Norway: Republic or monarchy?

[royal rob]

I so agree with what you say especially the bit you didn't say
?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Mbruno]

As I've said before: Scandals around Haakon and Mette-Marit in the past 3 years have weakened the monarchy's position in the Labour Party and the media, but as several experts says: There will never be any referendum as long as the King lives because that would mean political suicide, and probably not under Haakon's reign either. Because if Haakon and Mette-Marit stays away from trouble/scandals, then the monarchy will win by a large margin (propably by 70 to 80%) in a possible referendum.

I was looking at the constitution of Norway, or rather an English translation thereof, and it says on constitutional amendments:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]§ [/FONT]112 (1) [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Such amendment must never, however, contradict the principles embodied in this Constitution, but solely relate to modifications of particular provisions which do not alter the spirit of the Constitution, and such amendment requires that two thirds of the Parliament [Storting] agree thereto.

Considering that the monarchy is , without any doubt, a basic principle of the current constitution, can it be even legally abolished without altering the "spirit of the Constitution" in violation of the paragraph quoted above ?

In other words, my question, which is a rather technical one, is whether the constitution of Norway gives the Storting the authority under [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]§ 112 to propose and approve a constitutional amendment abolishing the monarchy. [/FONT]

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

With your views you are rather an unicum

I don't know. Aside from hiccups due to special events, monarchies are under pressure. Despite fitness-trainers, junta-daughters and newsreaders suddenly promoted to royal rank. Is this indeed what people want? A monarchy without distance? Your classmate being tomorrow's Queen?

It is under pressure by progressives. An it is under pressure by conservatives because this is has nothing to do with "royal family" anymore. It is a pure erosion from both sides ánd from within. With the Letizias, the Mette-Marits and then the not-royal-but-still-somewhere-royal Marius and the totally wiping the King away Máxima, I am not optimistic. They are the erosion within.

 

[Mbruno]

I make no any illusion. I will see monarchies end in my lifetime. And when in a current monarchy a referendum has ended it, it will trigger similar referenda in other monarchies. No matter a referendum will be won or lost: it will cause the monarchy to become a topic of a heated discussion and then sharp-tongued debaters will clash with little-arguments-because-we-underestimate-the-whole-referendum-politicians and simply ask why Amalia von Amsberg, eh... pardon, "Van Oranje-Nassau" or the daughter of Daniel Westling from Örebrö have a birthright to sit an a throne and be the hereditary head-of-state.

Even in countries where -on the surface- monarchies seem to do well, one collapsing monarchy somewhere will cause all others to wobble on their foundations. This domino-effect is visible on all terrains: one monarchy (Sweden) changes the succession into a gender-neutral one. This is a trigger for almost all European monarchies to change their successions as well. One monarchy (Norway) sees a Heir marrying a fellow and non-blueblooded citizen, no backlash, and one by one all monarchies accept what was long considered as grave mésalliances. One state (the Netherlands) starts to accept same-gender marriages and the unthinkable happens: even Catholic states as Spain and Ireland allow same-gender formal relationships.

I think the first referendum will be in the usual "progressive" countries: Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands. The republicans do not need to win. When a monarchy wins with 56% pro and 44% against this is already close to the critical bottom because monarchies always claim "to be born by the people" and being "part of the identity of Norway, Sweden, Netherlands" etc. As we have seen in other referenda (Scotland, Catalonia) a close result only triggers for more and more referenda. My estimation is that the Netherlands will be the first to become a republic. Not because Willem-Alexander or Máxima are not popular, on the contrary...., but because the Dutch are lesser and lesser attached to the monarchy on itself. We see the same in Spain: it was more being a juancarlist than a royalist. In the Netherlands it is more about being an orangist than a royalist. Mark my words: only ONE modern monarchy needs to fall and all others will be questioned too.

The remaining European monarchies survived the so-called "Age of Revolution" (1774-1848), two World Wars in the 20th Century, and the Cold War and the rise of communism. I guess it would be far-fetched to conclude that they will fall now because the "future queen of Sweden married her personal fitness trainer" or because they have switched to equal primogeniture in the royal succession.

More so than 65 % popular support (which looks increasingly like the "new normal"), the greatest reassurance IMHO that the monarchy will survive for quite some time in the countries where it still exists is that the mainstream political parties, including the center-left ones, have a vested interest in preserving the status quo, which is a system that they know and does not threaten their own power and influence. If the King were to be replaced by an elected president, chances are that "the people" would demand or prefer a directly (i.e. popularly) elected Head of State. That would be a major change to the existing political system with the potential to alter significantly the balance of power between parliament, the government and the Head of State.

In fact, even if a purely ceremonial president were proposed, it would still be, in any case, a new and untested addition to the constitution that would cause politicians to be reluctant about it.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I think that it is a trend in Europe
Regularly you can hear or read those opinions in dutch papers or on the radio about monarchy in Holland

It has nothing to do with trends. In the UK we have the Guardian and until recently the Independent who for years have wanted a Republic. In Denmark they have Ekstra Bladet.

And there is a myth that most of the media in Sweden wants a Republic, but thats not true, because I don't think they are critical at all. And the King has gotten away with most of his scandals.

When it comes to Norway: we is that country out of these 4 who have most debate on the monarchy.

There were TV-debates about the monarchy constantly from 1998 until they were taken off the air due to financial problems in the media in 2010.

It flared up again in 2013 (this time in the newspapers) because of the so-called scandals surrounding Haakon and Mette-Marit and the fact that the experts started accusing them of interfering in politics. They are also criticized for being snobbish and that they should be more like the King and Queen.

But as I've said in my above post: Scandals around Haakon and Mette-Marit in the past 3 years have weakened the monarchy's position in the Labour Party and the media, but as several experts says: There will never be any referendum as long as the King lives because that would mean political suicide, and probably not under Haakon's reign either. Because if Haakon and Mette-Marit stays away from trouble/scandals, then the monarchy will win by a large margin (propably by 70 to 80%) in a possible referendum.

I can't speak for the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain, because I don't follow these monarchies, and I don't speak the languages. And that should be discussed in their respective threads and not here.

Even if they stay away from trouble/scandal I clearly see a trend in Europe where people are turning away from monarchy.
People are more and more critical about the fact that monarchy is hereditary

You are wrong. We've had record high support for the UK and Danish monarchies in many polls for the last 4 years and some of the best polls for the monarchy in Norway (with the exception of a VG poll in 2014) for the last 10 years.

And most people will never replace a constitutional monarchy with an divisive president who will cost as much if not even more.

And please don't reply to my post, because I will never agree with you. But can I ask - are you from a country with a monarchy? Because everything of what you have written does not match with the facts.

And when it comes to Duc_et_Pair's comment:

You don't speak Danish, Norwegian or Swedish or do you? And as I and other have told you several times: If the Royals had lived as they did in the 50s and married each other, then the monarchies had been abolished long ago. And as most experts say, and as I am 110% sure of: The UK, Denmark and Norway (if Haakon and Mette-Marit stays away of trouble) will still be monarchies in 2100.

