The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 07-19-2018, 08:19 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Is the inference that their employees will be banned from being critical of the Royal Family?
For social media uses it seems. That makes sense to me; why would the Royal Family allow their employees to use their inside knowledge to criticize them publicly on social media?!
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-20-2018, 02:47 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 12,032
It's more a guideline about not accidentally moaning about something at work (Say Haakon's shoes...) on social media, because once posted there is a risk it will end up in the wrong hands and be blown out of proportions.

If Norway is anything like DK (We'll see what Royal Norway has to say) the employees will all, without exception, have to sign a pledge about now revealing confidential information (including details about the NRF's private life) without an OK from the court.
Breaching that is a criminal offense.

Signing such a pledge is very common for anyone who have access to sensitive information about other people. Even on a cleaner-level.
I've signed several in my life.

There is also a clause about disloyalty against your workplace. That's applicable for practically every single employee.
Unless there are very good reasons you are not to talk in a derogatory manner about your workplace. That's grounds for being sacked or fined if you have left the workplace, on grounds of disloyalty.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-20-2018, 04:59 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Interesting. Perhaps it is also a precaution as all three of the crown prince couple's children become older and attract more interest from the press.
That can also be one of the reasons, yes.

And as I wrote in the ''Marius Borg Høiby'' thread earlier this year: The CP couple (especially MM) will probably go COMPLETELY CRAZY when the media starts to write about Ingrid and Sverre. - Because that is likely to be very hard for the Crown Princess, and here she can't use the ''private person'' thing to defend/protect them (as she does with Marius).
So I think she will need all the help/guidance she can get to prepare herself for it.

--------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Quoting the Royal Central article:
Quote:
The Court has also prepared a guide for the use of social media. The guidelines will make employees aware of what they write, like or share on social media, and warn against commenting in a way that damages the interests of the Royal Court as well as the Royal Family.
Is the inference that their employees will be banned from being critical of the Royal Family?
Well, that's not how I read it.
As you can see from the quote, the court's new guidelines will make employees aware of what they write, like or share on social media, and warn against commenting in a way that damages the interests of the Royal Court as well as the Royal Family.
What does that mean? Well, AMO, it means that the court doesn't want their employees to write, like or share something that can affect badly on the King, the royal family and the royal court.
Here's an example: If a court employee write, like or share something sexually harassing about another person, then it will affect badly on the King, the royal family and the royal court in form of bad press (even though the royals themselves hasn't done anything wrong).

--------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
If Norway is anything like DK (We'll see what Royal Norway has to say) the employees will all, without exception, have to sign a pledge about now revealing confidential information (including details about the NRF's private life) without an OK from the court.
Breaching that is a criminal offense.
That's completely right Muhler!
In Norway, every court employee must sign a confidentiality contract for life.
Breaching that is indeed a criminal offense.
But that hasn't stopped them from leaking stuff to the press. The last time that happened was when a court employee (believed to be a butler) wrote a letter to Dagbladet in March 2017. - Dagbladet know his/her identity, but they published the letter anonymously to protect their source.

To those of you who have't read this thread, Dagbladet is a Republican tabloid newspaper, which you can read about in the previous posts here.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-23-2018, 02:06 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,730
As LadyFinn wrote in the thread below, Märtha has decided to sell Bloksberg (her holiday retreat at Hankø Island in Østfold county, south east in Norway).
Price: 35 million NOK, but she'll probably get more than that: "Bloksberg", Hankø

And this, of course, has led to much criticism in ''egalitarian'' Norway.

Mathias Fischer (Political commentator in the republican, liberal local-newspaper, Bergens Tidende from 2014 to 2018 and from next month at TV2) wrote the following on twitter:

Mathias Fischer @mathiasfischer
Bloksberg ble kjøpt av kong Olav i 1947, den ble arvet av kong Harald, og så av prinsesse Märtha Louise. Nå skal hun selge hytten ut av familien for mange titalls millioner fordi hun ikke klarer å tjene nok penger på englesvindelen. Pinlig.

