I will conduct the Government in accordance with the Constitution and the Laws, so help me God, the Almighty and Omniscient.»

If the Storting is not in session at the time, the oath shall be made in the Council of State and later be presented to the next Storting.

The Princess or Prince who has once made the oath shall not repeat it later.

Article 75.

It devolves upon the Storting:

[...]
e. to decide how much shall be paid annually to the King for the Royal Household, and to determine the Royal Family's appanage, which may not, however, consist of real property;
[...]

Tatiana Maria · Feb 18, 2024

Tatiana Maria said:
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 said:
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.

I respectfully disagree; I think it is at least arguable that the Constitution's mentions of princesses and princes, such as articles 6 and 37, are inclusive of untitled persons in line to the throne.

Historian Dag Trygsland Hoelseth, who as you probably know is – like you – a Norwegian who is highly knowledgeable about the monarchy, thought so, since he wrote about article 6:

The Constitution art. 6 paragraph 4 says that «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.» Although Maud Angelica Behn is not titled, the paragraph has been interpreted as saying that also the birth of others with succession rights should be notified to the Storting.

Maud Angelica Behn was at the time of birth no. 3 in the line of succession to the Norwegian throne.

https://web.archive.org/web/20091021145010/http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/stmin20030430.html

I personally believe that is the way in which those articles should be interpreted.

The references to "Princes" formed part of the original text of the Constitution in 1814, and at the time, article 34 specified that persons in line to the throne would be titled Prince. I will quote your translation of article 34 as it stood between 1814 and 1990:

''The nearest heir to the throne, if he is the son of the reigning King, shall bear the title of Crown Prince. The other persons entitled to succeed to the throne shall be called Princes, and the Royal daughters, Princesses.''

Therefore, the lawmakers' original intent was that articles such as article 37 would apply to everyone in line to the throne, not only the most senior royals.

Additionally, adopting a literal interpretation of "Princes and Princesses" and applying these clauses only to royals who carry the titles of Princess or Prince would have some odd or undesirable consequences post-1990.

Take article 7, for example:

"If there is no Princess or Prince entitled to the succession, the King may propose his successor to the Storting, which has the right to make the choice if the King's proposal is not accepted."

If we are to interpret "Princess or Prince" in article 7 literally, then the Behn sisters do not truly have rights to the throne, for if Haakon, his children, and Märtha Louise were to die, there would be "no Princess or Prince entitled to the succession", and King Harald V or the Storting would be allowed to appoint a different successor according to article 7.

Or consider article 36 (though I know you believe the King would never deny consent):

"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."

The consequence of a literal interpretation of "Prince or Princess" would be that Princess/Crown Princess Ingrid Alexandra, who trained all her life for the throne, would lose her right to it by marrying someone without the King's official consent. But if she and Prince Sverre Magnus both lost their right to the throne due to unapproved spouses, Maud Angelica Behn, who never expected to become Queen, would become Queen of Norway even if she had an even more inappropriate spouse at her side, because according to this interpretation she would not have needed the King's consent to marry.

Tatiana Maria · Feb 18, 2024

Since the mechanics of the King's constitutional consent to royal marriages are a frequent topic of discussion here in the Norway forum, I will also copy over a post by Royal Norway in the General Royal Discussion forum with important information about the King and Government's interpretation of article 36 of the Constitution:

ROYAL NORWAY said:
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.

Click to expand...

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.

Somebody · Feb 18, 2024

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.

Tatiana Maria · Feb 18, 2024

Somebody said:
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.

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 the way, the succession rules have a thread of their own: Succession rules :flowers:

Countessmeout · Feb 18, 2024

Tatiana Maria said:
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 the way, the succession rules have a thread of their own: Succession rules

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.

Tatiana Maria · Feb 19, 2024

See here for my reply. :flowers:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f16/succession-rules-36181-3.html#post2596346

Concerning the discussion of the references to princes and princesses, here is a related post by Somebody:

Somebody said:
It is interesting, however, that the constitution assumes that those that might ascend the throne would be princes and princesses:

Article 7.
If there is no Princess or Prince entitled to the succession, the King may propose his successor to the Storting, which has the right to make the choice if the King's proposal is not accepted.

So, if for whatever reason the first 4 currently in line to the throne, would suddenly no longer be in the line of succession, there is a non-princesses who would ascend the throne but according to Article 7 the Starting might choose a different successor than the one proposed by the king (which assumes that his three granddaughters by his daughter could be skipped as they are not princesses). I am quite sure that isn't the intention but the wording and current practice are at odds with each other (just like in Sweden).

Of course, I assume that as soon as such a situation would arise, the king would use his prerogative to create at least the heir a prince or princess if he/she isn't one already - using article 34:

Article 34.
The King shall make provisions concerning titles for those who are entitled to succeed to the Crown.

Article 36 also only applies to princes and princesses entitled to succeed to the Crown of Norway, so from that perspective Maud, Leah and Emma are free to marry whoever they like without any consequences for the place in the line of succession.

Article 36.
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.

And suddenly in artikel 37 the term 'royal princes and princesses' is introduced. Would Märtha Louise and Sverre Magnus not qualify as they are no (longer) royal highnesses?

Article 37.
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.

The combination of articles 41 and 44 indicates the assumption that the (direct) heir to the throne is a prince or princess. Article 41 references 'the person next entitled to succeed' (so a general phrasing) while Article 44 refers to this same person as The prince or princess, who in the cases mentioned in article 41...

Article 41.
If the King is absent from the realm unless commanding in the field, or if he is so ill that he cannot attend to the Government, the person next entitled to succeed to the throne shall, provided that he has attained the age stipulated for the King's majority, conduct the Government as the temporary executor of the Royal Powers. If this is not the case, the Council of State will conduct the administration of the realm.

(...)

Article 44.
The Princess or Prince who, in the cases mentioned in Article 41, conducts the Government shall make the following oath in writing before the Storting: «I promise and swear that I will conduct the Government in accordance with the Constitution and the Laws, so help me God, the Almighty and Omniscient.»

If the Storting is not in session at the time, the oath shall be made in the Council of State and later be presented to the next Storting.

The Princess or Prince who has once made the oath shall not repeat it later.

Annine · Jul 4, 2024

The goverment has amended the rules for who will get honoured with a funeral that are payed for by the state. Previously it was up to the sitting goverment to decide who should get that, and that has ended in a somewhat unworty discussion every time someone famous (sports stars, politican, cultual people, scientists, war veterans etc) died. Why they did or did not get a funeral payed for by the state?
Usually a member of the royal family has attended the funeral when it is payed for by the state.

The new rules are:
State funeral are reserved for the King, Queen, Crown Prince and Crown Princess.

Funeral payed by the state
Members of the close royal family that activly has represented the royal house
Current and previous prime ministers
Members of the sitting goverment
Current and previous presidents of Stortinget
Current and previous chiefs of the Supreme court.

When other famous/prominent people dies, it is up to the goverment to decided if they should represent, give a speech or send a wreath.

Reading this it means that Princess Astrid will certainly be offered a funeral on the expense of the state, Princess Martha Louise is now more uncertain since she no longer activly represents the royal house, but did for many years.

Princess Ragnhild was offered a funeral payed for by the state, but the family declined the offer (as one of only three people who has said no since 1949).

Endrer reglene for gravferd på statens bekostning: Ingen kulturpersonligheter

Regjeringen har innimellom fått kritikk for hvem som ikke får begravelse på statens regning. Fra nå av blir det lett: Kun kongehuset, regjeringen og høyesterett-ledere er kandidater.

www.nrk.no

Tatiana Maria · Jul 24, 2024

Thank you for explaining what led to this decision.

If I am correctly reading the press release (it seems that this is "only" a policy announcement and there is no plan to legislate), doesn't it stipulate that all current and former members of the supreme court, and not only the chiefs, would be entitled to a funeral paid by the state?

I am not sure how to interpret the final sentence "When a king, queen, crown prince or crown princess dies, there will be a state funeral, which follows its own rules" in regard to a possible husband of Ingrid Alexandra. If he is only called Prince rather than Crown Prince or King (which Durek Verrett seems to think will be the case), will he be disqualified from receiving a state funeral under this policy even though his predecessors Queen Sonja and Crown Princess Mette-Marit will receive one?

Gravferd på statens bekostning skal heretter omfatte medlemmer av den nære kongefamilien som aktivt har representert Kongehuset, sittende medlemmer av regjeringen og tidligere statsministre, og sittende eller tidligere høyesterettsjustitiarier.

Det er i kraft av sin rolle i det norske demokratiet at sittende stortingsrepresentanter og regjeringsmedlemmer og tidligere statsministre og stortingspresidenter er omfattet av ordningen med gravferd på statens bekostning.

Sittende og tidligere høyesterettsjustitiarier er omfattet av ordningen som øverste representant for den dømmende statsmakt.

Stortinget har en tilsvarende ordning for sittende stortingsrepresentanter og tidligere stortingspresidenter.

Når en konge, dronning, kronprins eller kronprinsesse dør, er det en statsbegravelse som følger egne regler.

Endrer ordningen med gravferd på statens bekostning

Regjeringen ønsker å hedre personer som har gått bort, som har hatt en særegen posisjon i det norske samfunnet. Det kan skje ved at regjeringen sender en krans, deltar i gravferden eller holder minnetale. I enkelte tilfeller har regjeringen tilbudt de ...

www.regjeringen.no

Annine · Jul 25, 2024

Only the current and former chiefs of the Supreme court, not members. I read it as if the partner of the heir(ess) dies he or she will get a state funeral no matter what she or he is called.

It is not legislated but I have not read any serious political opposition to the new guidlines.

Tatiana Maria · Aug 6, 2024

Regarding the above discussion about certain articles in the Constitution which predate the present reign (from a time when there was no difference made between the Royal House and the Royal Family and every member of the house/family carried a royal title) and how they ought to be interpreted in the present day (given that King Harald V has drawn a distinction between the Royal House and the Royal Family and included some untitled persons in the Royal Family):

Though I am not expecting it to happen, I wonder if there could be a chance that the arrest and criminal charge against Marius Borg Høiby (who is a member of the Royal Family but without royal succession rights or title) will lead to some sort of official guidance being issued by the authorities as regards the scope of Article 37. I do not think King Harald V will attempt to impede the prosecution of his stepgrandson (no matter what the king believes or feels about the allegations, there would surely be enormous negativity if he were perceived as enabling Marius to escape consequences for causing someone serious injury). But seeing as how the interpretation of Article 37 determines whether the king's formal consent is required to put a (untitled, non-dynastic) member of the royal family on trial for criminal charges, it would be a good time for the authorities to formalize their position on how narrowly or broadly Article 37 should be applied in the present day.

Here is the direct link to the statement from the Prime Minister's Office from April 12, 1994, about Article 37 of the Constitution (first posted here by Royal Norway).

https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/smk/vedlegg/tidligere-pressemeldinger/1994/prinsessen-har-ikke-forklaringsplikt.pdf

Perhaps a Norwegian-speaking member could provide a summary?

Prinsara · Aug 7, 2024

It may be a formality or whatnot, but I feel extremely sorry for Harald if he ends up having to authorize the prosecution of someone he's regarded as a grandchild since he was very small.

Toledo · Aug 7, 2024

In my old country, Spain, the King had to let the course of justice happen when his sister and her husband got into some serious legal trouble. Now Harald, and his son Haakon, have to do the same thing their cousin King Felipe did and let the justice system decide on the case.

Tatiana Maria · Aug 13, 2024

Personally, I do believe the most sensible present-day reading of Article 37 would be to interpret "the Royal Princes and Princesses" as "the persons in line to the throne and their spouses and unremarried widow/ers", as those are the individuals who would have been HRH Prince/ss prior to 1990 (in addition to daughters who were excluded from the throne only because of their gender). That interpretation would exclude Marius Borg Høiby, who is not in line to the throne, nor a consort.

But I also believe the King and Government's interpretation of Article 37, whatever that may be, should be confirmed by the appropriate legal authorities, instead of the current approach of ignoring the issue even though there already are two untitled adults in line to the throne (Maud Angelica and Leah Isadora Behn) and now an untitled and ineligible for the throne but nonetheless official member of the Royal Family (Marius Borg Høiby) who is facing criminal charges.

Unfortunately, King Harald V has a history of prioritizing optics over legally sound treatment of constitutional law (recall his argument that he was entitled to approve Mette-Marit Tjessem Høiby to become the crown princess consort without the government's consent or his argument that congratulating Princess Märtha Louise and Durek Verrett on their marriage meant that he was granting the constitutionally required consent for Princess Märtha Louise to remain in line to the throne after marriage), and the government does not object.

So I expect no clarification will be forthcoming, because as yet nobody seems to be discussing the fact that the King has the constitutional power to grant immunity from prosecution to at least some members of the Royal Family, and it is King Harald V no doubt prefers that the discussion not take place, especially while Marius Borg Høiby's impending charges of physical assault and vandalism are in the headlines.

I would like to ask a question to Norwegian posters and other posters familiar with Norwegian public opinion: What would be the public discourse around Article 37 if – hypothetically – instead of Marius Borg Høiby, it was a member of the Royal Family in line to the throne who had committed the physical assault(s) and other actions that Marius is accused of? In that scenario, would the public expect or accept King Harald V invoking Article 37 to grant that person immunity from prosecution? Would opinions change depending on whether it was Ingrid Alexandra, Sverre Magnus, or Maud Angelica Behn?

Mbruno · Aug 13, 2024

Tatiana Maria said:
The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway

Kongeriket Norges Grunnlov - Lovdata

English translation of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway - Lovdata

The following articles of the Constitution include mentions of the royal family (I am not including articles which refer only to the King in this list).

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.

Article 7.

If there is no Princess or Prince entitled to the succession, the King may propose his successor to the Storting, which has the right to make the choice if the King's proposal is not accepted.

Article 21.

The King shall choose and appoint, after consultation with his Council of State, all senior civil and military officials. These officials shall have a duty of obedience and allegiance to the Constitution and the King. The Royal Princes and Princesses must not hold senior civil offices.

Article 34.

The King shall make provisions concerning titles for those who are entitled to succeed to the Crown.

Article 35.

As soon as the heir to the throne has completed her or his eighteenth year, she or he is entitled to take a seat in the Council of State, although without a vote or responsibility.

Article 36.

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.

Article 37.

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.

Article 41.

If the King is absent from the realm unless commanding in the field, or if he is so ill that he cannot attend to the Government, the person next entitled to succeed to the throne shall, provided that he has attained the age stipulated for the King's majority, conduct the Government as the temporary executor of the Royal Powers. If this is not the case, the Council of State will conduct the administration of the realm.

Article 44.

The Princess or Prince who, in the cases mentioned in Article 41, conducts the Government shall make the following oath in writing before the Storting: «I promise and swear that I will conduct the Government in accordance with the Constitution and the Laws, so help me God, the Almighty and Omniscient.»

If the Storting is not in session at the time, the oath shall be made in the Council of State and later be presented to the next Storting.

The Princess or Prince who has once made the oath shall not repeat it later.

Article 75.

It devolves upon the Storting:

[...]
e. to decide how much shall be paid annually to the King for the Royal Household, and to determine the Royal Family's appanage, which may not, however, consist of real property;
[...]

The ICL project translation of the Norwegian constitution uses the header "Immunity of the Successor" for Article 37. To be clear, that is not an official header and reflects , I suppose, an interpretation of the people who run the ICL project, but it is consistent with the assumption that Article 37 applies only to persons who are in the line of succession to the Norwegian throne, which is also a common interpretation of what "Royal Princes and Princesses" mean in the Norwegian constitution.

Tatiana Maria · Aug 13, 2024

LadyFinn said:
Dagbladet's political editor Lars Helle at his comment about Mette-Marit's call to the victim, that although the purpose of contacting the victim surely was anything other than the very best, simply to hear if she was doing well, it could have been very unwise.
[...]
That's the case the Palace fears most now. If the investigation provides grounds for bringing charges, everything will be in open court. The results of Marius' blood test, other events that may have occurred in the relationship and events that lie further back in time will be presented and witnesses will be heard. Photos and audio recordings of Marius' conversations with the victim before the arrest will be presented and the victim will be asked of her conversation with Mette-Marit. If it gets to the point where Mette-Marit has to invoke her immunity it will be bad and harmful.[...]

Sensasjonelt idiotisk

Er det noe spesielt i at en mor snakker med en kvinne sønnen har hatt et kjæresteforhold til? Ja. Når du er kronprinsesse, blir en slik samtale høyeksplosiv.

www.dagbladet.no

Mr. Helle raises another important issue: Thanks to King Harald V invoking Article 37 in 1994 to protect Princess Märtha Louise from having to testify in a friend's divorce trial, there is now an established precedent that Article 37 shields "the Royal Princes and Princesses" (whomever that means) not only from the judgments of the courts, but even from being called to testify in court.

So if the courts decide that the testimony of members of the royal side of Marius's family is necessary for his trial, the question of who is protected by Article 37 will become quite important. All the more reason to clarify the position as soon as possible.

Hans-Rickard · Aug 13, 2024

Tatiana Maria said:
I would like to ask a question to Norwegian posters and other posters familiar with Norwegian public opinion: What would be the public discourse around Article 37 if – hypothetically – instead of Marius Borg Høiby, it was a member of the Royal Family in line to the throne who had committed the physical assault(s) and other actions that Marius is accused of? In that scenario, would the public expect or accept King Harald V invoking Article 37 to grant that person immunity from prosecution? Would opinions change depending on whether it was Ingrid Alexandra, Sverre Magnus, or Maud Angelica Behn?

That would not have been accepted by many i think… Part of the enormous popularity the Norwegian Royal Family still has in the norwegian culture/dna is based on their ability to live ”normal” lives and behave as normal as possible - while also being regal and majestic when the constitution demands them to… Part of the strong bond or the ”contract” between the norwegians and their monarchy that was created by King Haakon VII and Queen Maud, and have existed ever since, is based on their ability to always be approachable, always be relatable, to live non-royal lives within the royal sphere, to always always always come off as if they are just like you and me, while everyone knows that they are not…

That contract would not have been possible with a serial offender within the family… The whole idea of a royal family as not only a cultural bearer, but also as a normally living royal first family to look up to and feel close to, is based on their ability to live up to that image…

The Norwegian RF has until now being spared of any particularily big scandals involving crime or possible crime, so the unbreakable contract between the norwegian people and the norwegian King has never really been put to full test… Until now… Personally i don’t think this will change the bond between the people and the King dramatically but it exposes the risk of giving official status to people who are not born into the family, not a spouse of anyone in the family, not in the line or succession, and not expected to do anything for the royal family… It would IMO have been much more wise to give Marius a status of a member of The Crown Prince’s private family but not a part of the royal family…. But King Harald has indeed a history of being very kind and forgiving towards his family members… Part of it probably comes from the 9 long years when Sonja was not accepted by King Olav and that he does not want to make any of his children and grandchildren or their spouses having to feel rejected and unwelcome the way Sonja was made to feel for so long… But i think he has taken it too far sometimes…

Should for example Prince Sverre Magnus have been in Marius shoes, and The King would have ordered the special paragraph to be used to prevent him from having to go to court - it would not have been popular among the ordinary norwegians, nor among the elected decision makers in the parliament who would likely (at least) have pushed for a constitutional change to be initiated…

Mbruno · Aug 13, 2024

Hans-Rickard said:
That would not have been accepted by many i think… Part of the enormous popularity the Norwegian Royal Family still has in the norwegian culture/dna is based on their ability to live ”normal” lives and behave as normal as possible - while also being regal and majestic when the constitution demands them to… Part of the strong bond or the ”contract” between the norwegians and their monarchy that was created by King Haakon VII and Queen Maud, and have existed ever since, is based on their ability to always be approachable, always be relatable, to live non-royal lives within the royal sphere, to always always always come off as if they are just like you and me, while everyone knows that they are not…

That contract would not have been possible with a serial offender within the family… The whole idea of a royal family as not only a cultural bearer, but also as a normally living royal first family to look up to and feel close to, is based on their ability to live up to that image…

The Norwegian RF has until now being spared of any particularily big scandals involving crime or possible crime, so the unbreakable contract between the norwegian people and the norwegian King has never really been put to full test… Until now… Personally i don’t think this will change the bond between the people and the King dramatically but it exposes the risk of giving official status to people who are not born into the family, not a spouse of anyone in the family, not in the line or succession, and not expected to do anything for the royal family… It would IMO have been much more wise to give Marius a status of a member of The Crown Prince’s private family but not a part of the royal family…. But King Harald has indeed a history of being very kind and forgiving towards his family members… Part of it probably comes from the 9 long years when Sonja was not accepted by King Olav and that he does not want to make any of his children and grandchildren or their spouses having to feel rejected and unwelcome the way Sonja was made to feel for so long… But i think he has taken it too far sometimes…

Should for example Prince Sverre Magnus have been in Marius shoes, and The King would have ordered the special paragraph to be used to prevent him from having to go to court - it would not have been popular among the ordinary norwegians, nor among the elected decision makers in the parliament who would likely (at least) have pushed for a constitutional change to be initiated…

I don't think any member of the Royal Family should have immunity other than the monarch. And even the monarch's immunity should not be absolute, but only in connection with official acts, which is the sovereign immunity also enjoyed by heads of states in republics (including in the USA, according to the latest controversial decision of the U.S. Supreme Court involving former President Donald Trump).

As it stands now though, not only does the King of Norway have absolute immunity against criminal prosecution (as the other European monarchs also do BTW), but, more strikingly, so do the royal princes and princesses, unless the King waives immunity for the latter. Again, it is unclear, as Tatiana Maria said, if "the King" in the context of Art. 37 means King Harald personally or the King in Council, i.e., the government.

Tatiana Maria · Aug 13, 2024

Thank you for the response to my question, Hans-Rickard.

Mbruno said:
Also, I don't think other countries have anything similar to absolute immunity for royal princes and princesses as in Article 37 of the Norwegian constitution.

Denmark does - alone among the other European monarchies, I believe.

Article 25 of the Danish absolutist constitution of 1665 has been retained, even though Denmark has abolished absolute monarchy, and it is very similar to Article 37 of the Constitution of Norway. I assume the former inspired the latter, since Denmark and Norway once shared a monarchy, even though the union of crowns ended shortly before the current Constitution of Norway was written.

It is a bit ironic that the Scandinavian royal families are internationally reputed for their egalitarianism, yet two out of the three Scandinavian monarchies have the broadest royal immunity provisions in Europe.

tommy100 · Aug 14, 2024

Yes I'm surprised at that - we always think of Scandinavia as egalitarian yet they are some of the few European monarchies that give legal immunity to their royals.

I also read in teh MArius case that the police arrested him at a school by the Skagum estate because the police wouldn't be allowed on the royal land - is this true? Something similar happened in Sweden didn't it where the Royal Court refused police entry to arrest Silvia's nephew and he flew out the country while I was all going on. That made me explore and actually in the UK the police are barred from free entry onto the King's properties as well but I never knew that because its never had to be used.

That is one thing to remember- I think people don't generally care about immunity until it is used and then it is seen as unfair and unjust.

Somebody · Aug 14, 2024

Are people in Norway concerned about this immunity thing? I can see why the recent events with Marius and ML getting married to a convicted felon who served prison time might raise some questions within the country.

Tatiana Maria · Aug 14, 2024

tommy100 said:
[...] That made me explore and actually in the UK the police are barred from free entry onto the King's properties as well but I never knew that because its never had to be used.

That is one thing to remember- I think people don't generally care about immunity until it is used and then it is seen as unfair and unjust.

Somebody said:
Are people in Norway concerned about this immunity thing? I can see why the recent events with Marius and ML getting married to a convicted felon who served prison time might raise some questions within the country.

I have not personally seen any mention of it in the press, other than the one opinion article from Lars Helle which was posted here by LadyFinn, but I wonder if, as tommy100 alluded to, this might come down to the ignorance of the public and of even many journalists and "royal experts" rather than genuine satisfaction with royal princes and princesses being immune from the law.

tommy100 said:
I also read in teh MArius case that the police arrested him at a school by the Skagum estate because the police wouldn't be allowed on the royal land - is this true?

I am curious about the source of this claim as well. There is at least no such regulation in the Constitution or in the Penal Code. And although Skaugum is imbued with royal dignity from a historical perspective, since it has served as the Crown Princely seat since 1932, it is legally a privately owned property, so I would have assumed it had no special legal protections.

Skaugum Estate

Skaugum Estate is the residence of the Crown Prince and Crown Princess of Norway.

www.royalcourt.no

Annine · Aug 14, 2024

King Harald has been caught speeding atleast once (70 km in the 60-zone) he was not punnished, the crime was not exactly major and the speed not like Carl Gustaf and prince Joachim has been caught in, so no major discussions, though there has been some discusssion about his immunity in paragraf 5. It was voted on in a comitee in Stortinget in 2004 and not adapted.

Slipper straff ved råkjøring

Både Carl Gustaf og Harald kan kjøre så fort de bare vil.

www.nettavisen.no

Kongen tatt i fartskontroll

Kong Harald ble i går stanset i fartskontroll, men fordi han er statsoverhode slipper han bot, skriver Verdens Gang.

www.nrk.no

I do not belive paragraf 37 ever would be used to protect ML daughters or any other untitled member (former/late spouses of the three princesses)

Tatiana Maria · Aug 14, 2024

Annine said:
King Harald has been caught speeding atleast once (70 km in the 60-zone) he was not punnished, the crime was not exactly major and the speed not like Carl Gustaf and prince Joachim has been caught in, so no major discussions, though there has been some discusssion about his immunity in paragraf 5. It was voted on in a comitee in Stortinget in 2004 and not adapted.

Slipper straff ved råkjøring

Både Carl Gustaf og Harald kan kjøre så fort de bare vil.

www.nettavisen.no

Kongen tatt i fartskontroll

Kong Harald ble i går stanset i fartskontroll, men fordi han er statsoverhode slipper han bot, skriver Verdens Gang.

www.nrk.no

Interesting, thank you.

Annine said:
I do not belive paragraf 37 ever would be used to protect ML daughters or any other untitled member (former/late spouses of the three princesses)

If so, I hope (but expect to be disappointed) for it to be handled properly if any of the Behn sisters ever finds herself in legal trouble, meaning that the King/Government should waive her Article 37 immunity instead of ignoring the issue or claiming that Article 37 only applies to titled princes and princesses (because that interpretation would have bizarre results when applied to other articles in the Constitution that use exactly the same "Princes and Princesses" phrasing).

Tatiana Maria · Aug 15, 2024

LOV nr 20001 af 14/11/1665, Statsministeriet

Lex Regia (Konge-Lov) (Kongeloven)

www.retsinformation.dk

Kongeloven, 14. november 1665

danmarkshistorien.dk

The Danish law of royal immunity in Article 25 of the Lex Regia states that "They" have immunity without specifying who "They" are, but the preceding paragraph (which has been repealed) referred to "Princes and Princesses of the Blood".

If the Danish law was the inspiration for the Norwegian law of royal immunity (Article 37 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway, as posted above), that would support Mbruno's interpretation that royal immunity only applies to persons who are in line to the throne. If so, it is by no means certain that Crown Princess Mette-Marit could rely on royal immunity to protect herself from, say, being subpoenaed to give evidence at a trial or being charged with witness tampering.

Even though the Norwegian public and media are ignoring Article 37, I hope the lawyers for the royal family, government, police and prosecutors will be studying it carefully in case Marius Borg Høiby's case comes to trial (though it seems he is planning on a guilty plea).

Mbruno · Aug 15, 2024

Tatiana Maria said:
LOV nr 20001 af 14/11/1665, Statsministeriet

Lex Regia (Konge-Lov) (Kongeloven)

www.retsinformation.dk

Kongeloven, 14. november 1665

danmarkshistorien.dk

The Danish law of royal immunity in Article 25 of the Lex Regia states that "They" have immunity without specifying who "They" are, but the preceding paragraph (which has been repealed) referred to "Princes and Princesses of the Blood".

I couldn't find an article in the current Danish constitution that mimics Article 25 of the Lex Regia. Has it been incorporated into the Penal Code instead?

JR76 · Aug 15, 2024

Tatiana Maria said:
LOV nr 20001 af 14/11/1665, Statsministeriet

Lex Regia (Konge-Lov) (Kongeloven)

www.retsinformation.dk

Kongeloven, 14. november 1665

danmarkshistorien.dk

The Danish law of royal immunity in Article 25 of the Lex Regia states that "They" have immunity without specifying who "They" are, but the preceding paragraph (which has been repealed) referred to "Princes and Princesses of the Blood".

The notes clarifies that "De" in §25 refers to the princes and princesses.

Tatiana Maria · Aug 24, 2024

LadyFinn said:
Mette-Marit has always been aware that her son is not a public figure. So it's surprising that Marius has a diplomatic passport, according to Se og Hør.
According to sources, Marius has used his diplomatic passport several times to avoid unpleasant situations. Close sources claim that he has used his status to escape the police abroad, even when he is said to have been under the influence of drugs.
[...]

Ny skandale for Marius

Virkelighetens «Exit»: Marius Borg Høiby skal ha gitt blaffen i lover og regler med diplomatpass i lomma.

www.seher.no

The article states:

«Personer som reiser på oppdrag for norske myndigheter kan få diplomatpass etter behov og søknad. Dette gjelder blant annet kongehuset og kongefamiliens medlemmer. Vi kan ikke dele informasjon om enkeltpersoner», skriver kommunikasjonsrådgiver i Utenriksdepartementet Ragnild H. Simenstad til Se og Hør.

("Persons who travel on duty for Norwegian authorities can receive a diplomatic passport according to need and request. This applies inter alia to members of the royal house and royal family. We cannot share information about individuals," writes Ragnild H. Simenstad, communications advisor in the Foreign Affairs Department, to Se og Hør.)

By that logic, shouldn't the use of diplomatic passports be limited to working royals on official travel? However, European monarchies in general seem to be very liberal about granting diplomatic passports to non-working royals or even distant relatives, as Denmark and Belgium have even granted diplomatic passports to their royals' dethroned Greek and Italian relatives respectively.

Mbruno said:
I couldn't find an article in the current Danish constitution that mimics Article 25 of the Lex Regia. Has it been incorporated into the Penal Code instead?

JR76 said:
The notes clarifies that "De" in §25 refers to the princes and princesses.

Please see here for my response and information on the Danish law on royal immunity:

General Questions and Information about the Danish Royal Family

I’m sure it is a consequence of each royal patronage lasting for only 5 years at a time. Then the organisations that wants to keep a royal patron will have to apply again… The new system (wich is already implemented in Norway) gives room for more organisations getting a time-limited royal...

www.theroyalforums.com

Somebody · Aug 24, 2024

It's not limited to monarchies. Family members of presidents or of embassy personnel (of any country) also get diplomatic passports.

Tatiana Maria · Aug 25, 2024

Somebody said:
It's not limited to monarchies. Family members of presidents or of embassy personnel (of any country) also get diplomatic passports.

Good point, thank you. But which family members of diplomatic personnel or presidents typically receive diplomatic passports?

Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy

Majesty

Majesty

Majesty

Super Moderator

Majesty

Imperial Majesty

Majesty

Aristocracy

Majesty

Aristocracy

Majesty

Heir Apparent

Heir Apparent

Majesty

Majesty

Majesty

Super Moderator

Majesty

Majesty

Heir Apparent

Super Moderator

Majesty

Aristocracy

Majesty

Majesty

Majesty

Heir Apparent

Majesty

Super Moderator

Majesty

Similar threads