The same with Sweden (although the Swedish monarchy is not as strong as the monarchies mentioned above) and as I also have told you several times before: If the Spanish monarchy should be abolished, it will have notting to say for the UK, Denmark, Norway or Sweden.

And when it comes to me: I have a British Mother who live in the UK with her family and a Norwegian father who live in Norway with his family. I'm the opposite of conservative and supports the Labour Party both in the UK and Norway, and I was born in 1988.

I am big fan of my two monarch the Queen (Elizabeth II) and some of her family members, and King Harald and some of his family members. But I also suports the constitutional monarchy as an institution.

In other words, my question, which is a rather technical one, is whether the constitution of Norway gives the Storting the authority under [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]§ 112 to propose and approve a constitutional amendment abolishing the monarchy. [/FONT]

Experts disagree about that too, but the only party that wants a republic (the very small party SV which can be voted out of parliament in the election next year) agree with the other few politicians who support a republic that it should only be done with a referendum, but one expert who supports republic believes that the only way for Norway to become a republic is if the royal family go voluntarily because they can't bear the pressure any longer.

SV has campaigned for a republic since being formed in 1975. They even took it up for vote in Parliament on the day King Olav suffered a stroke in 1990.

They wants a committee who shall come up with how a republic/president should work and then have a referendum.

And to others posters here, it's only the Norwegian monarchy who shall be discussed in this thread.

If there are bad writing in my post, this is because I have difficulty reading what I writes due to dyslexia.

 

[Rudolph]

And many people forget, the same arguments for abolishing monarchy come up every generation. Republicanism was rampant during Queen Victoria's reign. The chattering classes said the 'young people' won't stand for it any longer. It's not democratic etc.

Here we are celebrating Queen Elizabeth II's diamond jubilee.

I suspect the same arguments pop up from time to time in Norway, but that doesn't mean the country will become a republic

 

[wartenberg7]

Well I still have to become older and I am conservative by nature. You would then think: "Duc-et-Pair wants to maintain what is worth maintaining, after all that is the essence of being conservative".

But exactly there is the crux: are the present monarchies worth to maintain? The conservative in me was shocked to see that a divorced lady presenting the news was perfect for becoming Queen of Spain. The conservative in me was shocked to see that a Catholic Argentine with a dubious family was perfect to become Queen of the Netherlands. Or that even having a child out of wedlock by another gentleman was no any hindrance to become Norway's future Queen.

You state that as people become older, they tend to become more conservative. But exactly conservative royalists are maybe thr first ones to end it because what they see is more a royal vaudeville undermining everything a monarchy once stood for. The future Queen of Sweden falling in love with her fitness trainer. Result: the daugter of that fitness trainer is the heiress, conveniently renamed "Bernadotte" while her real Bernadotte uncle and cousin are shoved aside. Morale of the story: don't count too much on conservatives because my guess this is not what they once thought was the embodiment of national history, of values, of dignity, of prestige, worth fighting for.

Without these development you consider as "critical" to put it mildly, monarchies would have been seen much sooner and much harsher as "out of touch", "fallen out of time", an "anachronism" and so forth!
Only by ladies like the Queen of Sweden, the Queen of the Netherlands or the CPss of Demark (and, to name a Royal by birth and a man, Harry of Wales) to name a few, monarchys can keep their popularity these days.
The dutch King and Queen travel Germany every year (I guess until they´ve seen every federal country) and it is every time unbelievable how affectionate and enthusiastic the germans are towards the Queen and how many turn up to see mainly her, rather less to see him! Royal birth or not, it´s the personality that counts these days.
As much as I love and admire Queen Elizabeth, but I´m sure, if she´d be 27 today and performing the way we know her, a bit too dignified and distant, the monarchy in Britain had it´s share of problems today, too!

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The remaining European monarchies survived the so-called "Age of Revolution" (1774-1848), two World Wars in the 20th Century, and the Cold War and the rise of communism. I guess it would be far-fetched to conclude that they will fall now because the "future queen of Sweden married her personal fitness trainer" or because they have switched to equal primogeniture in the royal succession.

[...]

These remaining European monarchies survived these revolutions, uproars, World Wars with royalborn spouses anyway. In Norway it were Princess Maud of Wales and Princess Märtha of Sweden. In Sweden it were Princess Viktoria von Baden, Princess Margaret of Counnaught, Princess Sibylla von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha. Apparently their darkblue-blooded descent was no hindrance for the survival of the monarchies in Norway and Sweden.

 

[LadyRohan]

I don't know. Aside from hiccups due to special events, monarchies are under pressure. Despite fitness-trainers, junta-daughters and newsreaders suddenly promoted to royal rank. Is this indeed what people want? A monarchy without distance? Your classmate being tomorrow's Queen?

It is under pressure by progressives. An it is under pressure by conservatives because this is has nothing to do with "royal family" anymore. It is a pure erosion from both sides ánd from within. With the Letizias, the Mette-Marits and then the not-royal-but-still-somewhere-royal Marius and the totally wiping the King away Máxima, I am not optimistic. They are the erosion within.

It is the height of pomposity to denounce current European monarchies, because heirs to the thrones have been allowed to marry the person they love, and not someone chosen for them, for geo-political and/or dynastic grounds. It is beyond arrogant to claim that monarchies have no future, because of the entry of what you describe as lower-class plebs and social climbers, without taking a look beyond that extremely rare view and into the societies themselves, to see what's actually stirring. When reading your very condescending descriptions of individual royalty, and many monarchies in different threads in here, I am often brought to think of the saying 'with friends like these, who needs enemies?'.

In Norway, several newspapers have always been republican, and the Socialist Party and a large group of people in the Labour Party have always been republicans. That has largely had no effect on the support for the monarchy, as that is a function of the masses, and they are consistently conservative on these issues, by the maxim: 'if it ain't broke..'
As has been pointed out before, at the entry of the Crown Princess into the RF, there was naturally much scepticism, but I must add, none of it as derogatory as yours, and she won the hearts of most through her demeanour in the years that followed. The same has certainly happened in both Sweden and the Netherlands, where the consorts are both popular and respected.

I make no illusions about the monarchy as an institution. It is seen by many in todays world as undemocratic and difficult to defend, but that is all the more reason for those of us who truly believe in the monarchy as an institution, to shine a light on its advantages and accept some of the inevitable change that the passage of time demands. Unless something cataclysmic takes place, like Hereditary Princess Ingrid deciding to relinquish her rights to the throne, I see nothing that can shake the Norwegian monarchy to the extent that it will fall, as Norwegians are very proud of their Royal Family, mishaps, consorts, debates about costs and all.

