Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,047
Reply with quote  #1 
Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway has asked for the press to leave her 20 year old eldest son, Marius Borg Hoiby, alone.  Marius Borg Hoiby is the son of the Princess from a relationship she had before she married Crown Prince Haakon.  The young man has been targeted by press recently, and the Princess has had to release a statement reminding them that he is not a public figure and they should leave him alone.  The step-son of the next King of Norway has no title and is not a member of the Royal family.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-4116382/Norways-crown-princess-media-leave-oldest-son-alone.html

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
GreveAnckarswaerd

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #2 

If one gets past how inappropriate Crown Princess Mette-Marit is as a royal spouse, and how downright mean it is for her to push her son to the side line, as she has to when she has royal children, her behaviour for this instance is probably correct. The Princess made the request in a written letter published on the Royal Court's website.

 

 

The Norwegian Royal Family is the least Royal house among Scandinavian traditionalists for a number of different issues, ranging from inappropriate marriages to their exile during the world war. Some have even suggested that Håkan VII was the real quisling (as opposed to Vidkun Quisling) for abandoning the country and live in exile, rather than trying to keep Norway as independent as possible from Germany, like his brother Christian X did in Denmark, and his descendants have lost their right to the throne because of it. But this is an opinion only held by a small numbers of Scandinavians, most of which do not live in Norway.

 

Among Scandinavians in general, the Crown-Princely couples are all very popular.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,665
Reply with quote  #3 
Firstly, Haakon is the correct spelling in Norwegian, either flavour. The name can also be spelled Håkon, but that is not the spelling the late King used. The one you did appears to be Swedish. Secondly, the decision Haakon VII took, in conjunction with his Cabinet, to go into exile and act as a focus for the national spirit there free from German coercion and threats, was as proper as the alternative decision his brother Christian X made in Denmark, and he and the rest of the Royal Family were warmly welcomed back from exile upon Norway's liberation, the position that by his flight he had in effect abdicated the throne being held only by the Nazi-controlled puppet government. Thirdly, you are either royal or you are not. Norway's Royal House is as royal as that of Denmark, as royal as that of Sweden; 100% in all three cases.

Fourthly, it is hard to see why Norway, whose current monarch did not marry equally and neither did his heir, is thereby lowered in status compared to Denmark, whose current monarch did not marry equally and neither did her heir, or Sweden, whose current monarch did not marry equally and neither did his heiress. You and I may feel regret for the demise of the custom of equal marriage, but it is a fact and you either accept it and the acquired royalty of spouses born non-royal or you cease to call yourself a monarchist in any meaningful sense.

Fifthly and almost finally, the chequered past of the Crown Princess is long behind her and should be both forgiven and forgotten. It is fair to judge her only on her conduct since marriage, which has so far as I can see been impeccable. Finally finally, the undeniably awkward position of her elder son as a non-royal member of the Crown Princely family seems to me to have been handled with perfect grace by all parties, the Crown Princess included, and it is in your accusation rather than her actions that any mean-spiritedness lies.
GreveAnckarswaerd

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #4 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Firstly, Haakon is the correct spelling in Norwegian, either flavour. The name can also be spelled Håkon, but that is not the spelling the late King used. The one you did appears to be Swedish. Secondly, the decision Haakon VII took, in conjunction with his Cabinet, to go into exile and act as a focus for the national spirit there free from German coercion and threats, was as proper as the alternative decision his brother Christian X made in Denmark, and he and the rest of the Royal Family were warmly welcomed back from exile upon Norway's liberation, the position that by his flight he had in effect abdicated the throne being held only by the Nazi-controlled puppet government. Thirdly, you are either royal or you are not. Norway's Royal House is as royal as that of Denmark, as royal as that of Sweden; 100% in all three cases.

Regarding the spelling, you are correct. I used the Swedish spelling as it is the one I'm the most familiar with. The three different ways of spelling the name, however, are all pronounced the same, accounting for regional dialects.

The decision to go into exile rather than work for Norwegian interests within the frames of military occupation had very damaging consequences for the kingdom, and the only person do dared to stand up to the Germans was later on shot. As I stated, this is a fringe opinion, and not one I share at that.

About not  being as royal, I intended to being the least popular Royal family, but the word popular entirely disappeared. Fatigue from travel, English not being my primary or secondary language and the late hour played in, but I have no real excuse for missing entire words.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Fourthly, it is hard to see why Norway, whose current monarch did not marry equally and neither did his heir, is thereby lowered in status compared to Denmark, whose current monarch did not marry equally and neither did her heir, or Sweden, whose current monarch did not marry equally and neither did his heiress. You and I may feel regret for the demise of the custom of equal marriage, but it is a fact and you either accept it and the acquired royalty of spouses born non-royal or you cease to call yourself a monarchist in any meaningful sense.

The issue is not marrying a non-aristocrat, at least not in this day and age. It was when Queen Sonja married then Crown Prince, now King Harald V.

The issue is a royal spouse with a scandalous past, which is unrivaled in recent Scandinavian memory. 

