The literal wording of Article 36 of the Norwegian constitution places the responsibility to consent to marriages of princes and princesses on the King alone, but, as a constitutional monarch, King Harald V is supposed to follow the advice of his ministers. Do you think that the Prime Minister should have intervened and explicitly advised the King to deny consent to Märtha-Louise's marriage to Durek? That would not have prevented the marriage, but would have excluded M-L and her daughters from the line of succession if the marriage went ahead nonetheless, which probably would have been better for the future of the Norwegian monarchy.
I think it would have been best if the Royal Family could have gotten Märtha to publicly say that she had asked the King not to give his consent. But that would have greatly surprised me! I mean, she hasn't exactly been in the habit of putting the monarchy above herself.
And when it comes to whether the Prime Minister should have intervened and advised the King to deny consent, well, I don't think that's really an option these days. Because when Haakon wanted to marry Mette-Marit, the King made it quite clear to the then Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg that he meant that Article 36 in the constitution referred to the King as a person and not the King in Council. And after that, I think everyone in the government/parliament has just decided that it's up to the King alone whether he would give consent or not.
And in the case of Märtha and Durek, the King didn't even inform/consult the Prime Minister of their decision to marry.
And the Prime Minister's office told Norwegian media that the King and the Prime Minister had not discussed Märtha's engagement and said that there is no requirement for them to do so.
--------------------
There is actually another thing the King can do: not grant his
Article 36 constitutional consent to Princess Märtha Louise and Durek Verrett's marriage. That would remove her entitlement to the throne when they marry. (Yes, he claimed he already granted his consent, but nothing in Article 36 bars him from changing his mind before the marriage takes place.)
I know you have conveyed that the public would be more or less aghast if the King did so. But frankly (and to be clear, this is directed at the general public, not at you; it is not my wish to "shoot the messenger"
):
The general public can say all they like that they are fed up and appalled with Princess Märtha Louise and Durek Verrett. But their actions speak louder than their words. If the public are putting pressure on the King to keep Princess Märtha Louise and Durek Verrett
legally entitled to automatically become Head of State and First Gentleman of Norway (which would take effect if just three people either die or become disqualified!), then the public are granting their approval and blessing to Princess Märtha Louise and Durek Verrett and their actions and marriage, and the public should accept their responsibility for that choice.
If you're referring to my two posts in the Märtha and Durek thread from January, vell, what I wrote was the following:
''And for the King to not give his consent would be pretty weird here in Norway. I mean, we're a liberal and modern country, and a father trying to interfere in which man his 52-year-old daughter should marry will most likely be met with quite some criticism here.''
''I mean, this is Norway in 2024, there is no way that the King or the government would go anywhere near Article 36!''
What I meant by that was that people in the media, various experts and perhaps even some MPs in the parliament would most likely be quite critical.
And the chair of the parliament's Standing Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs, Peter Frølich from the Conservative Party, has already been out saying that Article 36 is outdated.
--------------------
If her succession rights to the Crown are not that important, then what is the problem with cleanly and easily removing them through Article 36, thus removing one connection between her (and Durek) and the monarchy? Clearly, maintaining her rights to the crown is important to someone or some people, or the King would not have wasted his breath granting his Article 36 consent to their marriage.
Well, as I've written several times before, the reason her succession rights aren't that important is because she's unlikely to come to the throne anyway! But removing those rights by not giving consent because daddy doesn't like her future husband will just create unnecessary drama.
And the most important thing the King can do right now is to remove the princess title, which binds Märtha and Durek to the monarchy on a daily basis!
--------------------
But even if her title were taken away or renounced, wouldn’t people still see her as a princess (title or not) since she is the King’s daughter?
No, I think people here in Norway would see her as the King's daughter who has lost her princess title.
--------------------
Marius Borg Høiby being untitled since birth has not spared the royal house from being affected by his actions, and unlike his stepaunt, he is not even in line to the throne.
No, but he is an official member of the Royal Family, and therefore, all his actions affect the monarchy! But hadn't he done anything illegal, most of his actions wouldn't have affected the monarchy to the same extent as Märtha, which is due to her princess title.
--------------------
(Though to be pedantic, the King did "go near" Article 36 by
granting his Article 36 consent to the couple's marriage. Not going near Article 36 (i.e., taking no action) would mean no consent and no right to the throne after marriage for Princess Märtha Louise.)
The King publicly stated that Märtha could marry whomever she wanted and congratulated and wished her luck on her engagement. The court later said that was an expression that the King had given his consent. Hence, he automatically gave his consent without going anywhere near Article 36!
Had he OTOH not given his consent, then he would have gone near Article 36!
--------------------
That said, I too would like to see polling data on the issue, and preferably a poll which clearly explains Article 36 to the respondents prior to asking for their opinion (because I suspect at least some of the opposition to withholding Article 36 consent might stem from a misguided "How dare a father deny his full-grown daughter the right to marry?" – even though the reality is that King Harald V withholding consent would not deny her the right to marry at all, but only deny her the right to become Queen of Norway).
I can't remember if there have been any polls about Märtha's succession right, but I would think that a majority is in favour of her losing it.
There have OTOH been several polls about the princess title, which the media thinks is much more important! And the last 4 polls have shown that over 50% think she should lose it!
And no, the King withholding consent would not deny her the right to marry, but it would interfere with it!
You make some quite good points, particularly in regard to cultural bias and blurred lines between institution and family (which apply to all monarchies). 
If so i can understand if he didn’t wanted to say too much