Existing monarchies in Europe have not survived because of their blue blood and intransigence. They have survived because they have made the right choices in times of crisis, ensuring that they have had the popular support needed to continue to reign. As with any institution in a functioning democracy, the monarchy has to be relevant, connected and just distant enough for people to accept. That is a hard enough balance to maintain, without those claiming to support it, adding to the strains it will always face, in the world of instant media and 24/7 scrutiny we live in today.

 

[sjetajiem]

It has nothing to do with trends. In the UK we have the Guardian and until recently the Independent who for years have wanted a Republic. In Denmark they have Ekstra Bladet.

And there is a myth that most of the media in Sweden wants a Republic, but thats not true, because I don't think they are critical at all. And the King has gotten away with most of his scandals.

When it comes to Norway: we is that country out of these 4 who have most debate on the monarchy.

There were TV-debates about the monarchy constantly from 1998 until they were taken off the air due to financial problems in the media in 2010.

It flared up again in 2013 (this time in the newspapers) because of the so-called scandals surrounding Haakon and Mette-Marit and the fact that the experts started accusing them of interfering in politics. They are also criticized for being snobbish and that they should be more like the King and Queen.

But as I've said in my above post: Scandals around Haakon and Mette-Marit in the past 3 years have weakened the monarchy's position in the Labour Party and the media, but as several experts says: There will never be any referendum as long as the King lives because that would mean political suicide, and probably not under Haakon's reign either. Because if Haakon and Mette-Marit stays away from trouble/scandals, then the monarchy will win by a large margin (propably by 70 to 80%) in a possible referendum.

I can't speak for the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain, because I don't follow these monarchies, and I don't speak the languages. And that should be discussed in their respective threads and not here.


You are wrong. We've had record high support for the UK and Danish monarchies in many polls for the last 4 years and some of the best polls for the monarchy in Norway (with the exception of a VG poll in 2014) for the last 10 years.

And most people will never replace a constitutional monarchy with an divisive president who will cost as much if not even more.

And please don't reply to my post, because I will never agree with you. But can I ask - are you from a country with a monarchy? Because everything of what you have written does not match with the facts.

And when it comes to Duc_et_Pair's comment:

You don't speak Danish, Norwegian or Swedish or do you? And as I and other have told you several times: If the Royals had lived as they did in the 50s and married each other, then the monarchies had been abolished long ago. And as most experts say, and as I am 110% sure of: The UK, Denmark and Norway (if Haakon and Mette-Marit stays away of trouble) will still be monarchies in 2100.

The same with Sweden (although the Swedish monarchy is not as strong as the monarchies mentioned above) and as I also have told you several times before: If the Spanish monarchy should be abolished, it will have notting to say for the UK, Denmark, Norway or Sweden.

And when it comes to me: I have a British Mother who live in the UK wit her family and a Norwegian father who live in Norway with his family. I'm the opposite of conservative and supports the Labour Party both in the UK and Norway, and I was born in 1988.

I am big fan of my two monarch Queen (Elizabeth II) and some of her family members, and King Harald and some of his family members. But I also suports the constitutional monarchy as an institution.


Experts disagree about that too, but the only party that wants a republic (the very small party SV which can be voted out of parliament in the election next year) agree with the other few politicians who support a republic that it should only be done with a referendum, but one expert who supports republic believes that the only way for Norway to become a republic is if the royal family go voluntarily because they can't bear the pressure any longer.

SV has campaigned for a republic since being formed in 1975. They even took it up for vote in Parliament on the day King Olav suffered a stroke in 1990.

They wants a committee who shall come up with how a republic/president should work and then have a referendum.

And to others posters here, it's only the Norwegian monarchy who shall be discussed in this thread.

If there are bad writing in my post, this is because I have difficulty reading what I writes due to dyslexia.

Monarchy lives by the support of the people
In times of crises there will always be more criticism, due to costs

The weakest point about monarchy for me personally is heredity.
And yes, I live in a monarchy and I am a believer in a united Europe (the only way to survive our future problems is to be united) and I don't think that that will be under a european monarch

 

[LadyRohan]

We will wait and see if the existing monarchies have made the right choices indeed to ensure popular support needed to continue their existence ( I dare not to say "reign" as this means nothing at all).

Calling someone "pompous" because of the expressed regret about the disappearance of standards, values and norms which once shaped today's royal and aristocratic families is hmmm... weak.

It is pompous to denounce someone for the sins of their fathers, as in the case of Queen Maxima, a woman who has done nothing to deserve derogatory remarks from anyone. It is pompous to demand that royalty only marry equal to deserve support and a continued position of trust in a society. The Norwegian Crown Princess has worked hard to overcome her start in life, and most Norwegians admire that. I am quite sure the Norwegian monarchy would be neither more or less safe if the Crown Prince had found a royal or serene Princess to marry.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say it might had been a bigger risk to the monarchy, adding to the criticism that it is an elitist and detailed form of government, not belonging to our time.

Whether or not one is regal, is more predicated on personal qualities, abilities and hard work than it is on being born to a certain station in life. One can be more than regal, dignified and hard-working enough to be a valued member of a RF, without being born into one, and in the end, if you're in a position to reign from a RF, you're born into it. The ones who join a RF from the outside, become consorts at the most, and just like born royalty, some of them carry themselves well and a few don't.

You'll find that in any family. Even inter-married, deep blue ones. C'est la vie, non?

 

[wartenberg7]

These remaining European monarchies survived these revolutions, uproars, World Wars with royalborn spouses anyway. In Norway it were Princess Maud of Wales and Princess Märtha of Sweden. In Sweden it were Princess Viktoria von Baden, Princess Margaret of Counnaught, Princess Sibylla von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha. Apparently their darkblue-blooded descent was no hindrance for the survival of the monarchies in Norway and Sweden.

Well, that prooves that it is totally irrelevant of what origin spouses are, but if they manage to be popular in their countries.
I don´t hope you favour a "solution" like having been made by the Prince of Wales and his former mistress back in the 1970s for other Royals - we all know how this ended....! Or are you really that naive, that a person being in love simply forgetting his/ her partner just like a press of a button after gotten married a "fitting" partner?!
But I don´t want to go into THAT discussion with you again - there´s just no point.... This is the monarchy vs republic thread!

 

[soapstar]

This thread isn't about Queen Maxima, Queen Letizia or Prince Daniel. Let's stick to discussing the Norwegian monarchy.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Record support to the monarchy in poll by (the very serious/reliable) Norstat for NRK, and record support by the young. It was the main news story in Norway's largest news program. Experts are surprised by the support (due to the Crown Prince couple's scandals and bad choices) but think the reason may be King Harald's extreme popularity:
http://nrk.no/norge/8-av-10-vil-beholde-kongehuset_-storst-oppslutning-blant-de-unge-1.13383378

Do you support that Norway is a monarchy, or will you change to another form of government, such as Republic?

