Marius Borg Høiby News & Current Events Part 1: December 2023 -

[Alisa]

From what I've read in an article earlier this week Mette-Marit contacting the victim of her son's aggression would most likely only be illegal if there was a restraining order something that's which is mirrored by Professor Eivind Smith's opinion that from what we know she's done nothing illegal in the article posted above.

So the reason Mette-Marit contacting the victim of her son's crimes was a bad idea is because we simply don't know what was said.

We hope the Crown Princess was sympathetic and apologized for her son's behavior. However truthfully she could have :

1. Offered the victim large sums of money to retract all the public statements to make this thing go away.

2. Attempt to blackmail the victim. Perhaps there are videos of Rebecca in a drunken state that could be "mysteriously" released that would attempt to discredit her.

The fact that the Crown Princess knows that she has immunity makes it all the more unwise that she contacted Rebecca.

 

[kalnel]

In Norway, given that even the Crown Princess speaking to her son's victim has many people exercised, it would surely be an even bigger scandal if it came to light that the Norwegian royal house was leveraging domestic or foreign security services to threaten or bully Marius's or Durek's acquaintances into keeping silent about their activities.

It would also be a huge scandal in the United States if a royal house (or any foreign government) contacted any of our law enforcement organizations to bully an U.S. citizen. If the person is trying to blackmail or extort, that's a crime, so it's possible that law enforcement would respond. But telling people to stay silent because what they have to say, sell, or broadcast is unpleasant to anyone is prior restraint, and that's a violation of the person's rights.

 

[Muhler]

So the reason Mette-Marit contacting the victim of her son's crimes was a bad idea is because we simply don't know what was said.

We hope the Crown Princess was sympathetic and apologized for her son's behavior. However truthfully she could have :

1. Offered the victim large sums of money to retract all the public statements to make this thing go away.

2. Attempt to blackmail the victim. Perhaps there are videos of Rebecca in a drunken state that could be "mysteriously" released that would attempt to discredit her.

The fact that the Crown Princess knows that she has immunity makes it all the more unwise that she contacted Rebecca.

Nothing like that, I think.
They would more likely have had layers who could apply pressure, but that too I honestly find unlikely.

It's more like "sympathy-tripping" someone into not pressing charges or go public with such an incident.
I.e. Mette-Marit is deeply apologetic, perhaps crying, saying Marius isn't really like that, he's not himself, he doesn't mean it, she'll make sure he'll get help - and I'm in no doubt she would genuinely mean it.
And who doesn't feel sorry for a distraught mother?

It's a pretty good way of keeping things under wraps, even if that genuinely wasn't the intention. Not least because these three women would have had some feeling for Marius - and probably know Mette Marit to some extent.

So people can actually be made to shut up without being pressured.
- And there is also the thought I understand most victims of abuse have: Did I trigger it? Was it after all my fault?

It would also be a huge scandal in the United States if a royal house (or any foreign government) contacted any of our law enforcement organizations to bully an U.S. citizen. If the person is trying to blackmail or extort, that's a crime, so it's possible that law enforcement would respond. But telling people to stay silent because what they have to say, sell, or broadcast is unpleasant to anyone is prior restraint, and that's a violation of the person's rights.

So if someone contact a third party and offer a intimate video of you and him for sale (there are such sites out there), you can't do anything before he actually sells it and it is therefore likely to be published? Because that would be a violation of his rights?
How about your rights? - And he would end up in prison or at the very least face a lawsuits, which might very well ruin him for life.
What if it was a minor in a foreign country? Should we still wait until he actually sell the video for fear of violating his little rights.
I had to answer this, sorry mods. Perhaps this topic should be moved to another thread?

 

[Toledo]

So the reason Mette-Marit contacting the victim of her son's crimes was a bad idea is because we simply don't know what was said.

We hope the Crown Princess was sympathetic and apologized for her son's behavior. However truthfully she could have :

1. Offered the victim large sums of money to retract all the public statements to make this thing go away.

2. Attempt to blackmail the victim. Perhaps there are videos of Rebecca in a drunken state that could be "mysteriously" released that would attempt to discredit her.

The fact that the Crown Princess knows that she has immunity makes it all the more unwise that she contacted Rebecca.

Mette Marit has been a royal long enough to learn from all her in-law relatives PR disasters when they interfere with investigations, from her husband's cousins in Spain (Juan Carlos, his younger daughter and her ex-spouse and let's not leave out his oldest grandson's antics) to the UK Windsor side of the family.

If she contacted the victim let's hope her common sense was to start with an apology and to show her, she's willing to put motherhood aside and defend the victim. And if she contacted the victim, it's probably on the advice of the family team and lawyers. Besides, in this day and age any conversation is recorded, Mette-Marit knows better than placing herself in a difficult situation.

A lot has been said about her past and her youth, but she has spent over two decades representing the NRF with dignity and she is not a reckless young adult but a 50-year-old mother of three and accepted by the royal family since their engagement 24 years ago in 2000.

 

[ladongas]

I’m not sure if Marius had a protective officer with him at all times? —but even if he did, he couldn’t have seen what went on behind closed doors.

I recall once during President Jimmy Carter’s term in office, when it became known that one of his adult sons was smoking marijuana at a friend’s house. The question was, why didn’t they stop him? The answer was that they were there to protect him from harm, not foolish mistakes.

So a protective officer - if any- accompanying Marius could have stopped him assaulting the woman, if they had seen it. But they couldn’t have seen it. It’s not always possible for crimes to be witnessed except by perpetrator and victim.

So, yes, Mette-Marit couldn’t have know that her son was an abuser, and it’s not even certain she could have been aware of his louche lifestyle. They didn’t live under the same roof, and no one followed him around reporting back to her. Although he may live in a house on the estate, it’s apparently widely separated from the main house.

You can say his parents inadvertently raised a 27 year old man of bad character, but his personal freedom meant they couldn’t know everything about him.

I wouldn’t wish to be blamed for my son’s bad choices and lifestyle, if he has them!- but I wouldn’t necessarily know until someone tells me. I think it’s quite unfair to blame the parents for the sins of the adult child.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Dear Muhler:
I (and therefore kalnel, who was quoting one of my posts) was reacting to your suggestions that the royal family could have influenced the government to "go nasty" on "types like Durek and Marius friends" (did you mean that as in "Durek and Marius and their friends", or "Durek and friends of Marius", or "Durek's friends and Marius's friends"?) - for which you gave an example of hypothetically threatening Durek Verrett that he would be subjected to a probe from the American FBI (law enforcement agency) or IRS (tax agency) if he did not end the relationship with Princess Märtha Louise.

Bolded below are the major comments to which I was responding in the first instance:

ADDED.

It is possible for the NRF to deal with types like Durek and Marius friends.
When Marie was to marry Joachim in DK, her ex in New York offered an explicit video to the Danish media. One of them, IIRC it was Ekstra Bladet, reported him. Shortly after the video was no longer for sale. He explained later to Ekstra Bladet that he got a visit from FBI or someone else from Homeland Security who convinced him that would be a monumentally bad idea to sell that video and would he hand it over, please! So in that case the DRF asked for help by the Danish government who went nasty on the ex. So it is possible.
I wrote a bit about this back when J&M got married either here or on another board.

The NRF (just like the DRF) are not in a position to do that themselves. That's through government channels.
They could have threatened Durek with the IRS or an FBI probe. Convincing Durek that it might be a good idea to break off the relationship.

Thus, it is not clear to me why your responses are focusing on the illegality of blackmail and/or sexual abuse, because that was not the subject of our replies.

If Durek, Marius, and/or their friends were proven to be engaging in illegal acts, then they would ipso facto already be a target for law enforcement (at least in principle, and in actual fact with Marius), and there would be no need for the royal family to use back channels with the Norwegian government to initiate an IRS/FBI (or Norwegian equivalent) probe targeting those individuals.

The discussion was about whether the royal family could/should have used their government connections to influence government agencies into taking action against individuals for the benefit of the royal family (as opposed to simply enforcing the law as normal) - such as your example of the IRS/FBI intimidating Durek Verrett into ending his relationship with Princess Märtha Louise.

 

[Muhler]

I think everybody can agree that the NRF needs to take control of this crisis and already now plan a strategy for how to do that.
Here is my suggestion. It's not a particular good one, but I can't come up with anything better:

King Harald takes full and sole responsibility for everything regarding Marius. It was him and him alone.
He didn't listen to warnings. He was the one who was too indulgent. He was the one who closed his eyes etc.

It doesn't really matter if anyone believe it, as long as King Harald shoulders all the blame.

Because in that way, there is no need for speculations and pointing fingers and no commission is necessary. People within the police, court, government and civil service are off the hook and they don't have to defend themselves before a commission, which could turn out to be very unpleasant for the NRF. No leaks, in defense of people who may be on the line.
No one is blamed, but the King and everybody can pretend that no one did anything wrong, but the King. And after a while the whole thing will have calmed down and the rebuilding can start for real.
The slate is wiped clean with the King taking all the blame. At least officially.
Haakon and Mette Marit, will also officially be off the hook and can start the rebuilding process with themselves in front of the NRF.
I don't think King Harald would have to abdicate, but it would be option if needed.
- It would also be a very unselfish act by the King.

Because the alternative is that everybody apart from Ingrid and Magnus will be blamed for this mess and all sorts of unpleasant details will emerge for up to several years to come.

For this charade to work, ML and her Durek as well as Marius needs to come under control. These circus acts have already lasted for way too long. They must be stopped!

Dear Muhler:
I (and therefore kalnel, who was quoting one of my posts) was reacting to your suggestions that the royal family could have influenced the government to "go nasty" on "types like Durek and Marius friends" (did you mean that as in "Durek and Marius and their friends", or "Durek and friends of Marius", or "Durek's friends and Marius's friends"?) - for which you gave an example of hypothetically threatening Durek Verrett that he would be subjected to a probe from the American FBI (law enforcement agency) or IRS (tax agency) if he did not end the relationship with Princess Märtha Louise.

Bolded below are the major comments to which I was responding in the first instance:





Thus, it is not clear to me why your responses are focusing on the illegality of blackmail and/or sexual abuse, because that was not the subject of our replies.

If Durek, Marius, and/or their friends were proven to be engaging in illegal acts, then they would ipso facto already be a target for law enforcement (at least in principle, and in actual fact with Marius), and there would be no need for the royal family to use back channels with the Norwegian government to initiate an IRS/FBI (or Norwegian equivalent) probe targeting those individuals.

The discussion was about whether the royal family could/should have used their government connections to influence government agencies into taking action against individuals for the benefit of the royal family (as opposed to simply enforcing the law as normal) - such as your example of the IRS/FBI intimidating Durek Verrett into ending his relationship with Princess Märtha Louise.

I see.

My fault for misunderstanding you and for letting my temper flare a little.

I get your point.
That might indeed be problematic.
And I suggest further debate on how to "influence" Durek in USA, if possible, should be moved to the (also) very active Durek and ML thread.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

No worries. Indeed I rarely interpret your, or others', posts as "temper flaring". Even when you vociferously disagree, I presume you are simply passionate about the topic, so I suppose you, and others, will need to inform me explicitly if you would like me to understand otherwise...

I agree that although some brief mentions of problematic elements of Durek and/or other royal family members' backgrounds is relevant as context, detailed discussion is best kept to their own threads (mostly because it makes it easier for later readers who are catching up or searching for information).

 

[camelot23ca]

I guess the main question is what they were supposed to do. They may have been concerned about his behavior but they cannot control him. They could kick him out of Skaugum but might have been worried that he would go further off track in that case. So, it might have been a well-thought-out decision to remain as close as possible to limit the damage. Or alternatively they might not have taken it seriously (because they didn’t see the signs or ignored them) and shielded him from any consequences as much as possible.

Yes, I’m sure Haakon and MM could look back and say they made mistakes with how they dealt with Marius, but things always look clearer in hindsight (or when you’re an observer) compared to when you’re right in the middle of something. It sounds like Marius has had complex issues for a long time, and his loved ones may have felt that the right thing to do was a moving, elusive target. Everyone wants to set appropriate boundaries, but no one wants to feel like they’re giving up on their own child. And I doubt many people want to completely cut someone off if they think that might lead to an increased chance of their loved one harming themselves or someone else.

