Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy

[Mbruno]

Nettavisen about Durek's possibility to get a diplomatic passport
It is an absolute requirement to be a Norwegian citizen to obtain a diplomatic passport.
Nettavisen has tried to contact Verrett and ask if he plans to apply for Norwegian citizenship, but Durek has not answered yet.
Nettavisen's royal house expert Tove Taalesen:
- I take it as a matter of course that he will apply for citizenship when he has the opportunity. He has married into the most Norwegian of Norwegians. He has hijacked the princess and half the kingdom, and I see it as natural that he will also apply for Norwegian citizenship.
If Verrett were to become a Norwegian citizen, it is not the case that he will automatically receive a diplomatic passport. It will still be up to the Royal Household if they wish to send an official request to the UDI where they expressly justify the issue of an official passport.

Dette må til for at Durek Verrett skal få diplomatpass

Én stor hindring ligger mellom sjamanen og det gjeve reisedokumentet.

www.nettavisen.no

I am not familiar with Norwegian nationality law, but, in other countries, eligibility to apply for citizenship normally takes a long time (as in several years) and requires becoming a permanent resident first. Will Durek be fast-tracked for Norwegian citizenship if he decides to pursue it? Any clarification is welcome.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am not familiar with Norwegian nationality law, but, in other countries, eligibility to apply for citizenship normally takes a long time (as in several years) and requires becoming a permanent resident first. Will Durek be fast-tracked for Norwegian citizenship if he decides to pursue it? Any clarification is welcome.

There is a comment from a spokesman for the Directorate of Immigration in the article, which sounds rather vague to me:

As a starting point, one needs to fulfill the ordinary requirements in the Citizenship Act. If the conditions for acquisition of Norwegian citizenship are not met, in every case we will always conduct an assessment as to whether there are special compelling reasons which make it nevertheless appropriate to approve the application. Other than that, there are no specific rules in the Citizenship Act that regulate occasions when a foreign citizen marries into the Norwegian royal family.​

The ordinary requirements to acquire a Norwegian permanent residence permit or Norwegian citizenship can be found on the Directorate's website.

Want to apply - UDI

Information on how to apply to visit Norway or for residence, citizenship or an immigrant's passport.

www.udi.no

 

[Mbruno]

There is a comment from a spokesman for the Directorate of Immigration in the article, which sounds rather vague to me:

As a starting point, one needs to fulfill the ordinary requirements in the Citizenship Act. If the conditions for acquisition of Norwegian citizenship are not met, in every case we will always conduct an assessment as to whether there are special compelling reasons which make it nevertheless appropriate to approve the application. Other than that, there are no specific rules in the Citizenship Act that regulate occasions when a foreign citizen marries into the Norwegian royal family.​

The ordinary requirements to acquire a Norwegian permanent residence permit or Norwegian citizenship can be found on the Directorate's website.

Want to apply - UDI

Information on how to apply to visit Norway or for residence, citizenship or an immigrant's passport.

www.udi.no

The statement by the Directorate of Immigration is indeed vague, but the spokesman is not ruling out that a fast-track naturalization procedure may be considered for Durek or, in general, for foreigners who marry into the Royal Family.

If I am not mistaken, both Máxima Zorreguieta and Mary Donaldson had the benefit of fast-track naturalization, respectively in the Netherlands and in Denmark. By contrast, Meghan Markle apparently would have to comply with the normal requirements in British nationality law to become a British citizen, which, for foreigners who are married to a British citizen, would now take at least 5 years if I understand it correctly, and, of course, also require passing a Life in the UK test and then taking the mandatory oath of allegiance to the King and the pledge of citizenship.

I wonder how the Norwegian public would feel about Durek being granted a special exemption to become a Norwegian citizen without having met the usual requirements under the Citizenship Act. Would that be frowned upon as a special privilege, or would they find it acceptable or natural for someone who had married into the Royal Family?

EDIT: Although DV is apparently no longer considered an official member of the Royal Family based on the changes made to the the Royal House website, the distinction between the Royal House, the Royal Family, and the King's extended family may not be clear to the public in Norway and they may still see DV as a member of the Royal Family anyway as Princess Märtha-Louise's husband.

 

[Somebody]

The difference between Máxima and Mary is that they married the future king. Did Alexandra and Marie also get fast-tracked in Denmark? A difference between them and Durek is of course that they started to represent the royal family (as did Meghan, so in her case, it was always weird to me that she represented the UK -including abroad- while being a US citizen only). Another example would be Chris who was offered but was not interested in representing the Swedish royal family (becoming a duke) - and also declined Swedish citizenship (which would have been tied to that).

 

[Kataryn]

I would guess that being a committed felon should exclude him form the citizenship process, no matter who the spouse is. Or can marry an Norwegian commoner confer the right to citizenship on a felon, too? At the moment, European politicians all struggle to get felons out of their country against the asylum rules in that country, I can't see that Norwegians would welcome the ex-felon to their country.

 

[Mbruno]

I would guess that being a committed felon should exclude him form the citizenship process, no matter who the spouse is. Or can marry an Norwegian commoner confer the right to citizenship on a felon, too? At the moment, European politicians all struggle to get felons out of their country against the asylum rules in that country, I can't see that Norwegians would welcome the ex-felon to their country.

You make an excellent point. I am not familiar with the immigration laws of Norway, but, indeed in many countries, having a criminal record may exclude you from being eligible for a visa or, later, for permanent residency or naturalization. In the best case scenario, even if it does not automatically disqualify you, it can make the process far more complicated.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I would guess that being a committed felon should exclude him form the citizenship process, no matter who the spouse is. Or can marry an Norwegian commoner confer the right to citizenship on a felon, too? At the moment, European politicians all struggle to get felons out of their country against the asylum rules in that country, I can't see that Norwegians would welcome the ex-felon to their country.

No, having a criminal record is not an absolute bar to Norwegian citizenship or permanent residency, though there can be an extended waiting period.

Waiting times for permanent residence permits for convicted persons and people who have been fined - UDI

If you have been convicted or fined by the police or if you are under investigation for a criminal offence, you have to wait longer to be granted a permanent residence permit in Norway.

www.udi.no

The difference between Máxima and Mary is that they married the future king. Did Alexandra and Marie also get fast-tracked in Denmark? A difference between them and Durek is of course that they started to represent the royal family (as did Meghan, so in her case, it was always weird to me that she represented the UK -including abroad- while being a US citizen only). Another example would be Chris who was offered but was not interested in representing the Swedish royal family (becoming a duke) - and also declined Swedish citizenship (which would have been tied to that).

Yes, the wives of Prince Joachim of Denmark were fast-tracked.

LOV nr 360 af 19/05/2008, Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet

Lov om meddelelse af dansk indfødsret til Marie Agathe Odile Cavallier

www.retsinformation.dk

In Sweden, Chris O'Neill was offered the choice of being a prince (and presumably duke as well) and full-time working royal or remaining a private citizen. As he chose the latter option, we do not know whether he would have been fast-tracked if he had become a prince.

Titles of the Swedish RF and Changes 2019

Svensk Damtidning last week: Crisis in Europe's monarchies! Victoria & Estelle will save our royal family Image Upper.com - Free Image Hosting - View Image We sort out the crisis in Europe's monarchies - and are grateful to Crown Princess Victoria and Princess Estelle! You can safely say that...

www.theroyalforums.com

 

[LadyFinn]

For the first time since 1905, Norway has two adult generations of heirs to the throne: Crown Prince Haakon and Princess Ingrid Alexandra.
But according to the constitution, only the heir to the throne can step in as regent if King Harald is on sick leave or travelling. If the crown prince can't act as a substitute, the government acts as head of state.
- In the vast majority of cases, this will be completely unproblematic. But we can get into situations where the government is dissolved or has to be reformed. Then it will be very unfortunate that it is the government itself that chooses its own successors, says Sverre Myrli.
Now he and five other representatives of the Storting want to change the Constitution so that Ingrid Alexandra can also act as regent. The proposal was put forward for the first time in the Storting on Monday.

Vil endre Grunnloven: Vil la Ingrid Alexandra bli regent

I dag er det kun kronprinsen som kan trå til dersom kongen blir syk. Det vil flere stortingspolitikere endre på.

www.nrk.no

 

[Somebody]

Interesting; seems like a smart solution.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It is worth noting that the bill to reform the Constitution's rules on regencies is co-sponsored by MPs from six different political parties.

As explained in the news report, the issue already created difficulty in April this year when the Prime Minister announced that he would sack his health minister but ended up waiting a week to fire her because the King was on sick leave and the Crown Prince Regent was abroad.

The bill and its explanatory notes can be read here:

https://www.stortinget.no/globalassets/pdf/grunnlovsforslag/2023-2024/dok12-202324-016.pdf

The explanatory notes approvingly cite Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom as examples of monarchies which allow a larger number of royals to serve as temporary regent. However, they fail to explain why they – unlike Denmark, Sweden, and the United Kingdom – do not intend to grant the right to serve as regent to everyone who is in the line of succession.

They cite the United States as an example of the international norm that governments cannot unilaterally make changes to their own composition. They compare the King's participation as a "safety valve" when there is a change of government in Norway to the role of the US Senate in approving the appointments of US cabinet secretaries.

In addition to avoiding the problems that arise when no regent is available, the proposed reform is also intended to make it easier for Crown Prince Haakon to travel abroad when he is regent and to give Princess Ingrid Alexandra preparation for her future job as monarch.

I think we are overlooking the role and responsibility of the elected government here.

The constitutional requirement for example that marriages of people in the line of succession be consented to is not just an arcane provision reflecting a bygone era. It exists instead for the protection of the state and, as such, is a matter that should concern the government and not just the King personally as King Harald V is known to have claimed.

Different Norwegian governments apparently refused the raise objections to Haakon's marriage to MM or, more recently, to ML's marriage to Durek, or, at least, they did not bother to advise the King against consenting to either marriage.

In the recent case involving Marius, on the other hand, the government naturally does not want to interfere in the King's or the Crown Prince's prerogatives to manage their own households, but when Marius' actions were clearly triggering potential or actual threats to the state (either by his association with criminals or terrorists, or by potential impacts on the image of the monarchy), they had in my opinion a constitutional duty to intervene and advise the King or the Crown Prince to act, especially in view of the Crown Prince's apparent inaction in particular.

I may sound too harsh, but it appears to me that, in an effort to appear inclusive and liberal, the Norwegian government is also guilty by omission.

Other than not being sure if that is the only reason for the hands-off attitude displayed by all the various governments, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I would cite the governments' neglect to clarify the scope of the various provisions of the Constitution relating to the royal family as another abdication of their responsibility. Their failure to establish in advance which royals enjoy some degree of immunity from the courts under Article 37 is close to having real consequences now that members of the press and public are openly questioning whether the Crown Princess has acted illegally.

If at some point in the near future the authorities are forced to take a position about whether princesses consort have immunity under Article 37, it will be perceived as a political decision aimed at either protecting or punishing (depending on which way the decision goes) Mette-Marit personally, rather than a pure issue of constitutional law.