Overall:
Monarchy 81%
Republikk 15%
Don't know 4%

Men:
Monarchy 79
Republikk 16
Don't know 5

Woman:
Monarchy 82
Republikk 14
Don't know 4

Under 30 years:
Monarchy 82%
Republikk 12%
Don't know 6%

30-39 years:
Monarchy 85%
Republikk 11%
Don't know 5%

40-49 years:
Monarchy 79%
Republikk 17%
Don't know 4%

50 + years:
Monarchy 79%
Republikk 18%
Don't know 4%

Similar polls from 2005, 2007, 2009, 2012 and 2015 showed 70% support for the monarchy.

A poll by Norstat showed 82% support for the monarchy in 2014, but people didn't had the opportunity to say don't know.

 

[Blog Real]

I am glad that support for the monarchy in Norway is strong.

 

[Curryong]

These are figures any politician would give his eye teeth for, and gladden this monarchist's heart. However, I do wonder, as with Queen Elizabeth in Britain, whether some is the result of a stable, long-lived and popular monarch being on the throne. Might those figures go down a bit when Haakon becomes King?

 

[LadyRohan]

These are figures any politician would give his eye teeth for, and gladden this monarchist's heart. However, I do wonder, as with Queen Elizabeth in Britain, whether some is the result of a stable, long-lived and popular monarch being on the throne. Might those figures go down a bit when Haakon becomes King?

The numbers always fluctuate when there is a change of sovereign, that would not be something uniquely Norwegian, if it were to take place. The King has said publicly he was convinced he would struggle to gain the position his father, His late Majesty King Olav V had, and as 25 years has proven, he was blissfully wrong.
A good, dutiful and steadfast monarch will always be embraced in Norway, and as these numbers show, even in future, the monarchy has solid grounds of support.
Sometimes what is 'tabloidly' called a scandal happens within the Royal Family as well, because it's made up of actual people who won't always be able to please 80%+ of people with their words or choices, but when those waves settle, the Norwegian monarchy is as much a staple of tomorrow as it is of yesterday, and will be just as safe in the hands of the Crown Prince as they are in the hands of the King.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

One of many articles about this amazing poll:
Stadig flere vil beholde kongehuset - hegnar.no

The support around the royal house is growing - eight out of ten Norwegians say they support the monarchy.

The survey conducted by Norstat for NRK shows that support for the monarchy is growing. In 2005, seven out of ten answered that they supported the monarchy, while in the recent survey, eight out of ten said that they support the royal house.

The support is highest in Northern Norway and in the south with Telemark, while it is lowest in Oslo with 69 percent.

The survey shows that more women than men support the monarchy, and that the support is highest in the 30-39 age group (85 percent), while the the second highest support are among those under 30 (82 percent).

''It is the most dynamic age group, and it bodes well for the monarchy. It expresses a desire for a national stability in a troubled time, and the king shapes our self-image'', says author and royal biographer Tor Bomann-Larsen.

''One might imagine that the support was strongest in the oldest groups, so it's interesting. It confirms that the King is on the right course'', he said.

Overall, 81 per cent responded that they support the monarchy, 15 percent want a different form of government, while 4 percent responded in the survey that they don't know.

These are figures any politician would give his eye teeth for, and gladden this monarchist's heart. However, I do wonder, as with Queen Elizabeth in Britain, whether some is the result of a stable, long-lived and popular monarch being on the throne. Might those figures go down a bit when Haakon becomes King?

I'm a big fan of both the Crown Prince and Crown Princess and I like that they are trying to make Norway an even better and more inclusive society (as King Harald and Queen Sonja have done since they married in 1968), but they do it in a wrong way.

After the criticism from people/media calmed down after the wedding in 2001, both Haakon and Mette-Marit become very popular (I would say even more popular than what Frederik and Mary are in Denmark now). They got some criticism for the controversial journey they went on in 2010/2011, but it calmed down quickly. Their approval ratings were above 80% until early 2013.

In the last 3 years, this has unfortunately changed. They have been criticized for being friends with wealthy people, politicians, actors, for going on luxury boat-trips and for taking the children out of the public school etc.

And this is not well received in a country where the Law of Jante is still very present. And as a female Danish expert said when Queen Margrethe celebrated her 75th birthday: It's much harder to be royal in Norway than in Denmark and Sweden because everyone expects you to be like them.

Haakon: He interferes in politics, uses the royal court's money to build organizations and is bad at dealing with the media.

Mette-Marit: She's even worse at dealing with the media and gets cranky when she gets asked critical questions.

Many expert/journalists (who are very pro royal) is concerned about the monarchy's future when Haakon becomes king. And even worse: He has said that he will not change when he becomes King.

Haakon will also have an enormous task of taking over after King Harald, who is extremely popular.

The numbers always fluctuate when there is a change of sovereign, that would not be something uniquely Norwegian, if it were to take place. The King has said publicly he was convinced he would struggle to gain the position his father, His late Majesty King Olav V had, and as 25 years has proven, he was blissfully wrong.
A good, dutiful and steadfast monarch will always be embraced in Norway, and as these numbers show, even in future, the monarchy has solid grounds of support.
Sometimes what is 'tabloidly' called a scandal happens within the Royal Family as well, because it's made up of actual people who won't always be able to please 80%+ of people with their words or choices, but when those waves settle, the Norwegian monarchy is as much a staple of tomorrow as it is of yesterday, and will be just as safe in the hands of the Crown Prince as they are in the hands of the King.

1. Harald was a shy but popular crown prince who never interfered in political affairs. So he can not be compared with Haakon.

2. You write that, the monarchy ''will be just as safe in the hands of the Crown Prince as they are in the hands of the King''.

If he does not change? Then I'm not so sure about that.

If he change? Then I agree.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Polls under King Olav V:

The monarchy was never criticized by the media under King Olav (with the exception of when Harald married Sonja) and it was therefore almost no polls.

Had the press done their job in the 70s and 80s (according to experts) so had the support been much lower. (I would say less than 50%)

I've read about a poll that was done in the 1970s, but I don't remember where. I think it had the support for the monarchy at around 70%.

1986: Monarchy 90%. This poll (the only one that was made in the 1980's) is mentioned in several articles, but it is not any more information about it.

There were some polls in the 1960s too, but it's impossible to find any information about them.

This is all the polls that have been done on the monarchy in Norway since King Harald V acceded to the throne in 1991:

In Norway, it's not common that we get information from the media or those who perform the polls on how the questions are asked. It's not always we get information about how many that support a republic or says ''don't know'' either.

MMI for Dagbladet:

May 2000: Monarchy 71% (the first poll since 1986)

September 2000: Monarchy 67%

December 2000 Monarchy 66%

April 2001: Monarchy 59% Republic 23% Don't know 18%

Summer 2001: Monarchy 58%

November 2001: Monarchy 68% Republic 15% Don't know 17%

TNS Gallup for TV2:

December 2003: Monarchy 66.5% Republic 28%

January 2016: Monarchy 67.1% Republic 32.9%

This is as an expert said, an idiotic poll which always has the support lower than others. They only ask the people who have an opinion.