MM and Haakon also had to factor in what was best for their other two children, and for the monarchy. What conditions must be met for Marius to continue to have contact with his siblings? Is it better to keep him somewhat safe and contained on their estate, instead of having him live on the street or with one of his possibly criminal friends? Do you keep giving him money or risk him winding up dealing drugs at his rich friends’ parties? They’re getting criticism now for maybe being too easy on him or giving him too much, but I feel like they’d be criticized no matter what they’d done. If they’d set boundaries and made Marius fend for himself, and he’d assaulted his girlfriend, people would be saying they should have supported him more and been more involved.

As you say, what were they supposed to do?

I think everybody can agree that the NRF needs to take control of this crisis and already now plan a strategy for how to do that.
Here is my suggestion. It's not a particular good one, but I can't come up with anything better:

King Harald takes full and sole responsibility for everything regarding Marius. It was him and him alone.
He didn't listen to warnings. He was the one who was too indulgent. He was the one who closed his eyes etc.

It doesn't really matter if anyone believe it, as long as King Harald shoulders all the blame.

Because in that way, there is no need for speculations and pointing fingers and no commission is necessary. People within the police, court, government and civil service are off the hook and they don't have to defend themselves before a commission, which could turn out to be very unpleasant for the NRF. No leaks, in defense of people who may be on the line.
No one is blamed, but the King and everybody can pretend that no one did anything wrong, but the King. And after a while the whole thing will have calmed down and the rebuilding can start for real.
The slate is wiped clean with the King taking all the blame. At least officially.
Haakon and Mette Marit, will also officially be off the hook and can start the rebuilding process with themselves in front of the NRF.
I don't think King Harald would have to abdicate, but it would be option if needed.
- It would also be a very unselfish act by the King.

Because the alternative is that everybody apart from Ingrid and Magnus will be blamed for this mess and all sorts of unpleasant details will emerge for up to several years to come.

For this charade to work, ML and her Durek as well as Marius needs to come under control. These circus acts have already lasted for way too long. They must be stopped!

Muhler, have you seen any polls that show a majority of the Norwegian population wants the issues surrounding Marius and the NRF investigated to the extent you describe above? Wouldn’t it be more straightforward for the person we know committed the crime to take responsibility and suffer the consequences? If the public saw the police completing their investigation in a competent and impartial manner, and if Marius then received legal consequences that were fair and not lenient compared to anyone else in the same situation, would the average Norwegian then want further expensive and time consuming investigations or commissions? Or I guess, does the public want it badly enough to overcome the reluctance of the government, law enforcement and maybe even the legal system?

I think what’s most concerning long term is that there is no obvious way for parents to control a deeply troubled, but competent adult son. There are no actions MM and Haakon can take here that will guarantee no further problems from Marius. He’s got a history of mental health disorders, addictions, and, if we go by what his ex- girlfriends are saying, is capable of repeated acts of violence. He’s likely well beyond consistently responding to anything Haakon and MM can try. If he can get off the drugs and alcohol it may be a totally different story, and therefore I hope the legal system throws everything in its power at him - lengthy rehab, mandatory counseling and drug tests, a period of probation that includes required (and verified) full time employment, attendance at some sort of support group, and whatever else they can think of. I’d much rather he be forced to participate in those sorts of things than be sent to jail for a few months and then be good to go.

 

[kalnel]

It's a good discussion, and I'd be interested in pursuing it further in another thread if you all want to. Tatiana Maria characterized what I was saying correctly. It would be a very big scandal for the police, the foreign government, and anyone else involved if a royal house tried to use U.S. agencies to bully people in order to avoid some unpleasantness.

Getting back to Marius, I would point out another aspect of things related to his problems and U.S. law, though -- he can forget visiting here anytime soon with admitted drug use and an arrest on his record!

Edit: Tagging @Muhler and @Tatiana Maria in this to keep the conversations connected.

 

[Muhler]

I know of no polls in Norway, they will come no doubt, but this story is still unfolding.
The problem with Marius is that, while he of course bear most of the responsibility being an adult, his problems didn't just start a couple of years ago with him suddenly developing an addiction, anger issues, mental problems, getting into bad company and so on. That would have started years back, probably in his teens or even before. - And that's when, in hindsight, they should have been handled.
And as has been said many times in this thread, no matter what, even the best parents in the world can be unfortunate with their offspring. That's no excuse for not trying and trying even harder and in contrast to pretty much everybody else in Norway the NRF could get immediate and the best possible professional help for Marius. But that is only possible if they are willing to realize there is a problem.

The problem is that so many could and should have done something. There are a lot of fingers that could be pointed at a lot of people, not least members of the NRF. And that is the main problem in the damage control in this case, hence why I believe it's better for one person to take all the blame.

Fortunately the Norwegian system is very much aimed at rehabilitation and they are pretty good at it. It's cheaper to spend resources on turning an addict into a good taxpayer, than locking him up for years. It would be ideal if Marius was shipped off to Svalbard to count seagulls while a group of therapists worked on him.
Marius first and foremost needs to get away from his "friends" and all the temptations and once he is clean he needs to be rebuild. A good way to do that would be to send him off for some months on a school ship, where he can learn self-esteem and self-respect, reliance on other people and being relied upon as well as being valued on his own merits and on his own accomplishments. And where he can also learn that there are consequences if he steps out of line.

But his parents, especially his mother, needs to be reprogrammed as well. No more poor little Marius. He's an adult, he can fend for himself given the chance, treat him as such.

Marius alone won't bring the NRF down, not even combined with ML and her shaman. But it can very easily be the beginning of the end of the NRF. Right now there are some serious cracks in the foundation and if they are not fixed, then at some point the whole thing will collapse and that can happen astonishingly fast.

One last point is the tribal mentality. The Norwegians is a tribe and Norway is a village. Right now the tribe is embarrassed by the NRF, because of Marius and ML and her Durak and they do not like it! It ruins the image they have of themselves and the image they wish to present to everybody else. So the Norwegian tribe is pretty annoyed with the NRF right now!
Among the good things of being a member of a tribe or belonging to a close knit community like a village is that you will be looked after, cared for, helped, supported, never be lonesome and if need be the tribe will close ranks to protect you. You are one of us. You belong. It's not simple a concept to explain, but I hope you get it.
- That's why horrific things are sometimes covered up by such a close knit community, because that's the downside of tribal mentality. Also, if the tribe turns it's back on you, you are out. Alone.
So yes, I believe the Norwegian tribe can agree on handling this in a way so that is as little embarrassing for the tribe as possible. In return for that the tribe will expect the NRF to fix this!!
Otherwise the tribe may turn it's back on Haakon in particular and talk about bypassing him and appointing Ingrid instead. Or go all the way towards a republic.

 

[FigTree]

The only thing that would bring a royal family down is if the incumbent and direct heirs were somehow involved in nefarious goings on. It will be fine. He obviously has some serious issues, he needs to take his punishment, be contrite and actually work on getting well.

The family themselves, with the possible exception of his mother, need say nothing.

 

[iceflower]

The ongoing off-topic discussion has been shortened, please remain on topic of this thread. Thank you!

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

So, yes, Mette-Marit couldn’t have know that her son was an abuser, and it’s not even certain she could have been aware of his louche lifestyle. They didn’t live under the same roof, and no one followed him around reporting back to her. Although he may live in a house on the estate, it’s apparently widely separated from the main house.

You can say his parents inadvertently raised a 27 year old man of bad character, but his personal freedom meant they couldn’t know everything about him.

I wouldn’t wish to be blamed for my son’s bad choices and lifestyle, if he has them!- but I wouldn’t necessarily know until someone tells me. I think it’s quite unfair to blame the parents for the sins of the adult child.

I am sure, Marius will have gotten into trouble quite early on by drinking, taking drugs. Maybe in Scandinavia it is accepted to 'experiment', see MMs background. After that, you turn that corner or you don't. And parents within a public family will notice when you don't, if they take any interest. Especially when your son doesn’t get an education or a real job and still lives on your estate. MM and Haakon will have been firsthand witnesses to this development, what has been a long way coming.
The adult child is responsible for his own sins but funding somebody who has not/is not willing to do further education, holds no job, has no visible direction in life is grossly negligent by those who continue to pay the bills without any consequences.

 

[LadyFinn]

Psychologist Rebekka Lossius at her statement among other things:
"It is an emotional minefield that Mette-Marit has maneuvered in. She is the perpetrator's mother. Therefore, she also has a relational power that can influence how the case will play out in the judiciary. She must have a championship in the art of balancing so as not to step wrong.
Declarations of love, care from the abuser and his mother, language that obscures acts of violence, explanations that may place responsibility outside the control of the abuser. It is a recipe for creating ambivalence in the victim. Everything happens with the help of a PR apparatus. Norway is the audience.
For my part, this is a serious breach of trust in the Crown Prince's family. Taxpayers' money cannot go to finance an apparatus that covers up violence against women."

For min del er dette et alvorlig brudd på tilliten til kronprinsfamilien

«Det er en oppskrift på å skape ambivalens hos offeret», skriver psykolog Rebekka Lossius.

psykologisk.no

 

[Lady Daly]

"Declarations of love, care from the abuser and his mother, language that obscures acts of violence, explanations that may place responsibility outside the control of the abuser. It is a recipe for creating ambivalence in the victim."

Not only the concern of outside forces ie Mette-Marit by calling the victim but Marius as well. If we will recall it wasn't the victim that notified the police but a friend that the victim had called initially who came over to her apartment to see the evidence of the violent abuse. They called not the victim. Perhaps the victim would not have ever called the authorities and then this would be swept under carpet for another day.

 

[Mbruno]

Psychologist Rebekka Lossius at her statement among other things:
"It is an emotional minefield that Mette-Marit has maneuvered in. She is the perpetrator's mother. Therefore, she also has a relational power that can influence how the case will play out in the judiciary. She must have a championship in the art of balancing so as not to step wrong.
Declarations of love, care from the abuser and his mother, language that obscures acts of violence, explanations that may place responsibility outside the control of the abuser. It is a recipe for creating ambivalence in the victim. Everything happens with the help of a PR apparatus. Norway is the audience.
For my part, this is a serious breach of trust in the Crown Prince's family. Taxpayers' money cannot go to finance an apparatus that covers up violence against women."

For min del er dette et alvorlig brudd på tilliten til kronprinsfamilien

«Det er en oppskrift på å skape ambivalens hos offeret», skriver psykolog Rebekka Lossius.

psykologisk.no

I am confused about the argument in this opinion piece. When did Mette-Marit make a declaration that obscures Marius' acts of violence or offered explanations that may place responsibility outside the control of the abuser?

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

We don't know that she did, but Marius made such a declaration with his statement, where he spoke of love (something that abusers routinely do after abuse in order to get back in their victim's good graces). And when he offered mental illnesses and cocaine use as explanations.

We don't know that Mette-Marit did anything like that, she may or may not have.

In my opinion she should not have called because by doing so, she opened herself up to accusations of potentially influencing the victim. Even if that's not what she did.

I think she acted purely emotionally in this case and should have considered that she is a powerful person calling a regular girl. Most victims of domestic abuse never press charges, because they love and feel bad for their abusers. That number is probably even higher where powerful people are concerned. She should have considered all that, because even the best case scenario, apologizing for your son and asking how the victim is doing, could emotionally influence the victim and dissuade her.

 

[Alondra]

Mental health issues are a minefield. I strongly support the women victimised by Marius, they are the victims. But supporting them as victims to the violence they suffered against a man out of control, doesn't mean I can't also understand how mental health issues are extraordinarily difficult to manage.

Many people think managing a mental disorder is as simple as popping a pill or going to a psychologist. It's not. The reason why people like people Marius self-medicate with alcohol and drugs is often because few conventional treatments work after a few months. Managing diabetes as a metabolic disorder is simple, comparing it with managing a mental health one.

Personally, I think his family, including Harald, have known the full extent of his mental health issues from the first time he was violent against a woman - security services in Norway would have given a dossier to Harald. It needs common sense to navigate how a royal house deal with this issue at a personal level without jeopardising the institution.

 

[KristehH]

I agree that mental illness can be difficult to manage. There's so much still to learn, and sadly self-medicating is quite common. But if a mentally ill person cannot manage without physically harming innocent people, obviously that is unacceptable and cannot be allowed.

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

I agree that mental illness can be difficult to manage. There's so much still to learn, and sadly self-medicating is quite common. But if a mentally ill person cannot manage without physically harming innocent people, obviously that is unacceptable and cannot be allowed.

I very much agree.

Many people suffer from mental illnesses, but I would dare say the majority is actually not beating up their partners (or other people), so it's still not an excuse. Everyone still bears responsibility for their own actions, unless they are deemed completely unable to live in society and institutionalized long-term.

The thing about therapy is that you actually have to want to go there and also do at least 50% of the work, along with the therapist. It's not a passive kind of process where a doctor or therapist comes along and heals you.

The closest comparison in terms of physical illness is probably physical therapy. The progress depends on your doctor, medication and your condition, but likewise on the work you yourself put in.

The thing about medication is that there might actually be medication to help Marius, along with therapy - but again, he also has to be willing to take it and take it long-term. Unless he is institutionalized, he cannot be forced. And even his family can only ask "are you taking your medication?", unrealistic for them to watch him take it everyday even if he lives at Skaugum.

 

[LadyFinn]

A serious comment about that EU is now a bigger market for cocaine than the US, and the problem is growing by journalist Anders Magnus, he writes among other things:
The cocaine magia has reached the royal family
The cocaine mafia is about to tighten its grip in Norway. Among young people, especially on west Oslo, cocaine has very quickly become a very popular party drug.
Marius Borg Høiby has moved far too close to criminal networks, according to Dagbladet. Connections to the Swedish Foxtrot network and the Irish Kinahan cartel, one of the world's largest criminal groups. That a member of the royal family uses cocaine and moves close to such criminal networks causes a security risk for the royal family and the royal house.
But Høiby's cocaine use also shows that Norway has a security problem: When young people are so willing to buy the goods of criminal organizations, the power of the cocaine mafia is strengthened. Høiby is a role model for many young people, and his use of cocaine can make the drug harmless for those who are tempted to try the same.
In that case, it would be very tragic. Therefore, the royal house and the politicians must be crystal clear in their warnings against this narcotic substance being allowed to take hold in Norway's young population.

Kokainmafiaen har nådd kongefamilien

Kongehuset har et sikkerhetsproblem.

www.nettavisen.no

What are you doing now, King Harald?
A royal family that does not take a public stand against violence, especially in close relationships, has no place in modern society.

Hva gjør du nå, kong Harald?

En kongefamilie som ikke tar et offentlig oppgjør mot vold, spesielt i nære relasjoner, har ingen plass i et moderne samfunn.

www.dagsavisen.no

 

[Prinsara]

And even his family can only ask "are you taking your medication?"

His probation officer can ask him as a condition of his release, though.

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

His probation officer can ask him as a condition of his release, though.

Oh okay, that would be good!

 

[ladongas]

p

His probation officer can ask him as a condition of his release, though.

His probation officer might also tell, not ask- him to produce a fluid or blood sample.

 

[Alisa]

Mette Marit has been a royal long enough to learn from all her in-law relatives PR disasters when they interfere with investigations, from her husband's cousins in Spain (Juan Carlos, his younger daughter and her ex-spouse and let's not leave out his oldest grandson's antics) to the UK Windsor side of the family.

If she contacted the victim let's hope her common sense was to start with an apology and to show her, she's willing to put motherhood aside and defend the victim. And if she contacted the victim, it's probably on the advice of the family team and lawyers. Besides, in this day and age any conversation is recorded, Mette-Marit knows better than placing herself in a difficult situation.

A lot has been said about her past and her youth, but she has spent over two decades representing the NRF with dignity and she is not a reckless young adult but a 50-year-old mother of three and accepted by the royal family since their engagement 24 years ago in 2000.

Mette-Marit has been royal long enough, yet here we are in this thread in light of all that has occurred. At the end of the day royals are humans- mere mortals prone to make emotionally driven mistakes. Look how hard Juan-Carlos worked to help restore Spain to what it is now and that didn't stop him. His younger daughter grew up during that time and saw the transformation of Spain and knew how hard her father worked. Yet that didn't stop her or her husband from their dealings.

Nothing like that, I think.
They would more likely have had layers who could apply pressure, but that too I honestly find unlikely.

It's more like "sympathy-tripping" someone into not pressing charges or go public with such an incident.
I.e. Mette-Marit is deeply apologetic, perhaps crying, saying Marius isn't really like that, he's not himself, he doesn't mean it, she'll make sure he'll get help - and I'm in no doubt she would genuinely mean it.
And who doesn't feel sorry for a distraught mother?

It's a pretty good way of keeping things under wraps, even if that genuinely wasn't the intention. Not least because these three women would have had some feeling for Marius - and probably know Mette Marit to some extent.

So people can actually be made to shut up without being pressured.
- And there is also the thought I understand most victims of abuse have: Did I trigger it? Was it after all my fault?


So if someone contact a third party and offer a intimate video of you and him for sale (there are such sites out there), you can't do anything before he actually sells it and it is therefore likely to be published? Because that would be a violation of his rights?
How about your rights? - And he would end up in prison or at the very least face a lawsuits, which might very well ruin him for life.
What if it was a minor in a foreign country? Should we still wait until he actually sell the video for fear of violating his little rights.
I had to answer this, sorry mods. Perhaps this topic should be moved to another thread?

"Nothing like that" - I hope. The reality is that we do not know. What we do know is that the Crown Princess is in the perfect position to influence the victims as what she said or didn't say can't be held against her due to royal immunity. A lawyer can always be accused of blackmail and there could be serious repercussions if it were discovered so a lawyer would be the last person used to try to sway the victim. However someone with immunity is perfect!

The Crown Princess should have waited till the dust settled and for due process to take its course before reaching out to the victim.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Do you have in mind her coming-of-age speech in 2022, or another interview? Her comments about her brothers in the former were

Dear Marius and Magnus.
You are my safety net. I know I can always come to you when something is bothering me.

Marius,
Thank you for everything I have learned from you, and for being able to talk to me about everything. Thank you for always being there to protect me.

Magnus, you are always nice to me when I need it. Thank you for the hugs that you usually give me when I have had an extra tough day.

I am so proud to have you both as my brothers.​

Looking back, the princess also discussed her brothers in her 18th birthday interview:

Interviewer: Does the Princess have any role models?

Ingrid: I have many role models, but I can name a few. Some of my biggest role models are my cousins Maud, Leah and Emma. They have been through some of the toughest things that children can go through. And they are still so positive and joyful, and make the best out of every situation. And of course both of my brothers, I look up to them very much. I have seen my little brother Magnus go from small and shy to big and grown-up. He has real control over his affairs now. And Marius, who I have perhaps always looked up to. Not necessarily because he is so cool, but more because of the loyalty he shows towards people.

Interviewer: And you also have the same taste in music?

Ingrid: (laughs) Yes, we do.

Interviewer: What type of music is that?

Ingrid: A lot of old rap.

Interviewer: You have talked about your brothers and your cousins. What do they think of you calling yourself the best grandchild? The King has said that.

Ingrid: (laughs) No, I’m sure they also think they are the best grandchildren. But they are wrong. (laughs)

Interviewer: (laughs) Very objective assessment.

Ingrid: Yes. (laughs)

 

[Prinsara]

Looking back, the princess also discussed her brothers in her 18th birthday interview:

Before this gets into more "Marius's potentially terrible influence on Ingrid" (handwringing)... aside from Ingrid being self-evidently very bright, externally tough and extremely composed, and seemingly the sort to make all her own decisions rather than have them made for her... we really don't have the context for what she's talking about. Who is Marius loyal to, and why? Right now, we can't say.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

we really don't have the context for what she's talking about. Who is Marius loyal to, and why? Right now, we can't say.

I admit I'm curious about that as well, and about what he "protected" his sister from. It would of course have been expected of her to say something nice about each of her brothers in her coming-of-age interview and speech, but the comments about protection and loyalty are rather specific, whereas a vague "he has always been there for me" would have sufficed if she truly could think of nothing good to say about him or their relationship. So I suspect there is at least a grain of truth to her comments, at least from her point of view. (Hopefully the described protectiveness is real and will provide him some motivation to work to minimize the damage caused by his actions in order to protect his sister's future throne from the fallout, if nothing else...)

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

Ingrid-Alexandra wasn't going to say "And my big brother Marius, the violent woman basher and drug user...". Her speech would have been written by staffers or co-written with her. All of those speeches have a level of saccharin associates with them, in her case, she called Marius her "protective big brother". They could absolutely detest each other behind close doors!