Translated to: ''Bloksberg was purchased by King Olav in 1947, it was inherited by King Harald, and so by Princess Märtha Louise. Now she will sell the property out of the family for tens of millions because she can't make enough money on the angel-fraud. Embarrassing.''

Angel-fraud? Well, he's not the first commentator to say that (and then I include those who are pro-monarchy), but how can it be fraud, when she's not doing anything illegal? Hmm??????????
Or did he just write it to get some attention? I know what my answer is, but you'll have to judge for yourselves.

About Fischer: A 25 year-old republican, but IMO a serious commentator, who (despite his young age) is seen by many in the media as an important voice.
Active in the republican, centred Liberal Party (which has been part of the government since January 2018), but renounced his membership when he started at Bergens Tidende.

And Per Olaf Lundteigen (a highly respected pro-monarchy MP for the pro-monarchy, centred Centre Party from 1993 to 1997 and from 2005-present, and spokesman for the party on royal issues from 2013 to 2017) said that Märtha selling Bloksberg to the highest bidder may weaken the reputation of the monarchy, and that the government therefore should try to reach an agreement with her to buy the property and use it for representation.

But it's not just commentators and politicians who have something to say about this. - Because according to VG (pro-monarchy tabloid newspaper), several readers have contacted them by e-mail and telephone and asked whether the princess can sell something that was bought by the Royal House, and where funds from the taxpayers may have been invested.

--------------------

Some facts:
1. The property was purchased by CP Olav for private money, which he inherited from his mother, Queen Maud.
2. Märtha does not have enough income to sit on such a property, and the King doesn't have enough cash to help her (his private fortune of around 100 million NOK is, according to the court, placed in two crisis fund to keep the NRF independent from the government if a war or something like that should occur). And the court has repeatedly had to spend money from its state grants (the Civil List) to maintain the property, which has been heavily criticized by the republican tabloid newspaper Dagbladet, but no politicians have so far demanded that Märtha should pay back anything after the sale.
3. The property has been refurbished several times, and has (according to experts on this field) no significant cultural historical value.

So then I ask: What the heck is wrong with her selling it?
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-23-2018, 02:11 PM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 22,563
Was the holiday Villa used much? If not I don't see the problem in selling it off.
__________________

6th of April 1199,Death of Richard the Lionheart
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-23-2018, 02:15 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 12,032
There is nothing wrong with her selling the property. In fact it's PR-wise better now that just a couple of years ago. - With the financial crisis in mind.

I think such criticism is to be expected. No matter what there will always be some who, for various reasons, will have a go at the royals for making sound economic dispositions.
And other will basically demand that everything the royals earn, should go back to the taxpayers, - regardless of that being private property, private income, presents and private investments.

If Märtha is not using the place and it's too expensive for her to maintain it, it's a wise economic move.

Anyway, it all depends on what the man on the street says. And I imagine most will be pretty indifferent.
It's not like she's selling a palace and pocketing the profit, is it?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-24-2018, 11:11 AM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,730
I was about to respond to this yesterday evening, but got caught up in something else.

BTW: My ''what the heck is wrong with her selling it?'' question was meant as an answer to the things I wrote about in the post, because I couldn't be more sure of what I mean about it. - Which is: Get it sold as quickly as possible, it should in fact have been done several years ago, because then we had been spared of ''angry'' commentators in Dagbladet and pro-monarchy MPs who spent the last months of 2016 complaining that the court had to pay for a half-finished swimming pool and other maintenance of the property, etc, etc.

The republican MPs OTOH, mostly keep their mouths shut on stuff like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by An Ard Ri View Post
Was the holiday Villa used much? If not I don't see the problem in selling it off.
Yes, she has used it every year, most recently a few days ago, when she wrote this on instagram.
And her second daughter, Leah Isadora, was even born there in 2005.