As for the monarchist issue; in my language there is a difference between a monarchist and a royalist. A monarchist supports the institution of monarchy, and has a certain reverence for the office of monarch. It is perfectly fine, and within that philosophy to criticise royals whose actions do not reflect the dignity and responsibilities of their office.

A royalist is a person who support a specific contender or family, for a specific throne. That family or contender may or may not already occupy that throne.

 

I make no claims on being a royalist, but I cherish the treasure of having a legacy of monarchy that goes back further than our written history, and possibly as far back as an Indo-European language has been spoken in this unforgiving land, and I want to see it continued.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Fifthly and almost finally, the chequered past of the Crown Princess is long behind her and should be both forgiven and forgotten. It is fair to judge her only on her conduct since marriage, which has so far as I can see been impeccable. Finally finally, the undeniably awkward position of her elder son as a non-royal member of the Crown Princely family seems to me to have been handled with perfect grace by all parties, the Crown Princess included, and it is in your accusation rather than her actions that any mean-spiritedness lies.

This is most likely at the heart of why the Crown Princess has asked the media to stay away from Master Marius, because not everyone in Norway and nearby countries agrees with you, and this has, on occasion, been made clear in Scandinavian speaking media.

 

I wrote my last input at an ungodly hour in the night, after a long travel from a conference. I apologise for mistakes in the language. English is, once again, a foreign language to me.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,665
Reply with quote  #5 
There's certainly no need to apologise for your English, which is very good. I only wish I could speak a second language half as well. Although I haven't been anywhere I too am tired, so if you don't mind I'll respond to your other points tomorrow.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,665
Reply with quote  #6 
OK, there seem to be two remaining issues. First, the wartime conduct of Haakon VII, and second, the questionable past of the Crown Princess. On the first, Christian X and Léopold III chose to remain with their peoples, Haakon VII and Grand Duchess Charlotte to rally resistance and provide a national focus from abroad. By her own account, Queen Wilhelmina would have stayed but was in effect kidnapped by the Royal Navy, then making the best of the situation in her usual formidable way. The only one of these five monarchs to have their post-war reputation diminished rather than enhanced was Léopold III, by his ambiguous conduct over the surrender and during occupation, the others justifying their decision (in Wilhelmina's case, circumstances) by their behaviour. If it is a fringe, minority opinion that Haakon VII betrayed the country by his flight, and one that you furthermore do not share, why have you twice advanced it?

You can always find someone who holds a particular view on any subject, no matter how ill-judged and stupid that view might be. There seems no particular reason to circulate the view, unless it is a question of 'any stick will do'. On the second issue, it is certainly understandable that many people were dismayed when the Crown Prince announced his engagement. Most non-royal families would have looked askance at a single mother associated with drug dealers. But being a single mother is not a crime, and these days not even much of a disgrace, if it is a disgrace at all. And no one has suggested that she was a drug dealer herself. In the end, you judge people by who they are as well as what they have done, and on that basis in 15 years and counting of what seems happy and secure marriage the Crown Princess should in my view be considered to have amply proved herself, with her past, which is not so very terrible anyway, being forgotten. That would certainly have happened by now in most ordinary families.

I guess there are a couple of other points to address. There is indeed a major difference between 'least royal' and 'least popular royal'. A cursory search for data revealed this article among other things, showing the King with an astonishing 93% approval rating. The Crown Princess was it is true the least popular member of the Royal House (which in Norway consists only of the monarch and consort, heir or heiress and consort, and eldest child of the latter pair), but 75% approval is still not terrible. The poll concerned was in 2012, but I doubt that much has changed since then. Enthusiasm for the monarchy as an institution runs lower than people's view of individual royals, holding at around 70%, which while lower than in the other two Scandinavian countries is still not bad. So I think 'least popular' is an arguable assertion but the difference in the popularity of the three monarchies is not greatly significant. There was by the way very limited approval for Princess Märtha Louise, but in view of her odd personality and odder behaviour that is not surprising.

Which leads to the last point. Your definition of a monarchist is reasonable, and the distinction between monarchist and royalist a fair one to make. Your statement 'I cherish the treasure of having a legacy of monarchy that goes back further than our written history, and possibly as far back as an Indo-European language has been spoken in this unforgiving land, and I want to see it continued' is particularly well-put, and would be as applicable were you Norwegian.

So we are on the same page, and I agree too that while royals should always be respected for their position they are not thereby immune from justified criticism, Princess Märtha Louise being one example. But what exactly are you criticising about the Crown Princess as a royal? What has she done since being in a position of public responsibility that merits your disapproval? What she did before may have been a reasonable concern, but if that concern has not been justified over the passage of a decade and a half is it not time to put it aside? I would have said so, and that 75% rating seems to suggest that most Norwegians would too.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,047
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
You can always find someone who holds a particular view on any subject, no matter how ill-judged and stupid that view might be. 


This quote gives me life.  May I steal it and use it constantly in my battles for monarchism?  May I please Peter? Please?

The poll numbers for Crown Princess Mette-Marit greatly exceed the poll numbers for several heads of government and heads of state in other western powers who shall remain nameless here...

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,665
Reply with quote  #8 
Go ahead, with my blessings. I'm pleased if bemused that you like it so much.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: