Martha-Louise Affair

[Rebafan81]

I don't understand why this is even being talked about. No offense to lashinka222 but this happened over 10 years ago. Didn't everyone of us do stupid things when you were young and "thought" you knew everything. If her father used immunity to help get her out of this, I think it is just something that a father would do to help a daughter out when she is in trouble. Even if she did this terrible thing, she has certainly made up for it with all that she has done since then. I will bet growing up in the limelight is a hard thing to do and everyone is human and we all make mistakes. I say let it go......IMO

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by redeye215

Why would she have to go to court? She didn't commit a crime.

She would have had to appear as 'the other woman', if it was proved that the man had an affair with her contributing to the breakdown of the marriage, he could have been ordered to give up the family home, various assets and pay a bigger maintenance amount to his wife and children.

I don't know if any of it was true but, she was named as the 'other woman'. It is not unusual for adultery cases to go to court here in the UK!

[lashinka2002]

Originally Posted by Rebafan81

I don't understand why this is even being talked about. No offense to lashinka222 but this happened over 10 years ago. Didn't everyone of us do stupid things when you were young and "thought" you knew everything. If her father used immunity to help get her out of this, I think it is just something that a father would do to help a daughter out when she is in trouble. Even if she did this terrible thing, she has certainly made up for it with all that she has done since then. I will bet growing up in the limelight is a hard thing to do and everyone is human and we all make mistakes. I say let it go......IMO

I am asking about this topic because it seems to be taboo. I am never able figure out what happened because there is so little in the tabloids. I'm not hanging on to or letting go of anything, I only want to know what happened simply because I am curious. It just seems that over the years I found maybe a paragraph of information on this situation which only fuels my curiosity even more.

[hrhcp]

Originally Posted by lashinka2002

...I only want to know what happened simply because I am curious.

Ok .... in a nutshell ... from what I remember....

Martha-Luise was part of the Norwegian horse-jumping team or otherwise sponsored. While in England, she fell in love - like really in love - with an English rider, who unfortunately was married.

For what ever reason, the English guy's wife found out about it (obviously the marriage was already on shaky ground), a divorce action was launched by the English guy's wife, and Martha-Luise was either named in the action, required to appear or was served so that she had to appear.

Consistent with many presidents of many countries, the royal heads of Europe are "above the law", so to speak. They can not be sued, etc. So, it came about that the ML's father, the King brought daughter home, and in doing so freed her from the onerous duty of having like a commoner in a commoner court of law. As I recall, a diplomatic note or something to that tune was also delivered to the court in question.

Inasmuch as it may be controversial, I think the King did his daughter a good turn .... of removing her from a situation where I'm pretty sure she had her heart broken, because she couldn't marry her love. If she had been anybody else, like a commoner, who knows what the future would have held then?

Naturally there would have been a stigma if she had married the English guy, because that would confirm she was the cause for the divorce. And naturally marrying a divorced guy would have been an awkward situation for the King, seeing I just read he is sworn to uphold the Norwegen Lutheran faith.

The King is not alone in this, QE2 is sworn to uphold the Church of England, and so on through Europe.

Trust the above goes some way to satisfy your curiosity.


As an addendum .... Martha-Luise's "high-jinks" of back then, seem not to have been tolerated by the advisers to the Royal Household and/or the government. There is naturally an element of politics in everything.

But it is another 'thing' when the Crown Prince comes along and threatens to surrender his crown if not allowed to marry a single-mom.

In ending, its too bad that the politics of changing the constitution at or before Martha-Luise's time weren't as liberal as the Danes who allowed Margrethe to become Queen, or later as the Swedes did to allow their first-born (a gal) to have the opportunity of becoming the future Queen.

[norwegianne]

Originally Posted by hrhcp

And naturally marrying a divorced guy would have been an awkward situation for the King, seeing I just read he is sworn to uphold the Norwegen Lutheran faith.

Considering that the King's sister married a divorced man back when it was really a scandal - I think the awkwardness wouldn't have been the divorced part, but the fact that ML was named in the court case. The Norwegian Church hasn't had a major problem with divorcees remarrying in quite some time.

Not that it's anything but an interesting tidbit now, considering that she married another man.

[hrhcp]

Originally Posted by norwegianne

Considering that the King's sister married a divorced man back when it was really a scandal - I think the awkwardness wouldn't have been the divorced part, but the fact that ML was named in the court case.

You're right. I forgot about the King's sister. Thanks for succintly summarizing the nub of the situation.

[lashinka2002]

thank you hrhcp for the info. It answers alot of questions.

[HRH Abigail]

Originally Posted by norwegianne

I think it also should be specified that we don't know whether or not Märtha Louise had an affair with the married man: all we know is that his wife named her a witness in the divorce case, which led to terms as "the other woman".

Quite right, Norwegianne.

I say, let's be fair to Martha-Louise here, please.

We simply don't know the facts of the matter, here.

Still, I don't think that Royals or nayone rich and famous, SHOULD be granted immunity nor automatically excluded from giving testimony in cases in which ANYONE ELSE would have to participate!
Currently, in the US there is much Bally-hoo about whether or not The Heiress, Paris Hilton should have to serve out her sentence of 45 days. She's asked to be pardoned by the Governour of California (her Home State) which many people think is ludicrous, as do I.
I say, let's not let the Rich and Famous "get off".
IF they truly did something wrong, for which they should be repentent, then they should be called to do what anyone else should have to do.

Hence, if the facts of the case (and we really don't know the full facts, do we?) point to Martha-Louise having done something for which she should have to testify, then ... of course, she should have to testify.

I hope I am using Common Sense, here.

-- Abbie

[Mandy]

The cases of Paris Hilton and Märtha Louise are like comparing apples and oranges. Paris Hilton is serving time for having committed a crime whereas Märtha Louise hadn't been accused of any crimes, but rather she was asked to testify in court. Moreover, as this happened in the early 1900's, this case has already been resolved without her testimony.

[HRH Abigail]

Originally Posted by Mandy

The cases of Paris Hilton and Märtha Louise are like comparing apples and oranges. Paris Hilton is serving time for having committed a crime whereas Märtha Louise hadn't been accused of any crimes, but rather she was asked to testify in court. Moreover, as this happened in the early 1900's, this case has already been resolved without her testimony.

Yes, your points are well and truly taken, Mandy.

Howevere, I wasn't meaning to compare Paris to Martha-Louise in terms of anything else but to merely point out that People who are called upon to appear in Court (for whatever reason, be it Criminal or not) should never be exonerated due to their Rank and Status in society.

Sorry but, I wasn't intending to compare Paris with ML in terms of crimes committed, classiness, or, what-have-you.
I was only opining that ANYONE should be subject to the same rights and rules as anyone else, regardless of who they are or where they came from. I was merely using Paris Hilton as another example of someone very rich perhaps "getting off" because of her wealth and status and then stating how unfair I feel that this is ... top everyone else, who is ever called upon to appear in a Court of Law.

I also want to stress that ... I don't know all the facts in the Martha-Louise Divorce case (or what-have-you) and ... because of this, feel that until all the facts are (or were) known, that the case should not be overly-judged not overly-thought.

I apologise for not being as articulate as I might have been.
I apologise for causing anyone any confusion, here.

-- Abbie