--------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
There is nothing wrong with her selling the property. In fact it's PR-wise better now that just a couple of years ago. - With the financial crisis in mind.

I think such criticism is to be expected. No matter what there will always be some who, for various reasons, will have a go at the royals for making sound economic dispositions.
And other will basically demand that everything the royals earn, should go back to the taxpayers, - regardless of that being private property, private income, presents and private investments.

If Märtha is not using the place and it's too expensive for her to maintain it, it's a wise economic move.

Anyway, it all depends on what the man on the street says. And I imagine most will be pretty indifferent.
It's not like she's selling a palace and pocketing the profit, is it?
Well, as usual a great reply!

PR-wise. I.e. what ordinary people would have thought then and now: Fully agree!
Although I think most people, not that they are sitting at home thinking about it, was always going to have a problem with a PRINCESS getting 35 to 45 millions in the bank. - That's just Norwegians being Norwegians (petty as we are).
And it dosen't get better when it comes from a property that the court has spent a lot of money on maintaining.

--------------------

And perhaps we should write a bit about why politicians, commentators, newspapers and even TV-stations are more ongoing in the way they cover this sale today than they would've done just a few years ago:

Prior to her launching the Angel School in 2007, Märtha could IMO easily have sold Bloksberg (almost) without being criticised by the politicians/media at all.
Why? Well, despite the criticism she received for marrying Ari, she was still pretty popular, and the MPs in the Storting (with the excetion of those from the republican Socialist Left Party) & the press (with the exception of Dagbladet) were almost unanimously pro-monarchy.

And untill 2013 (even during the 2007/2008 financial crisis), she could also easily have sold it without too much attention/criticism, I think.
Why? Because it was before the CP Couple made some of their most controversial mistakes, which turned the media against them, and with that, several politicians, newspapers and commentators decided to go republican. - Which again led to a much rougher coverage of the monarchy and its finances.

Well, this was it.

Because now it's time to prepare to go Golden Wedding Anniversary crazy.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-24-2018, 11:29 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 12,032
Interesting.

So it has become politically safe, perhaps even politically fashionable, to be critical of at least the younger members of the NRF?

Could that be part of the explanation for politicians being critical of this, pretty trivial economic disposition?
Keeping in mind of course that politicians crave "air time" and as such comment on everything and anything...
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-24-2018, 11:40 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,243
I guess I can understand part of the thinks people may say if the state has indeed paid for work at the house since Martha has owned it. But then again if it was from the Court funds and that is how the King funds his family etc anyway then why not? Its a shame to have to sell a property that has been in the family for a while but needs must sometimes.

I don't think it is an issue at all but I can see why some people may not be happy but then some people are never happy!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-24-2018, 03:52 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
Interesting.

So it has become politically safe, perhaps even politically fashionable, to be critical of at least the younger members of the NRF?

Could that be part of the explanation for politicians being critical of this, pretty trivial economic disposition?
Keeping in mind of course that politicians crave "air time" and as such comment on everything and anything...
Well, at least when somethings happens. I.e. when the CP Couple took the children out of the public school in 2014, when they went on that yacht-trip in 2015 - and when Dagbladet came up with that article-series of theirs (named kongemakta/royal pover) about the financing of the court and the private finances of the royals (which I know you've taken a look at).

And you know, it is pretty fashionable to be critical of a princess who runs an angel school and who talks with dead people. - And a CP Couple who are friends with Labour politicians (which makes politicians from other parties pretty pissed) and who repeatedly breaks with Norwegian egalitarian norms.

For those who are not into this, read about it in these threads, from when I discussed political criticism of Haakon/MM with Muhler earlier this month:

General News & Information for King Harald V and Queen Sonja

General News and Information about Haakon, Mette-Marit and family

And for those who are not into that article-series from Dagbladet, go back and read about it in the first post in this thread.

--------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
I guess I can understand part of the thinks people may say if the state has indeed paid for work at the house since Martha has owned it. But then again if it was from the Court funds and that is how the King funds his family etc anyway then why not? Its a shame to have to sell a property that has been in the family for a while but needs must sometimes.

I don't think it is an issue at all but I can see why some people may not be happy but then some people are never happy!
Well, after the financing of the monarchy was changed in 2001/2002 (following the recommendation of the Royal Court, the Storting and the Government), the court's state funds (the Civil List) become separated from the apanages received by the Regent/CP Couples. - And it was then decided that the royals had to cover the refurbishment of private properties, while the court covered those owned by the state.

But Dagbladet ''discovered'' in 2016 that the court had paid people to do maintenance-work on the private properties as well - and this led to an enormous amount of criticism from the media.
It was later discovered that all governments since 2001 had known about it, which also led to criticism towards the politicians. Well, even we ordinary folks knew about it, because it had been mentioned before, so not a big revelation.

The politicians responsible for royal funding in the Storting then said that it's not the funding who is the problem, and that they would ''gladly increase the apanages, but that the principle that the court's money shouldn't be used on private properties must be continued''.
These politicians were critical of how the court handled this so-called crisis, but after the same politicians were invited to a meeting with the Lord Chamberlain in April 2017, they said that ''the court should in some cases cover some of the royal family's private expenses.''

With that they meant on properties owned by members of the Royal House, such as:

Skaugum. - Why?
Because it serves as the CP Couple's official residence.

Kongsseteren. - Why?
1. Because the property is of significant cultural historical value.
2. Because the King's apanage isn't large enough to cover it, and his entire fortune is placed in two crisis fund (read why in post 24).
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-24-2018, 04:21 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,243
Thank you as ever!

I have to say I can more and more see why people may be unhappy. If it has so much cultural historical value that the Court felt able to pay for its upkeep out of official funds then couldn't the same be said for Märtha Louise not being able to sell it?

I have to say I think this is why its much easier to either have a property as State owned or privately owned, blurring the lines created situations like this.
One way might be for her to give some of the money from the sale back to the state? Ah who knows.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-25-2018, 03:52 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Thank you as ever!

I have to say I can more and more see why people may be unhappy. If it has so much cultural historical value that the Court felt able to pay for its upkeep out of official funds then couldn't the same be said for Märtha Louise not being able to sell it?

I have to say I think this is why its much easier to either have a property as State owned or privately owned, blurring the lines created situations like this.
One way might be for her to give some of the money from the sale back to the state? Ah who knows.
You're welcome!

But as wrote in post 24: The property has been refurbished several times, and has (according to experts on this field) no significant cultural historical value.

So why did the court pay for its upkeep? Because, as I said above, neither Märtha nor the King had money to do it.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-25-2018, 05:31 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY View Post
You're welcome!

But as wrote in post 24: The property has been refurbished several times, and has (according to experts on this field) no significant cultural historical value.

So why did the court pay for its upkeep? Because, as I said above, neither Märtha nor the King had money to do it.
If the royals didn't have money to take care of private property why wasn't it sold earlier?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-25-2018, 07:36 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,730
Well, when the King inherited Bloksberg from his father in 1991, he wished that the property should be retained within the royal family.
So what happened? It stood unused for the next 10 years without any maintenance-work being done, and when Märtha took over in 2002, the property had to be renovated for large sums (money, which she and the King didn't have).
So the court went in and helped her - and have continued to do that since, despite the fact that it was against the rules.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-10-2018, 11:32 AM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY View Post
Some facts:
1. The property was purchased by CP Olav for private money, which he inherited from his mother, Queen Maud.
2. Märtha does not have enough income to sit on such a property, and the King doesn't have enough cash to help her (his private fortune of around 100 million NOK is, according to the court, placed in two crisis fund to keep the NRF independent from the government if a war or something like that should occur). And the court has repeatedly had to spend money from its state grants (the Civil List) to maintain the property, which has been heavily criticized by the republican tabloid newspaper Dagbladet, but no politicians have so far demanded that Märtha should pay back anything after the sale.
3. The property has been refurbished several times, and has (according to experts on this field) no significant cultural historical value.
In addition to this, she has (according to TV2 News Channel) taken out loans with security in her two properties, Bloksberg and her home in Bærum, for over 25 million NOK.
Why? Well, to invest in the ''angel-school'' - and to pay for her London adventure (from 2012 to 2014) with Ari and the children.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-10-2018, 11:51 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 12,032
Do we know anything about how the angel-school is doing financially?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-10-2018, 01:05 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,730
Yes, plenty!

2016:
3.7 million NOK in revenues.
397.000 NOK in surplus before taxes.

2017:
3.3 NOK million in revenues.
87.000 NOK in deficit before taxes.
Märtha and Elisabeth Nordeng (with whom she owns and runs the company) took out a total salary of 900.000 NOK each.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-26-2018, 03:16 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,730
Well, the 58-year-old republican Kristin Halvorsen, MP (1989-2013), leader (1997-2012), Minister of Finance (2005-2009) and Minister of Education (2009-2013) for the republican Left-winged Socialist Left Party, has been appointed Chairman of the Board at the CP-Couple's Foundation (from January 1st, 2019).
She takes over after businessman Odd Christopher Hansen, who has been part of the Board since 2009, and Chairman since 2017.

About the Foundation in English (link from the Royal House of Norway website).

Statement about the appointment in Norwegian (link from the Foundation's own website).

Halvorsen said: ''Jeg er veldig glad for dette vervet, og ser fram til å bidra til Fondets formål. Det er svært positivt at Kronprinsparet løfter fram arbeid som bidrar til å inkludere ungdom i fellesskap og gir dem mulighet til å realisere sine drømmer og mål. Jeg gleder meg til å bruke mine erfaringer til å støtte opp om dette viktige ungdomsarbeidet.''
Translated to: ''I am very pleased with this position and look forward to contributing to the Foundation's purpose. It's very positive that the CP-Couple focuses on work that helps to include young people in communitys - and gives them the opportunity to realize their dreams and goals. I am looking forward to using my experiences to support this important youth-work.''

Hmm, a republican thanking yes to such a position? Yes, I know. - But not surprising at all here, since they're always the ones crawling for the royals. I.e. whether it is their mega-deep bows/curtseys, or when Halvorsen (as Minister of Finance) defended the then Stoltenberg-government's decision to give millions to refurbishment of private royal properties. No, not that strange. But if I remember the media-reports right, she was the one who suggested it and convinced other ministers to support her, because the royals didn't had cash do it themselves. - And if my memory is correct, she even admitted it herself in an interview.
(BTW: I understand it when it comes to Skaugum, since the state doesn't provide the heir with an official residence, but I'm not so understanding in regards of the King's private holiday-retreats.)

Reactions/criticism: Well, pre October 24th (when we got the news about CP MM's illness), there would've been a lot of noise from the media and MPs from the Right-winged Progress Party about ''the CP-Couple socialising and handing out positions to left-sided politicians.''
But now, nothing! - Why? Oh, that's not difficult to explain, because as I also wrote in the ''lung disease'' thread: No one is going to criticize a severely ill Crown Princess who has vowed to still do her duty, or a Crown Prince with a severely ill wife.

--------------------

In other news:

The court is now advertising for three positions: Ledige stillinger - kongehuset.no

1. Newly established permanent position, as digital communication-advisor with special expertise in photo/video.

2. Due to maternity-leave, a one-year permanent vacancy as communications-advisor.

3. Newly established permanent position, as chief of The Royal Collections.

--------------------

BTW: Bloksberg (Märtha's holiday retreat, which we discussed back in August/September in posts 24-35) is still not sold.
Why? Well, according to real-estate-agents used by the media, it's due to the ''high price'' and some 350 meter with high-voltage-cables, which are now being set up over the property (see this photo).
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-19-2018, 12:19 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,730
News from November 7th:

Norway's official tax-lists for 2017 are out, and since both Princess Märtha Louise and Princess Astrid are taxpayers (due to them not being members of The Royal House), their numbers are available for everyone to see.

