The Future of the Norwegian Monarchy

You make some quite good points, particularly in regard to cultural bias and blurred lines between institution and family (which apply to all monarchies).

To address your question no. 3 about the membership of the Royal House: In Norway, a distinction is made (particularly in the last 20 years or so) between the Royal House and the Royal Family. Marius Borg Høiby and (after he marries) Durek Verrett are members of the Royal Family, but not of the Royal House.

At the present time, only members of the Royal House receive public funding or undertake public duties, with one exception: Princess Astrid Mrs. Ferner is not a member of the Royal House, but she receives a government apanage and still occasionally attends official duties for the royal house or her royal patronages. And only members of the Royal Family who do not belong to the Royal House engage in business activities.

The members of the Royal House and Royal Family are defined on the official website:



It isn't my impression that the younger generations in Norway are more in tune to ethical politics in regards to the monarchy. Anecdotally, older generations seem to have/had a stronger reaction against the past illegal use of party drugs in Mette-Marit Tjessem Høiby and Ari Behn's backgrounds.

Alondra said:

I don't know much about Nordic Royal Houses, which is the reason I usually don't comment. I also believe that cultural upbringing gives all of us biases when commenting on other countries' issues.

Having said that and as a Spaniard who has lived the heights and lows of Juan Carlos and how he almost brought the monarchy becoming obsolete in Spain, I'd love to say a few things.

1. Harald is a well loved monarch. I doubt anyone can seriously think he's racist or unfair. He's known for being kind and open minded. But....and here comes the dreaded but,

2. Protecting a monarchy, the highest institution in Norway, is much more than being a great person. It means making difficult decisions when the Institution, the highest institution in the land, may be under threat. Harald is also a father, and the lines between institution and fatherhood get emotionally blurred.

3. I don't fully understand why Durek or Marius are part of the Royal House. Felipe made it simpler in Spain - royal house means working royals (except Juan Carlos but this is a different topic) and family of the king. Being family means just that, private citizens without receiving moneys from the State. Why hasn't Harald made such an easy distinction?.

4. Governments intervene when the highest institution on the land can be seeing as corrupt, obsolete or no longer fit to their population. One of the reasons for monarchies making a firewall is to prevent the institution from burning from outside with people like Durek or Marius.

Monarchies in Europe are fragile because the younger generation are much more in tune into ethical politics. Norway has always supported their monarchy....... but careful, it can go downhill very fast if the institution is no longer seen as "clean".

Click to expand...

To be fair, it wasn't really King Felipe who "made it simpler". The official definition of who the members of the Royal Family are in Spain comes from an old royal decree issued in 1981, whose purpose was actually to regulate the Civil Registry where births, marriages and deaths within the Family are recorded. Incidentally to those regulations, the official Royal Family was defined in the decree as "the King of Spain, his August Consort, his first-degree ascendants, his descendants, and the Hereditary Prince".

With respect to point #4, I stand by my opinion that the government of Norway is not being sufficiently proactive in defending the monarchy as the governments of some other European countries might have been in the past. The Dutch government for example effectively refused to introduce legislation in Parliament to consent to Prince Friso's marriage to Mabel Wisse Smit because of incomplete and incorrect information which she provided about her past association with a known drug lord. That resulted in Prince Friso and the future descendants of the marriage being excluded from the line of succession to the throne.

There have been a series of controversial royal marriages in Norway including the marriage of Haakon himself (the heir to the throne!) and Mette-Marit, not to mention Märtha Louise's marriages to Ari Behn and now Durek Verrett. The Norwegian government apparently did not get involved in the process of consenting to any of those marriages, either because it interpreted Article 36 of the constitution as a personal prerogative of the King, or because it would have been politically delicate to intervene. Either way, I personally think that, by its omission, the government bears responsibility for any adverse consequences that those marriages may cause to the monarchy as an institution.

Mbruno said:

To be fair, it wasn't really King Felipe who "made it simpler". The official definition of who the members of the Royal Family are in Spain comes from an old royal decree issued in 1981, whose purpose was actually to regulate the Civil Registry where births, marriages and deaths within the Family are recorded. Incidentally to those regulations, the official Royal Family was defined in the decree as "the King of Spain, his August Consort, his first-degree ascendants, his descendants, and the Hereditary Prince".

With respect to point #4, I stand by my opinion that the government of Norway is not being sufficiently proactive in defending the monarchy as the governments of some other European countries might have been in the past. The Dutch government for example effectively refused to introduce legislation in Parliament to consent to Prince Friso's marriage to Mabel Wisse Smit because of incomplete and incorrect information which she provided about her past association with a known drug lord. That resulted in Prince Friso and the future descendants of the marriage being excluded from the line of succession to the throne.

There have been a series of controversial royal marriages in Norway including the marriage of Haakon himself (the heir to the throne!) and Mette-Marit, not to mention Märtha Louise's marriages to Ari Behn and now Durek Verrett. The Norwegian government apparently did not get involved in the process of consenting to any of those marriages, either because it interpreted Article 36 of the constitution as a personal prerogative of the King, or because it would have been politically delicate to intervene. Either way, I personally think that, by its omission, the government bears responsibility for any adverse consequences that those marriages may cause to the monarchy as an institution.

Click to expand...

You are way obsolete with your decree of who is royal family and family of the king in Spain. I post below BOE's update in the royal family in 2022. I won't comment further about the SRF on a Norwegian thread.

Alondra said:

You are way obsolete with your decree of who is royal family and family of the king in Spain. I post below BOE's update in the royal family in 2022. I won't comment further about the SRF on a Norwegian thread.

BOE-A-2022-6765 Real Decreto 297/2022, de 26 de abril, por el que se modifica el Real Decreto 434/1988, de 6 de mayo, sobre reestructuración de la Casa de Su Majestad el Rey.

www.boe.es

Click to expand...

No, the Spanish royal decree of 1981 which was posted by Mbruno is not obsolete. It remains effective even now, as indicated in the notes in the official legislative gazette, which he linked to above.

The 2022 royal decree you linked to does not alter or obsolete the 1981 royal decree about the civil registry of the royal family. The 2022 decree regulates a different institution, which we English speakers would generally label the royal court or royal household.

With that clarification, I would also agree with moving further discussion of this to the Spanish forum.

Looking at the situations of all the European monarchies, in my opinion, Norway is the most worrying at the moment.

When there were controversies in Spain with Iñaki or King Juan Carlos, the royal family took measures and everything was done very carefully so as not to harm Felipe and Letizia and other members of the royal family, and there were even statements and movements that highlighted this.

In Denmark there were never any major controversies, and even when there were more controversial situations, such as that of King Frederik at the end of last year, regarding an alleged extramarital relationship, the royal house knew how to overcome these problems.

In the Netherlands there were controversies with the King and Queen at the time of the Covid-19 pandemic and afterwards, but the King and Queen came forward and admitted their mistakes.

In the United Kingdom there was controversy surrounding Prince Andrew, but the royal family took measures and removed him from royal duties.

These are just a few examples. In Norway, with all the problems that are happening, the Royal House does nothing, Märtha does whatever she wants, Marius is involved in a very complicated situation and the royal house has not yet said anything publicly about this matter. In Norway, not even an abdication will alleviate all these problems. Only if the King takes drastic measures and removes Marius from the royal family (I don't even know why he was considered a member of the royal family, something unprecedented in a European monarchy) and also does something with Märtha, removing her from the royal familiy, can the pressure on the monarchy ease.

Let's hope that Ingrid Alexandra and Sverre Magnus are more responsible and care more about the image of the royal house and the monarchy.

Mbruno said:

To be fair, it wasn't really King Felipe who "made it simpler". The official definition of who the members of the Royal Family are in Spain comes from an old royal decree issued in 1981, whose purpose was actually to regulate the Civil Registry where births, marriages and deaths within the Family are recorded. Incidentally to those regulations, the official Royal Family was defined in the decree as "the King of Spain, his August Consort, his first-degree ascendants, his descendants, and the Hereditary Prince".

With respect to point #4, I stand by my opinion that the government of Norway is not being sufficiently proactive in defending the monarchy as the governments of some other European countries might have been in the past. The Dutch government for example effectively refused to introduce legislation in Parliament to consent to Prince Friso's marriage to Mabel Wisse Smit because of incomplete and incorrect information which she provided about her past association with a known drug lord. That resulted in Prince Friso and the future descendants of the marriage being excluded from the line of succession to the throne.

There have been a series of controversial royal marriages in Norway including the marriage of Haakon himself (the heir to the throne!) and Mette-Marit, not to mention Märtha Louise's marriages to Ari Behn and now Durek Verrett. The Norwegian government apparently did not get involved in the process of consenting to any of those marriages, either because it interpreted Article 36 of the constitution as a personal prerogative of the King, or because it would have been politically delicate to intervene. Either way, I personally think that, by its omission, the government bears responsibility for any adverse consequences that those marriages may cause to the monarchy as an institution.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess it’s too late for the government to do anything now? It doesn’t look like the King nor Haakon are going to do anything. And now the NRF is embroiled in the issues of Marius.

A debate post, the writer thinks king Harald and queen Sonja are responsible about the monarchy's not so good future:
When the wedding of Håkon Magnus and Mette-Marit in 2001 was televised, I only saw half the broadcast. I got frustrated, went to the computer and wrote: "A black day for the Norwegian monarchy". The article received a lot of coverage in my local newspaper.
I thought at the time something would happen sooner, but now it has! (..)


The strange role-playing around the royal house is difficult to understand. Everyone knows that the royals are powerless puppets. But still they must be treated with awe and extraordinary respect - by virtue of their birth, not their merits. It is a logical short circuit that insults our common sense. (..)

To be expected.
Of course the republicans will seize this opportunity.

The difference here is that republicans would normally be kinder towards King Harald and Queen Sonia.

I think many or even most people on this forum would agree that Mette Marit is not really qualified to do the job of a CP/future Queen, with lots and lots of examples over the past 20+ years to show.
But as this topic is not new, Norwegians might be fine with a reliable father/daughter team going forward, simply ignoring the rest. Because lets face it, MM will not be a noticeable Queen for various reasons when Harald and Sonja have left us.

Mbruno said:

The literal wording of Article 36 of the Norwegian constitution places the responsibility to consent to marriages of princes and princesses on the King alone, but, as a constitutional monarch, King Harald V is supposed to follow the advice of his ministers. Do you think that the Prime Minister should have intervened and explicitly advised the King to deny consent to Märtha-Louise's marriage to Durek? That would not have prevented the marriage, but would have excluded M-L and her daughters from the line of succession if the marriage went ahead nonetheless, which probably would have been better for the future of the Norwegian monarchy.

Click to expand...

I think it would have been best if the Royal Family could have gotten Märtha to publicly say that she had asked the King not to give his consent. But that would have greatly surprised me! I mean, she hasn't exactly been in the habit of putting the monarchy above herself.

And when it comes to whether the Prime Minister should have intervened and advised the King to deny consent, well, I don't think that's really an option these days. Because when Haakon wanted to marry Mette-Marit, the King made it quite clear to the then Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg that he meant that Article 36 in the constitution referred to the King as a person and not the King in Council. And after that, I think everyone in the government/parliament has just decided that it's up to the King alone whether he would give consent or not.

And in the case of Märtha and Durek, the King didn't even inform/consult the Prime Minister of their decision to marry.
And the Prime Minister's office told Norwegian media that the King and the Prime Minister had not discussed Märtha's engagement and said that there is no requirement for them to do so.

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

Tatiana Maria said:

There is actually another thing the King can do: not grant his Article 36 constitutional consent to Princess Märtha Louise and Durek Verrett's marriage. That would remove her entitlement to the throne when they marry. (Yes, he claimed he already granted his consent, but nothing in Article 36 bars him from changing his mind before the marriage takes place.)

I know you have conveyed that the public would be more or less aghast if the King did so. But frankly (and to be clear, this is directed at the general public, not at you; it is not my wish to "shoot the messenger" ):

The general public can say all they like that they are fed up and appalled with Princess Märtha Louise and Durek Verrett. But their actions speak louder than their words. If the public are putting pressure on the King to keep Princess Märtha Louise and Durek Verrett legally entitled to automatically become Head of State and First Gentleman of Norway (which would take effect if just three people either die or become disqualified!), then the public are granting their approval and blessing to Princess Märtha Louise and Durek Verrett and their actions and marriage, and the public should accept their responsibility for that choice.

Click to expand...

If you're referring to my two posts in the Märtha and Durek thread from January, vell, what I wrote was the following:

''And for the King to not give his consent would be pretty weird here in Norway. I mean, we're a liberal and modern country, and a father trying to interfere in which man his 52-year-old daughter should marry will most likely be met with quite some criticism here.''

''I mean, this is Norway in 2024, there is no way that the King or the government would go anywhere near Article 36!''

What I meant by that was that people in the media, various experts and perhaps even some MPs in the parliament would most likely be quite critical.
And the chair of the parliament's Standing Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs, Peter Frølich from the Conservative Party, has already been out saying that Article 36 is outdated.

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

Tatiana Maria said:

If her succession rights to the Crown are not that important, then what is the problem with cleanly and easily removing them through Article 36, thus removing one connection between her (and Durek) and the monarchy? Clearly, maintaining her rights to the crown is important to someone or some people, or the King would not have wasted his breath granting his Article 36 consent to their marriage.

Click to expand...

Well, as I've written several times before, the reason her succession rights aren't that important is because she's unlikely to come to the throne anyway! But removing those rights by not giving consent because daddy doesn't like her future husband will just create unnecessary drama.

And the most important thing the King can do right now is to remove the princess title, which binds Märtha and Durek to the monarchy on a daily basis!

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

Royalist.in.NC said:

But even if her title were taken away or renounced, wouldn’t people still see her as a princess (title or not) since she is the King’s daughter?

Click to expand...

No, I think people here in Norway would see her as the King's daughter who has lost her princess title.

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

Tatiana Maria said:

Marius Borg Høiby being untitled since birth has not spared the royal house from being affected by his actions, and unlike his stepaunt, he is not even in line to the throne.

Click to expand...

No, but he is an official member of the Royal Family, and therefore, all his actions affect the monarchy! But hadn't he done anything illegal, most of his actions wouldn't have affected the monarchy to the same extent as Märtha, which is due to her princess title.

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

Tatiana Maria said:

(Though to be pedantic, the King did "go near" Article 36 by granting his Article 36 consent to the couple's marriage. Not going near Article 36 (i.e., taking no action) would mean no consent and no right to the throne after marriage for Princess Märtha Louise.)

Click to expand...

The King publicly stated that Märtha could marry whomever she wanted and congratulated and wished her luck on her engagement. The court later said that was an expression that the King had given his consent. Hence, he automatically gave his consent without going anywhere near Article 36!
Had he OTOH not given his consent, then he would have gone near Article 36!

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

Tatiana Maria said:

That said, I too would like to see polling data on the issue, and preferably a poll which clearly explains Article 36 to the respondents prior to asking for their opinion (because I suspect at least some of the opposition to withholding Article 36 consent might stem from a misguided "How dare a father deny his full-grown daughter the right to marry?" – even though the reality is that King Harald V withholding consent would not deny her the right to marry at all, but only deny her the right to become Queen of Norway).

Click to expand...

I can't remember if there have been any polls about Märtha's succession right, but I would think that a majority is in favour of her losing it.

There have OTOH been several polls about the princess title, which the media thinks is much more important! And the last 4 polls have shown that over 50% think she should lose it!

And no, the King withholding consent would not deny her the right to marry, but it would interfere with it!

I don't understand your final sentence. How would the king withholding consent interfere with her marrying her fiancé? If she was the first in line, I could see how it would be somewhat different given the pressure and the way someone was prepared for a specific role. In this case, however, the only (and very important thing imho) it would do is ensure that a convicted felon who served multiple prison sentences (and espouses very hurtful beliefs) will never be in the position to become a Norwegian queen's consort - which seems a very reasonable thing to do.

Well, the King saying to his daughter, ''I will not consent to you marrying Durek,'' is clearly an interference!

And as I've said several times now, she is unlikely to come to the throne anyway! And the King not giving consent will just create unnecessary drama.

They should instead do something about the princess title, which is seen as the most damaging to the monarchy here!

It's a dreadful time for King Harald, who by all accounts is a kind and conscientious man who has always worked hard for his country.
He may indeed be guilty of being too indulgent. However, he is 87, frail and not particularly well. When the shaman entered the scene King Harald was already an old man, certainly an elderly man. When Mette Marit was diagnosed with her illness, he was elderly and he would have known that there would be no rest for him. No abdication, no real possibility for him and Queen Sonia to step back and let the CP-couple take most of the burden. Instead he would have known that he needed to keep working to the end.
And Marius is 27, when he came off age and the problems he has caused perhaps began in earnest, King Harald was in his late 70s.
That's a lot of things to shoulder all at once for an elderly man, who at the time may have begun to feel the weight of his years, also health wise.
So while King Harald is ultimately responsible for a lot of the mess the NRF is in now, he sure hasn't been helped by his two children! Haakon for not manning up and step into character as the king he could be any day. ML for not caring about anyone but herself and her own needs.
It's so sad, because King Harald deserves a better legacy and now he will mainly be remembered for what has been happening within these past few years.

ROYAL NORWAY said:

Well, the King saying to his daughter, ''I will not consent to you marrying Durek,'' is clearly an interference!

And as I've said several times now, she is unlikely to come to the throne anyway! And the King not giving consent will just create unnecessary drama.

They should instead do something about the princess title, which is seen as the most damaging to the monarchy here!

Click to expand...

It would be perfectly possible to state that he was happy for her that she had found love again and was going to marry Durek but that he would not give formal consent as monarch given her fiancé's (criminal) background. Many monarchs before him in the world have done the same: happily celebrated without giving formal consent.

It remains interesting how the only constitutional issue in Norway is seen as a non-issue while it is the one that -although there is a very small chance- could have serious consequences but rather focus on the 'perception' issue of her keeping her title.

Somebody said:

I don't understand your final sentence. How would the king withholding consent interfere with her marrying her fiancé? If she was the first in line, I could see how it would be somewhat different given the pressure and the way someone was prepared for a specific role. In this case, however, the only (and very important thing imho) it would do is ensure that a convicted felon who served multiple prison sentences (and espouses very hurtful beliefs) will never be in the position to become a Norwegian queen's consort - which seems a very reasonable thing to do.

Click to expand...

ROYAL NORWAY said:

Well, the King saying to his daughter, ''I will not consent to you marrying Durek,'' is clearly an interference!

Click to expand...

Somebody articulated my thoughts well. It is not clear to me why not granting Article 36 consent (we are not talking about personal consent as a father, after all) to take away her entitlement to succeed as queen (and nothing else!) would interfere with her marriage to Durek Verrett.

The princess and Mr. Verrett are both on the record as saying they do not want her to become queen. It is not as if he would dump her or vice versa if the possibility of Queen Märtha Louise and Prince Consort Durek were cut off.

What the King might say to his daughter in private is a different issue, but I don't think it would constitute interference as long as he did not try to discourage her from marrying Durek Verrett. And in this scenario, I am sure it would be closer to "I love you and Durek very much, you have my blessing to marry, and I wish you all the happiness in the world, but I think you would both be happier without the pressure of being Queen and Prince Consort if something were to happen, so why don't we skip the constitutional formalities this time?" than ''I will not consent to you marrying Durek".

I will respond to your reply to me in time, but as usual you have written a long and thoughtful reply so I would like to take my time to reply thoughtfully as well.

What if the king has simply said, "This guy's history and behavior make him incompatible with being connected to the royal family. He's too risky. If you want to marry him, that's your business, but please renounce your title and leave us out of it?"

ROYAL NORWAY said:

And as I've said several times now, she is unlikely to come to the throne anyway! And the King not giving consent will just create unnecessary drama.

They should instead do something about the princess title, [...]

Click to expand...

Wouldn't removing her title create even more "unnecessary drama" than removing her right to the throne? Judging by her actions, she seems to value it, and in my estimation she would be more angered by losing her Princess title than by losing her small chance of becoming Queen (after all, she claims to have turned down the opportunity to be queen when she was young).

Somebody said:

I don't understand your final sentence. How would the king withholding consent interfere with her marrying her fiancé? If she was the first in line, I could see how it would be somewhat different given the pressure and the way someone was prepared for a specific role. In this case, however, the only (and very important thing imho) it would do is ensure that a convicted felon who served multiple prison sentences (and espouses very hurtful beliefs) will never be in the position to become a Norwegian queen's consort - which seems a very reasonable thing to do.

Click to expand...

ROYAL NORWAY said:

[...] And as I've said several times now, she is unlikely to come to the throne anyway! [...]

Click to expand...

And I understand that was Somebody's point (which I agree with) : Princess Märtha Louise is unlikely to come to the throne anyway (though it's still quite possible), thus she would not be losing much by having that small likelihood removed, thus it is unlikely to influence her against marrying Durek, thus removing it would not be interfering with her planned marriage to Durek.

Muhler said:

It's a dreadful time for King Harald, who by all accounts is a kind and conscientious man who has always worked hard for his country.
He may indeed be guilty of being too indulgent. However, he is 87, frail and not particularly well. When the shaman entered the scene King Harald was already an old man, certainly an elderly man. When Mette Marit was diagnosed with her illness, he was elderly and he would have known that there would be no rest for him. No abdication, no real possibility for him and Queen Sonia to step back and let the CP-couple take most of the burden. Instead he would have known that he needed to keep working to the end.
And Marius is 27, when he came off age and the problems he has caused perhaps began in earnest, King Harald was in his late 70s.
That's a lot of things to shoulder all at once for an elderly man, who at the time may have begun to feel the weight of his years, also health wise.
So while King Harald is ultimately responsible for a lot of the mess the NRF is in now, he sure hasn't been helped by his two children! Haakon for not manning up and step into character as the king he could be any day. ML for not caring about anyone but herself and her own needs.
It's so sad, because King Harald deserves a better legacy and now he will mainly be remembered for what has been happening within these past few years.

Click to expand...

At the end of the day, King Harald is the King and head of the Royal family; this isn't a question about CP Haakon manning up, this about his father being passive. What is not fair is CP Haakon having to clean up the mess with Marius and his sister if he father passes in the very near future.

Muhler said:

It's a dreadful time for King Harald, who by all accounts is a kind and conscientious man who has always worked hard for his country.
He may indeed be guilty of being too indulgent. However, he is 87, frail and not particularly well. When the shaman entered the scene King Harald was already an old man, certainly an elderly man. When Mette Marit was diagnosed with her illness, he was elderly and he would have known that there would be no rest for him. No abdication, no real possibility for him and Queen Sonia to step back and let the CP-couple take most of the burden. Instead he would have known that he needed to keep working to the end.
And Marius is 27, when he came off age and the problems he has caused perhaps began in earnest, King Harald was in his late 70s.
That's a lot of things to shoulder all at once for an elderly man, who at the time may have begun to feel the weight of his years, also health wise.
So while King Harald is ultimately responsible for a lot of the mess the NRF is in now, he sure hasn't been helped by his two children! Haakon for not manning up and step into character as the king he could be any day. ML for not caring about anyone but herself and her own needs.
It's so sad, because King Harald deserves a better legacy and now he will mainly be remembered for what has been happening within these past few years.

Click to expand...

I have often thought that rather than being an indulgent father per se , both the King and, the Queen were deeply affected by the stress imposed during almost a decade when they fought to be allowed to marry . Undoubtedly both he and the Queen had / have deep reservations about their children's chosen partners . However neither wished to impose such stress on their own children ,who were living in a much different time with a more intrusive media . I sincerely hope that their Majesties long contribution to Norway will, in the end count for more than the drama's of their adult children , but with the media , who know's ?

kalnel said:

What if the king has simply said, "This guy's history and behavior make him incompatible with being connected to the royal family. He's too risky. If you want to marry him, that's your business, but please renounce your title and leave us out of it?"

Click to expand...

Because ML would immediately retort: How about yourself and mom?
How about Mette Marit? What's the difference?
- In her shoes that's the arguments I would use.

kalnel said:

What if the king has simply said, "This guy's history and behavior make him incompatible with being connected to the royal family. He's too risky. If you want to marry him, that's your business, but please renounce your title and leave us out of it?"

Click to expand...

We shall see… Crown Prince Haakon’s answers yesterday left the door open for more news coming about this after the wedding ceremonies are over… Maybe they have already agreed about something and has a press statement prepared to be released after the wedding If so i can understand if he didn’t wanted to say too much

Royal Norway, I would like to underscore that I appreciate your informative posts on the prevailing public mood and opinion in Norway. Since public opinion is an important part of this saga, I will continue to explain where I think the public opinion is flawed.

ROYAL NORWAY said:

But removing those rights [of succession to the throne] by not giving consent because daddy doesn't like her future husband will just create unnecessary drama.

Click to expand...

1) What about stripping her title because "daddy doesn't like her future husband"? Or stripping her of her patronages and declaring her persona non grata as a working royal because "daddy doesn't like her future husband"? Or denying her taxpayer funding for her second wedding (unlike her first) because "daddy doesn't like her future husband"?

The public should consider: Is stripping the princess of her right to the throne (which is at this point only potential, and which she claims not to want) truly worse than stripping her of things she already has and values?


2) "Daddy" could always announce that he personally would love to see a Prince Consort Durek, but he is giving in to the wishes of the public which doesn't like her future husband.


3) Not wanting a person to become the head of state or first spouse does not equal not liking them. I am sure my parents love me but I am also sure they would not vote for me to become president of my country. I imagine there are members of the public who find Märtha Louise and Durek charming as celebrities but would not want to see them mingling with other kings, presidents, first gentlemen and first ladies at an international summit.

ROYAL NORWAY said:

Well, as I've written several times before, the reason her succession rights aren't that important is because she's unlikely to come to the throne anyway!

Click to expand...

And as I've also written before : If her succession rights to the Crown are not that important, then what is the problem with cleanly and easily removing them through Article 36, thus removing one connection between her (and Durek) and the monarchy? Why did the King spend his time and energy granting Article 36 consent and having the court tell the papers about it, if preserving his daughter's succession rights was not important?

I would like to thank Tatiana Maria and ROYAL NORWAY for their very insightful and informative posts. I am just wondering if they dont wish to invoke Article 36 it may be because it could become a precedent for others in the NRF and that is not something they wish to start.

Historian Trond Norén Isaksen writes at his column among other things that
"Meetings with people are the most important thing we do", the king has said. There have been fewer such meetings. In 2013, the royal family had 267 official missions outside royal residences, last year 157. The king had 92 external missions in 2013 and 55 last year and 11 this year.
Queen Sonja's program has also been clearly reduced, and Mette-Marit's illness severely limits her activities. Due to a lack of understanding of her role, Märtha Louise has given up her royal duties. Princess Astrid is 92 years old. Only Haakon is in full operation with 83 external assignment this year, but is tied to ministers and audiences at the Palace when he is regent.
The Norwegian court should learn from the Danish and Swedish courts' active use of social media to tell about the work of the royal family.
(...)

Muhler said:

It's a dreadful time for King Harald, who by all accounts is a kind and conscientious man who has always worked hard for his country.
He may indeed be guilty of being too indulgent. However, he is 87, frail and not particularly well. When the shaman entered the scene King Harald was already an old man, certainly an elderly man. When Mette Marit was diagnosed with her illness, he was elderly and he would have known that there would be no rest for him. No abdication, no real possibility for him and Queen Sonia to step back and let the CP-couple take most of the burden. Instead he would have known that he needed to keep working to the end.

Click to expand...

This. I truly believe that if Mette-Marit had been in better health and Märtha Louise hadn't run off with a shaman, Harald would have abdicated by now. And it's sad that he can't do it, should he want to.

If you compare with the situations in Denmark and Sweden, there are big differences. QM could abdicate because she knew that F&Mary were ready. Their kids are getting older, and you also have QM and her sisters as supporting characters. And in Sweden, Victoria&D would be ready on day one. You would have Carl Philip, Sofia and Madeleine there for support, along with Carl Gustaf and Silvia for some years to come.

I think the situation in Norway means that Sverre Magnus will be more or less a full time working royal in the future, if the monarchy survives. Because.. who else will be there for I-A in 20, 30 years from now?

Hans-Rickard said:

Prince Sverre Magnus is still (according to his father) not expected to become an H.R.H. and not expected to become a working royal… We are many who hope that decision will change, given how small and vulnerable that family are, but the plan is for him to virtually be a private citizen.

Click to expand...

taogg said:

I also hope that Prince Sverre Magnus is considered a working royal or at least a member of the royal household, especially before his sister marries. With both MM's and the King's health limiting their public engagements, the Norwegian royal household is already quite small and could really use the added support

Click to expand...

Crown Prince Haakon said this at the time of his 50th birthday in 2023; I don't know if there are more recent interviews which address Prince Sverre Magnus's future role.




It sounds to me that the plan was/is for Prince Sverre Magnus to become a part-time working royal who also has a private career, like Prince Constantijn of the Netherlands, or formerly (before her father's abdication) Infanta Elena of Spain.

It indeed sounds very much like prince Constantijn (whom I personally wouldn't call a part-time royal as he only has a few events per year to attend (typically king's day and prinsjesdag - to enlarge the royal family's presence; and the Prince Claus Awards and the World Press Photo as patron) but also his great-aunt Astrid (or princess Christina in Sweden). They do help out once in a while but primarily have their own private life and career.

A survey carried out by InFact commissioned by Nettavisen shows that 61.7 % of the Norwegian people believe that Märtha Louise should not be allowed to retain the title of princess. 22.4 % are in favor of her being allowed to keep it, while 15.9 % answered "don't know".
The survey was carried out on Wednesday, 1,112 Norwegians participated. The question was: "Do you think that Märtha Louise should keep her royal title?".
Men are more critical than women.
Royal expert Tove Taalesen is not surprised that people are losing confidence after all the recent scandals. But she doesn't understand why people are so interested in the princess title, and not in the order of succession.

The same inFact for Nettavisen shows 74%for keeping the monarchy, 20,1% wants a republican and 5,9 % dont know. The margin of error is +\- 1,4-2,6%