They also did a poll (in what I think was) in 2000 and one (in what I think was) in 2007, but I can't find any information about them.

Norwegian Monitor (a major survey conducted by Ipsos Norway:

Should Norway be a Monarchy or a Republic?

2003: Monarchy 68: 8% Republic 24.2%

2005: Monarchy 63% Republic 22.2%

2007: Monarchy 65.5% Republic 21.6%

2009: Monarchy 66.9% Republic 19.3%

2011: Monarchy 71.8% Republic 16.8%

2013: Monarchy 70.3% Republic 16.7%

Opinion for Aftenposten:

January 2004: Monarchy 75%

October 2015: Do you think that Norway should remain a monarchy, or do you think Norway should become a Republic? Monarchy: 72% Republic 17% Don't know 10%

Infact for VG:

May 2009: Monarchy 71% Republic 17% Don't know 12%

May 2012: Should Norway remain a monarchy? Yes 74.6% No 14.8 Don't know 10.5

May 2014: Should the monarchy be abolished? No 65.4% Yes 19% Do not know 15.6

February 2017: Should Norway continue as a monarchy? Yes 71.5% No 15.2% Don't know 13.3%

Opinion for NRK:

November 2005: Monarchy 70% Republic 20% Don't know 10%

Norstat for NRK:

May 2014: Monarchy 82% Republic 18%

February 2017: Do you support that Norway is a monarchy, or will you change to another form of government, such as a Republic?

Overall:
Monarchy 81%
Republic 15%
Don't know 4%

Men:
Monarki 79
Republic 16
Don't know 5

Woman:
Monarki 82
Republic 14
Don't know 4

Under 30 years:
Monarchy 82%
Republic 12%
Don't know 6%

30-39:
Monarki 85%
Republic 11%
Don't know 5%

40-49:
Monarchy 79%
Republic 17%
Don't know 4%

50+ years:
Monarchy 79%
Republic 18%
Don't know 4%

 

[Mbruno]

One of many articles about this amazing poll:
Stadig flere vil beholde kongehuset - hegnar.no

And this is not well received in a country where the Law of Jante is still very present. And as a female Danish expert said when Queen Margrethe celebrated her 75th birthday: It's much harder to be royal in Norway than in Denmark and Sweden because everyone expects you to be like them.

I apologize for my ignorance, but I had to google "Law of Jante" to know what it was. The explanation I got from the Wikipedia link looks satisfactory, but maybe you would care to explain the meaning yourself for the sake of the broader audience.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I hope people find post 110 interesting.

I apologize for my ignorance, but I had to google "Law of Jante" to know what it was. The explanation I got from the Wikipedia link looks satisfactory, but maybe you would care to explain the meaning yourself for the sake of the broader audience.

I urge those who are interested to read (as you did) the Wikipedia article about it. In addition to the their explanation, I must add that the Law of Jante (Janteloven in Norwegian) is much more present in Norway than in the other Scandinavian countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Law+of+Jante&title=Special:Search

I will now try to explain how the Law of Jante has affected Haakon and Mette-Marit's popularity:

As I said in post 109: After the criticism from people/media calmed down after the wedding in 2001, both Haakon and Mette-Marit become very popular (I would say even more popular than what Frederik and Mary are in Denmark now). They got some criticism for the controversial journey they went on in 2010/2011, but it calmed down quickly. Their approval ratings were above 80% until early 2013.

This was because we liked that they were like us, we liked that Mette-Marit had a history and we liked that Haakon was a caring stepfather to Marius.

In the last 3 years, this has unfortunately changed. Let me make some examples:

They have been criticized for:

1. They took the children out of the public school etc.

Most Norwegians reacted like this: They think they're better than everyone else. They don't think that the public school is good enough for them. Who the heck do they think they are.

2. Being friends with wealthy people, politicians, actors and for going on luxury boat-trips etc.

Most Norwegians reacted like this: They are snobbish. They are not like the King. They live like royalty did in the past. They are trying to reintroduce the nobility in Norway etc.

3. Haakon: He interferes in politics, uses the royal court's money to build organizations and is bad at dealing with the media.

Most Norwegians reacted like this: He behaves like a politician. He is arrogant etc.

4. Mette-Marit: She's even worse at dealing with the media and gets cranky when she gets asked critical questions. And she uses expensive clothing.

Most Norwegians reacted like this: She is arrogant. She can't handle criticism. She is snobbish. She is too grand etc.

Queen Sonja was also criticized for being snobbish, a bit cold and too grand, but it has calmed down over the past 10 years.

 

[polyesco]

thank you for the explanation. Very interesting
I has seen some articles on Haakon's use of the public money and properties.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I want to add that I was not aware that it had been done so many polls on the monarchy (like the ones I went through earlier in the day in post 110) before I and a colleague started going through them.

thank you for the explanation. Very interesting
I has seen some articles on Haakon's use of the public money and properties.

You're very welcome!

That is another thing, but yes, he is criticized for that too.

He is even criticized for his visit to Liberia.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Royal Norway: I have learned very much from your informative posts.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f16/norway-republic-or-monarchy-17117-6.html#post1973364

I can see that support for monarchy grew between 2005 and 2011 and that it is lower among Norwegians who are older than 50 years of age.

Why were critics of the monarchy cowed into silence under King Olav V? Was it the same with King Haakon VII?

[...]Their approval ratings were above 80% until early 2013.

This was because we liked that they were like us, we liked that Mette-Marit had a history and we liked that Haakon was a caring stepfather to Marius.

In the last 3 years, this has unfortunately changed. Let me make some examples:

They have been criticized for:

1. They took the children out of the public school etc.

Most Norwegians reacted like this: They think they're better than everyone else. They don't think that the public school is good enough for them. Who the heck do they think they are.

2. Being friends with wealthy people, politicians, actors and for going on luxury boat-trips etc.

Most Norwegians reacted like this: They are snobbish. They are not like the King. They live like royalty did in the past. They are trying to reintroduce the nobility in Norway etc.

[...]

It is pleasingly demonstrative of Norwegian culture that Norwegians do not criticize their royal family for being "common", quite the contrary.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Post 1 of 3: (this is a continuation of posts 109, 110 and 112)

Thank you very much, Tatiana Maria! I'm sorry for not responding to your question, but I haven't been on this thread for a while. (And thanks to those of you who used the thanks button on the above posts)

Why were critics of the monarchy cowed into silence under King Olav V? Was it the same with King Haakon VII?

I will now try to answer Tatiana Maria's question while I go through the personal popularity of Norway's 3 monarchs and their impact on the popularity of the Norwegian monarchy and scandals who have threatened it.

King Haakon VII: He quickly became a respected and well-liked monarch, especially after his many travels around the country, but there were republican sentiments in Norway during the 1920s/1930s (especially in the Labor Party) and Haakon prepared for the monarchy to be abolished, writes author Tor Bomann-Larsen in his biographies about Haakon and Maud. And Crown Prince Olav was (at the time) far from sure whether he would become king.

During World War II, he (Haakon) became a symbol of Norwegian resistance and the monarchy became very popular.

He returned to Norway in 1945 as a hero, and died as a beloved monarch in 1957.

The press did not touch him from 1945 to 1957 and when he died, VG (newspaper) wrote that King Haakon the Great is dead.

He was described by many as a gentle, kind and funny man.

King Olav V: As people can read in his Wikipedia article, He became a very popular monarch resulting in the nickname Folkekongen ("The People's King"). In a 2005 poll by NRK, Olav was voted the "Norwegian of the century" (I remember that program, I was 17 at the time).

He liked to drive his own cars, and would drive in the public lanes, even though as a monarch he was allowed to drive in bus lanes.

During the 1973 energy crisis driving was banned on certain weekends. King Olav never wanted to miss an opportunity to go skiing, and while he could have driven legally, he wanted to lead by example. So he dressed up in his skiing outfit, and boarded the Holmenkollbanen suburban railway carrying his skis on his shoulder.

He was later asked how he dared to go out in public without bodyguards. He replied that "he had 4 million bodyguards" —the population of Norway was at the time 4 million.

Not from Wikipedia, but from Norwegian articles, books and documentaries:

His approval rating was at 97% during his 80th birthday celebrations in 1983. This is the only poll that was made about his personal popularity.

King Olav was a much loved king, but as Hanne Skartveit (the political editor of VG) wrote in the article that I posted in King Harald and Queen Sonja's 80th birthday thread (post 73): Forpliktet for livet - VG+

What the public knew little about at the time, was that he was quite authoritarian and self-willed, temperamental and tough with his daughter in law, the then-Crown Princess Sonja.

And as I have written in the King Olav thread: He was a very strict, old-fashioned monarch with a bad temper and authoritarian tendencies. He treated his family/staff badly, and had (according to experts/former employees) deserved much more criticism in the 70s and 80s than what he got.

He was (like his son) known as the People's King, but he was as Kjell Arne Totland said last year, not folksy at all.

Even Queen Margrethe II has said he was difficult and that her father Frederik IX felt he was much more modern than King Olav.

Why was he so popular? He was popular for two reasons:

1. He was never criticized.

2. His efforts during the war.

I've heard/read many stories from interviews with King Harald, Queen Sonja, Crown Prince Haakon, Princess Märtha Louise, Princess Astrid and former employees at the court who worked for him. Here are some of them:

1. According to Haakon, Märtha and former court employees, he was directly unkind to Sonja and yelled at her when she took things up with him.

Queen Sonja has herself told about his bad temper, and the fact she didn't got an office at the Palace until long after she had married. The reason? Because she was a woman.

2. Haakon and Märtha has repeatedly told that he was very strict and often yelled at them. He also became angry when Harald played with the children and accused both his son and Sonja of bad parenting.

3. Former employees have told that he yelled at them for the smallest of things, and that he often yelled at the ministers in Statsråd (Council of State). Nor was he pleased when Gro Harlem Brundtland became prime minister in 1981. Why? Because she was a woman.

4. Märtha writes this in her new controversial book: Every time my grandfather, was angry at Haakon then I started to cry because I knew how it was for him. And then he (Olav) was often annoyed and wondered why I was crying.

5. And then we have the most famous story told by the King and Queen: King Olav visited Skaugum in the late 1980s for a photo session, and went furious when he observed that furniture has been moved and put somewhere else. He demanded that, in his son and dagther in law's home, everything had to be redecorated at its usual spot! Several journalists vere present, including royal comentator Wibecke Lie, who later told in documentaries that they did not dared to report it.

Why didn't the press criticise King Olav when they knew how he was? Because everyone (most of all the press) had a huge amount of respect for him.

He died in 1991 as an immensely popular and beloved monarch.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Post 2 of 3:

King Harald V: He has been and is an a amazing monarch. Hanne Skartveit (political editor of VG) wrote this in the article that I posted in post 73 in the 80th birthday thread: Forpliktet for livet - VG+

''It took a few years before King Harald found his own role. But today we can safely conclude that he is closer to the people than his father was. Perhaps the most important moment was when he spoke at a memorial concert in Oslo Spektrum after the July 22 attack in 2011.''

Other experts (and I) disagree with this and would say that he found his role almost once he took over. Hans Petter Sjøli (a republican VG journalist who likes the king and who now says he supports the monarchy) wrote this in the article I posted in post 104 in the Silver Jubilee thread: Fornuft og følelser om monarkiet - VG+

Today it is 25 years since King Olav died. No Norwegians forget the poignant images of grieving people, in deep respect for the the nation's old king. His Majesty was dead, a central event in any monarchy, every nation.

Then came Harald, the monarch somewhat awkward son, and indeed, he managed to become, if possible, even more popular than his father. It did not take long either. Already the following year, when he comforted hurricane victims in the North Western Norway, he was established as the nation's top, the one treading forward and forms us when such is required.

The almost North-Core or Thai-style way the press had covered the monarchy since 1945 continued until 1998 and King Harald and his family were not touched. (Very special in a democratic country)

But in 1998 (referred to as the King's Annus Horribilis) this changed suddenly and unexpectedly.

This was the year the media decided to go after the monarchy. The King and Queen were heavily criticised for the refurbishment of the palace, which become much more expensive than planned. Newspapers (on their front pages) reported on gold lion feet on the bathtub in the private apartment and all sorts of unnecessary luxury. Queen Margrethe II was also criticized by the Norwegian media because she had helped Queen Sonja with the plans.

Lars Petter Forberg (then Lord Chamberlain) said this to VG: ''The King has closely been following the construction process and is sad because the renovation has become so much more expensive than anticipated. The king feels that everything that happens within the four walls of the palace is identified with him outside.''

The King was (according to Forberg) horrified (yes, this was the word) and sad over the presentation of the refurbishment in the media.

It later became known that the feet on the bathtub were not in gold, and that many of the stories in the media were untrue. And afterwards, both the King and Queen have been praised for saving the palace from ruin.

The king later said that if he (and the court) had been better at informing the media about what was done, this would not have
happened.

But it was not just the renovation that made 1998 a terrible year. The famous horse scandal also created headlines.

The King gave the wealthy businessman Stein Erik Hagen permission to buy a horse (to 8.1 million Norwegian kroner) to Märtha. When the king later the same year opened a seminar at a newly opened shopping center in the Latvian capital Riga, which Hagen owned a large part of, he (the king) was heavily criticized in the media.

They meant that the King only opened the seminar in Riga to give thanks to Stein Erik Hagen for the gift (the horse).

This also proved to be false, and the king later said (in an interview) that it's not him who decides what things he opens.

Was that 'horrible year' over yet? No, it was not. The king was heavily criticized (again) by the media, nature conservationists and hunters for participating in pheasant hunting with wealthy friends in Sweden.

All these scandals led to a whole bunch of critical frontpages, news programs and documentaries, etc. Many believed that the monarchy had to be abolished, and a former employee in the court (Carl-Erik Grimstad) believed that the king should retire when he reached retirement age, while other experts suggested that he should abdicate that year (1998).

The King and Queen then gave an interview and tried to explain. There were also rumors in the media that the king became ill of all the criticism, and some politicians then went out and defended him.

The criticism then calmed down until the media heard about Mette-Marit and Ari and then calmed down again after the wedding in 2001.

I think the media went too far, but I also think it was healthy with some criticism. The King himself said that he was completely shocked by the huge criticisms of him and Queen Sonja in 1998, but that it was a real wake up call for him.

There have been a number of problems for the last 3 years as well.

Especially with the Crown Prince couple, as I have described in post 109/112.

Dagbladet (who has wanted a republic for many years) went to war against the monarchy last year and had more critical articles/front pages on one issue (the financing of the monarchy) than I have ever seen before.

The financing of the monarchy was changed in 2001/2002 (which has created many problems) following the recommendation of the Royal Court chiefs, the Parliament and Government.

The funds that the Royal Court receives from the state become separated from the appanage received by the King/Queen and the CP couple. And it was then decided that the royals had to cover the refurbishment of private properties from their appanage, while the court covered the state-owned properties.

But Dagbladet dicovered (last year) that the court had paid people to do maintenance work on the private properties as well. And this led (again) to an enormous amount of criticism.

It was later discovered that the government knew about it, and that led to even more criticism.

The politicians responsible for royal funding in the parliament have said that It's not the funding isue who is the problem (and that they gladly would increase the appanage), but that the principle that the court's money should not be used on private properties must be continued.

These politicians were critical of how the court handled this so-called crisis, but when the same politicians were inverted to a meeting with the Lord Chamberlain on April 24th, they agreed that in some cases the court must cover some of the royal family's private expenses.

I'm (as people her can see) not afraid to criticize the royals, but in this case I totally agree with the court. And as an expert said earlier this year, the monarchy in Norway is an open and modern institution, and this ridiculous criticism from Dagbladet is pathetic.

But I agree with the criticism of Marianne Hagen (the Head of Communication), she is arrogant, uncooperative, and is bad at dealing with the media. Nor does it help her to have a close friendship with one of the ministers in the government.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Post 3 of 3:

Polls on King Harald's personal popularity:

Favourite member of the royal family:

There have been very many of these polls since 2000, and the King has always been the most popular member of the royal family, with the exception of two polls just after the wedding in 2001 when Haakon came first.

Infact for VG:

December 26, 2007: Who do you think is the best representative of the Norwegian monarchy?

King Harald: 46.5%
Men: 52.3% Women: 40.7%

Queen Sonja: 9.5%
Men: 4.2% Women: 14.7%

Crown Prince Haakon: 28.0%
Men: 25.6% Women: 30.3%

Crown Princess Mette-Marit: 4.2%
Men: 4.5% Women: 3.9%

Princess Märtha Louise: 2.9%
Men: 2.4% Women: 3.4%

Ari Behn: 1.5%
Men: 2.4 Women: 0.5%

Don't know: 7.5%
Men: 8.5% Women: 6.5%

June 2, 2012: Who do you think is the best representative of the Norwegian monarchy? (This poll was also done for VG, but they have deleted the article so I don't have so much information. But I found an NRK article that gives us some numbers.)

King Harald: 41%

Queen Sonja: 6.4%

Crown Prince Haakon: 26.9%

Crown Princess Mette-Marit: 8.2%

February 21, 2017: Who do you think is the best representative of the Norwegian monarchy?

King Harald: 57.1%
Men: 59.6% Women: 54.6%

Queen Sonja: 8.3%
Men: 4.9% Women: 11.6%

Crown Prince Haakon: 18.9%
Men: 21.1% Women: 16.7%

Crown Princess Mette-Marit: 2.6%
Men: 2.5% Women: 2.7%

Princess Märtha Louise: 1.8%
Men: 1.4% Women: 2.3%

Don't know: 11.4%
Men: 10.5% Women: 12.2%

Record high support for King Harald in this poll.

He has over 60% and 40-50% in two other polls. Record high support for King Harald in these polls too.

King Harald's approval ratings: He is always at the top (top of the royal family and top of people in Norway).

Infact for VG (this is a very complicated poll that always has the support lower than other polls) asked the people to rate how good job they thinks the King does for Norway on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is a very bad job and 5 is a very good job? According to VG, 80% is very pleased with the king with 58% who chose 5, while the rest chose 4. If you add those who chose 3, then 85% thinks he does a good job. Only around 5% chose 2 and 1, while around 9% didn't know. Record high support for King Harald in this poll too. The poll can be found in this article: Yes, we love the King Ja, vi elsker Kongen! - VG+ where Kjell Arne Totland and Carl-Erik Grimstad praises the king and talk about how popular he is. (And yes, that is the former royal court employee who said in 1998 that he wanted the King to retire when he reached retirement age)

In the other two polls made by Infact a few years ago, 75% were very pleased with the king and chose 5 and 4, and if you added 3, then about 80% were satisfied.

MMI and Opinion (the most serious polls in this field) has King Harald's approval ratings at above 90%

They ask: Does the king do a good job? 90% to 93% Yes. The last one was done in 2016.

He also had an an approval rating of 95% in a magazine poll in 2015.

Norway's most admired/popular person: (we have never had such polls in Norway, with the exception of 2 polls in the last 4 years) The king was on top here too.

And as most experts (or commentators) say: He is now more popular than King Olav, and has been that since 2007. Something he also was from 1992 to 1997.

King Harald has made mistakes, but he has (as I said at the beginning of post 2) been and is an an amazing monarch.

1. He is kind, warm, caring, and down to earth.

2. He has traveled around the country and visited victims of natural disasters.

3. He has talked about violence against women/children and men, bullying, depression, addiction and has met many of those who struggle with these things at the palace.

4. He has said that everyone is equal regardless of sexual orientation, race or religion.

5: He is not afraid to show his emotions.

6. He unifeid Norway and touched the people with his two speeches and tears during the Norway attacks in 2011. Read them here:
The Tragedies in Oslo and on Utøya island - The Royal House of Norway
National Memorial Ceremony: The King's Speech - The Royal House of Norway

7. He held an a amazing speech in the palace park on September 1 last year, which was praised by people around the world. Read it here: Garden party in the Palace Park: welcoming speech - The Royal House of Norway

Noman Mubashir (program host at NRK) admitted that he was gay after the speech.

When he turned 80 in february, the media spoke with young people (who just love him) and calls him the best Head of state in the world.

People was interviewed in the streets and talked about how inclusive, warm and modern he is. Many said that his speeches had changed their lives.

And as a friend said to me a few weeks ago, this country is going to be heartbroken when he dies.

I hope people here find these posts interesting.

It is pleasingly demonstrative of Norwegian culture that Norwegians do not criticize their royal family for being "common", quite the contrary.

Exactly! But it also creates problems (especially for people like Haakon and Mette-Marit), and as the Danish expert said, It's much harder to be royal in Norway than in Denmark and Sweden because everyone expects you to be like them.

Many were therefore surprised by the poll in February, which showed 81% support for the monarchy, which is extremely high in in a country where the Law of Jante (see post 112) is still very present.

 

[Iain]

"When he turned 80 in february, the media spoke with young people (who just love him) and calls him the best Head of state in the world."


It's really great to know that young people love the King. I can understand that young people might relate to younger monarchs but perhaps may feel an old monarch is out of touch, so obviously King Harald has something that they relate to.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I'm a big fan of both the Crown Prince and Crown Princess and I like that they are trying to make Norway an even better and more inclusive society (as King Harald and Queen Sonja have done since they married in 1968), but they do it in a wrong way.

After the criticism from people/media calmed down after the wedding in 2001, both Haakon and Mette-Marit become very popular (I would say even more popular than what Frederik and Mary are in Denmark now). They got some criticism for the controversial journey they went on in 2010/2011, but it calmed down quickly. Their approval ratings were above 80% until early 2013.

In the last 3 years, this has unfortunately changed. They have been criticized for being friends with wealthy people, politicians, actors, for going on luxury boat-trips and for taking the children out of the public school etc.

And this is not well received in a country where the Law of Jante is still very present. And as a female Danish expert said when Queen Margrethe celebrated her 75th birthday: It's much harder to be royal in Norway than in Denmark and Sweden because everyone expects you to be like them.

Haakon: He interferes in politics, uses the royal court's money to build organizations and is bad at dealing with the media.

Mette-Marit: She's even worse at dealing with the media and gets cranky when she gets asked critical questions.

Many expert/journalists (who are very pro royal) is concerned about the monarchy's future when Haakon becomes king. And even worse: He has said that he will not change when he becomes King.

Haakon will also have an enormous task of taking over after King Harald, who is extremely popular.


1. Harald was a shy but popular crown prince who never interfered in political affairs. So he can not be compared with Haakon.

2. You write that, the monarchy ''will be just as safe in the hands of the Crown Prince as they are in the hands of the King''.

If he does not change? Then I'm not so sure about that.

If he change? Then I agree.

I hope people find post 110 interesting.


I urge those who are interested to read (as you did) the Wikipedia article about it. In addition to their explanation, I must add that the Law of Jante (Janteloven in Norwegian) is much more present in Norway than in the other Scandinavian countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Law+of+Jante&title=Special:Search

I will now try to explain how the Law of Jante has affected Haakon and Mette-Marit's popularity:

As I said in post 109: After the criticism from people/media calmed down after the wedding in 2001, both Haakon and Mette-Marit become very popular (I would say even more popular than what Frederik and Mary are in Denmark now). They got some criticism for the controversial journey they went on in 2010/2011, but it calmed down quickly. Their approval ratings were above 80% until early 2013.

This was because we liked that they were like us, we liked that Mette-Marit had a history and we liked that Haakon was a caring stepfather to Marius.

In the last 3 years, this has unfortunately changed. Let me make some examples:

They have been criticized for:

1. They took the children out of the public school etc.

Most Norwegians reacted like this: They think they're better than everyone else. They don't think that the public school is good enough for them. Who the heck do they think they are.

2. Being friends with wealthy people, politicians, actors and for going on luxury boat-trips etc.

Most Norwegians reacted like this: They are snobbish. They are not like the King. They live like royalty did in the past. They are trying to reintroduce the nobility in Norway etc.

3. Haakon: He interferes in politics, uses the royal court's money to build organizations and is bad at dealing with the media.

Most Norwegians reacted like this: He behaves like a politician. He is arrogant etc.

4. Mette-Marit: She's even worse at dealing with the media and gets cranky when she gets asked critical questions. And she uses expensive clothing.

Most Norwegians reacted like this: She is arrogant. She can't handle criticism. She is snobbish. She is too grand etc.

Queen Sonja was also criticized for being snobbish, a bit cold and too grand, but it has calmed down over the past 10 years.

I quoted posts 109 and 112 so people can get a better understanding of the situation, bear in mind that these posts was responses to other posters:

Another challenge for the CP couple is (according to an expert) that Norway likes older monarchs. Olav was allways in the backround until King Haakon deid in 1957 (60 years ago yesterday). And many did not understand how he would be able to take over from his popular father.

It was the same with Harald, he was always in the backround until King Olav died in 1991. And many (himself included, as he has said in interviews) did not understand how he would be able to take over from his immensely popular father, but as I wrote in one of the quoted posts above, Harald was a shy but popular crown prince who never interfered in political affairs. So he can't be compared with Haakon.

And unfortunately for Haakon, King Harald is now more popular than both his father and grandfather, so the politically-interested Haakon is going to have an even bigger task taking over after his father than what Harald and Olav had.

And bear in mind (as you can see in post 116, 117 and 118 where I describes the popularity of Norway's 3 monarch), the last two accessions to the throne were in a time when the Norwegian media didn't touch the monarchy.

The situation in recent weeks:
There has been a calm time for the CP couple (no so-called scandals) after the 80th birthday celebrations in May.

Many of the courtiers has according to Dagbladet and other commentators been concerned about the future of the monarchy after King Harald (and that with good reasons), and there have been articles about that Haakon and Mette Marit are trying to get back on their feet when it comes to their poularity/standing in the Norwegian people.

We also know that new PR advisors have been employed to help the CP couple.

And as some of you know, the CP couple have been on their annual county trip in Norway this week (I've covered it in the current event thread), and they've made a good impression.

Some quotes from an article yesterday in Namdalsavisa (a large paper in Nord-Trøndelag county) written by the republican editor Kim Riseth who has also worked in the large National paper VG:
Et kongepar ble født -Namdalsavisa

A King and Queen was born

The royal couple turned 80 this year. But they don't have to worry about the future of the monarchy in Norway. The Crown Prince Couple already appear as the perfect heirs, ready to take the monarchy into the future. The visit to Namdalen has proved the value of a modern monarchy.

From the moment the crown prince couple arrived on a floating dock at Kongsmoen, they had the nam-dalingene (the people's in the county) in their hollow hand. Charming, welcoming, well prepared and apparently with good time, despite a very hectic program. The Crown Prince couple was smiling and kidding each other the whole time and appeared like a newly in love couple.

The Crown Prince couple's visit has given us more than a glimpse of Norway's future King and Queen. For anyone who is keen on pride of the place they come from, inclusion and unity - and that it is possible to create something in the smallest places - it was a very reassuring look into the future of the Kingdom of Norway, and Namdalen (place in Nord-Trøndelag county) in particular.

The first positive article in a 4 years time for the CP couple, but since it is a local paper, most people wont read it.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Wonderful posts, Royal Norway! Thank you!