Märtha:
Net income: 1.874.810 NOK (heavily up from just 179.268 in 2016).
Net worth/fortune: 4.947.213 NOK (up from 3.800.000 in 2016).

Where does it come from? Soulspring (the Angel-School) and book-sales.

Astrid:
Net income: 881.885 NOK.
Net worth/fortune: 38.335.719 NOK.

Where does it come from? Read more about that, and her previous financial-years in this post (link).

Shall we take Ari as well? Hmm, yes, let's do it:
Net income: 2.114.471 NOK (up from just 554.341 in 2016).
Net worth/fortune: 987.537 NOK (up from nothing, yes, ZERO).

Where does it come from? Mainly from his art.

P.S: Be aware that these numbers don't necessarily reflect reality:
1. Published net-incomes are almost always far less than actual income, because they're adjusted for deductions.
2. Published net-worth figures are much less than actual net-worth, because they also reflect assessed tax valuations of real estate, for example, not market value (and the fact that many other assets are depreciated).

Article: Firedoblet inntekten etter skilsmissen - Dagbladet.

--------------------

News from November 26th:

The CP-Couple's Foundation received a record-high 7.5 million NOK in gifts and grants last year, bringing in about 1.8 million NOK in profit.

The Danish Egmont Foundation stood for the largest single contribution of 4.75 million NOK, while DNB gave 1.3 million NOK. Other contributors came from Telia, Skanska, Stormberg, Selvaag Gruppen and some smaller amounts from lectures - and royalties from book-sales. - There were no gifts from individuals during this period.
(BTW: If one wants to know more about the companies listed above, just click on each word, which is posted as links.)

Grants awarded: 5.9 million NOK to four youth-projects supported by the Foundation, down from 6.9 million in the record year of 2016.

Savings: About 20 million NOK in securities-funds, and almost four million NOK in the bank.

Aricle: Kronprinsparet fikk 7,5 millioner kroner i gaver - Hegnar.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-19-2018, 12:36 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 12,032
Thanks, Royal Norway.

Even taking deductions and various tax-stunts into account Märtha hardly seem rich, and certainly not taking expenses in Norway into consideration.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Costs and Finances of the Swedish Royal Family An Ard Ri Royal House of Sweden 58 04-11-2019 10:14 AM
Costs and Finances of the Belgian Royal Family Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 116 03-31-2019 09:38 AM
Royal Wealth and Finances Smartie2091 British Royals 1278 02-03-2019 02:00 PM
Wealth and Finances of the Spanish Royal Family hrhcp Royal Family of Spain 156 04-06-2018 07:21 PM
Where Do Royal Employees Sleep? CrownPrinceLorenzo Royal Life and Lifestyle 19 08-18-2006 04:43 PM




Popular Tags
aif birthday celebration bracelets british royal family clothes crown current events de belgique denmark discussão duchessofcambridge duchessofsussex duchess of sussex duke of edinburgh duke of sussex earl of wessex fashion forum french revolution genealogy general news gordon hamdan bin mohammed harry and meghan headship interesting facts iñaki urdangarín juan carlos lady louise mountbatten-windsor letter lineage meghan markle member mohammed vi nelson mandela bay patron prince aymeric prince harry prince harry of wales princenapoleon prince nicholas prince peter princess princess beatrice princess benedikte princesses princess eugenie princess louise princess of belgium princess royal prince william public image queen elisabeth relationship remarriage royal royal family rumania sarah ferguson savoy state visit tiara tradition van belgië wedding windsor windsor castle windy city wivies ww1



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:49 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises