Princess Märtha Louise & Family General News and Information: 2003 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Heavs said:
I realise that it was a long process involving being voted on by several sittings of Parliament over a number of years, but the changes came into effect when both were born but too young to know any different so they couldn't have an opinion. However their parents seem to have wanted CP to be CP as it were and officially proclaiming him Crown Prince have been discussed as an attempt to get the government to apply it for the next generation instead. Not that they ended up having any say in it. Which makes Martha's claim that she had a say in her status Very interesting.

I do wonder at the accuracy of her account. She does have a habit of sometimes changing things to fit her narrative.

Perhaps she (and maybe Haakon) were asked their opinions by someone but that wasn't anything official, just acting as a concerned relative? What do you think of "this debate that might entirely change your life, Martha?"

I can see that the Court might be quite military like even though Astrid acted as first lady. I can also see ML brushing over any impact Astrid did or didn't have as unimportant to the story she was trying to tell at the moment. She doesn't mention that her aunts faced opposition to their marriages as well. Especially as she appears to be conflating classism, snobbery, protocol and sexism into one thing to talk about one of her current problems. But we know all of which Sonja *did* face.

Does anyone know of any good books in English about this period in the Norwegian royal family? I find it very interesting.
Click to expand...

The point you seem to be missing is they had no age.


The decision was Made before Silvia was pregnant. There was no debate. Even if Victoria or CP were old enough for an opinion when the law was passed (if they had been teens) it was too late for opinions. The process had already been started. And it had already been dated. It was dated so that no matter what the gender of the queen's first child was, it would eventually succeed the throne. So Victoria and CP were the age of 0 when the decisions were discusssed.


The king and queen's poor actions on how they treated their son at birth, knowing full well that he would never be king unless their daughter died, was their own bad decision making. It had no impact on the political decisions which had been settled years before. Yes parliament had to vote again but it was a foregone conclusion by that point. And the king had no say.


If Martha Louise is telling the truth, then her discussion was right at the start. Ever before any thing was put forward to change the law. When they were simply in the planning process. This was a process in Sweden BEFORE Victoria was even born.


And no she said it was 'military like as women were exlucuded, and was run strictkly by men like a military force'. That no women had any role in the palace. That is clearly untrue as her Aunt was very much active.


But as you pointed out mentioning her Aunt defeats the purpose. Her argument is all about female exclusion. Mentioning Aunt Astrid serves no purpose.


You'd think she'd mention her aunts as a 'well see my father the man got to marry a commoner and keep his title. Her Aunt Ragnhild when she married a commoner lost her birthday being celebrated as a flag day, because she dared marry a commoner. That seems to feed right into her sexism topic.
 
Countessmeout said:
The point you seem to be missing is they had no age.


The decision was Made before Silvia was pregnant. There was no debate. Even if Victoria or CP were old enough for an opinion when the law was passed (if they had been teens) it was too late for opinions. The process had already been started. And it had already been dated. It was dated so that no matter what the gender of the queen's first child was, it would eventually succeed the throne. So Victoria and CP were the age of 0 when the decisions were discusssed.


The king and queen's poor actions on how they treated their son at birth, knowing full well that he would never be king unless their daughter died, was their own bad decision making. It had no impact on the political decisions which had been settled years before. Yes parliament had to vote again but it was a foregone conclusion by that point. And the king had no say.


If Martha Louise is telling the truth, then her discussion was right at the start. Ever before any thing was put forward to change the law. When they were simply in the planning process. This was a process in Sweden BEFORE Victoria was even born.


And no she said it was 'military like as women were exlucuded, and was run strictkly by men like a military force'. That no women had any role in the palace. That is clearly untrue as her Aunt was very much active.


But as you pointed out mentioning her Aunt defeats the purpose. Her argument is all about female exclusion. Mentioning Aunt Astrid serves no purpose.


You'd think she'd mention her aunts as a 'well see my father the man got to marry a commoner and keep his title. Her Aunt Ragnhild when she married a commoner lost her birthday being celebrated as a flag day, because she dared marry a commoner. That seems to feed right into her sexism topic.
Click to expand...
As far as I understand it, Harald only got to marry Sonja after years and years of waiting and determination.. he just went on watiing and said he woldnt marry anyone else.. so in the end the PTB gave in.
 
Denville said:
As far as I understand it, Harald only got to marry Sonja after years and years of waiting and determination.. he just went on watiing and said he woldnt marry anyone else.. so in the end the PTB gave in.
Click to expand...
It's worth noting that the biggest resistance against the three siblings marrying commoners came from within the Royal family itself. King Haakon, Crown Prince Olav & Crown Princess Märtha were all against Princess Ragnhild marrying Erling Lorentzen, Princess Astrid has said in interviews that she & her brother thought that the marriage was a one off and that they'd never be able to marry below their rank. While King Olav was dead set against his son marrying Sonja Haraldsen a big part of that was because he never thought that the Norwegian people would accept it.
 
I have never been to Norway but had thoguht that it was a fairly democratic country so Im surprised that there were all these issues about a royal esp a junior one like the Princesses marrying commoners... I would have thought that the Norwegian poeple would not have cared if Harold married "beneath him"....
 
Denville said:
I have never been to Norway but had thoguht that it was a fairly democratic country so Im surprised that there were all these issues about a royal esp a junior one like the Princesses marrying commoners... I would have thought that the Norwegian poeple would not have cared if Harold married "beneath him"....
Click to expand...


It's a very modern country today but Harald and Sonja met in 1959 and back then, expectations were different. Of all the "commoner" women who have married into European Royal Families and gone on to become Queen, Sonja was really the first, so naturally it was probably the most difficult.

Of the Norwegian Royal Family, Ragnhild was the first to marry a commoner. Yes, she lost her birthday flag celebration and was more or less expected to leave the country, I think. She's known to have held some resentment about that, but Harald and Sonja waited for 9 years to get married, not knowing whether they'd ever be allowed, so there isn't really much to be envious about there. :ermm:

Olav wanted Harald to marry Sophia of Greece (now Sofia of Spain). Sofia, too, is said to have preferred Harald over Juan Carlos, but Harald was not willing. Then Olav basically waited for years for Harald to give up on Sonja and find himself a "suitable" Princess bride, whereas Harald and Sonja waited for Olav to give up his resistance.

Whether the heir should be allowed to marry a commoner was a public debate for years, there were opinion pieces in the paper, people wrote in letters etc. Public opinion seemed split; it was Olav and the government who thought that it could not possibly be acceptable.

In 1967, Harald finally told Olav that if he was not allowed to marry Sonja, he would never marry at all (thus, there would be no heir). That's when Olav started to relent, though the government was still opposed. Opinion polls showed that the majority of the public was in favor.

Ultimately, the government decided to advise neither for nor against the marriage and Olav gave them permission. In retrospect, it would most likely have been acceptable to the public much earlier than Olav or the government thought.
 
Denville said:
I have never been to Norway but had thoguht that it was a fairly democratic country so Im surprised that there were all these issues about a royal esp a junior one like the Princesses marrying commoners... I would have thought that the Norwegian poeple would not have cared if Harold married "beneath him"....
Click to expand...

To put it into perspective, the courtship of Princess Ragnhild and Erling began in the mid-1940s; they married in 1953 after waiting seven years to receive the King's approval. In 1946, Prince Carl Johan of Sweden needed to renounce his royal status in order to wed a commoner; Prince Flemming of Denmark had to do likewise in 1949. Princess Ekaterini of Greece took the name of Lady Katherine Brandram when she married a commoner in 1948.

Norway was, if anything, ahead of the times. No other monarchy in Europe had accepted marriages to commoners on an equal footing as of the 1950s and early 1960s.

The resistance from the Norwegian public was not solely because of the breach of tradition. Some expressed the opinion that a commoner would be unready for royal life and duties, or that commoner in-laws would trade on their royal connections for status and publicity (and the latter did come to pass with Crown Princess Mette-Marit's late father).


Countessmeout said:
You'd think she'd mention her aunts as a 'well see my father the man got to marry a commoner and keep his title. Her Aunt Ragnhild when she married a commoner lost her birthday being celebrated as a flag day, because she dared marry a commoner. That seems to feed right into her sexism topic.
Click to expand...

Princess_Eleanor said:
Of the Norwegian Royal Family, Ragnhild was the first to marry a commoner. Yes, she lost her birthday flag celebration and was more or less expected to leave the country, I think. She's known to have held some resentment about that, but Harald and Sonja waited for 9 years to get married, not knowing whether they'd ever be allowed, so there isn't really much to be envious about there. :ermm:
.
Click to expand...

What did Princess Ragnhild say regarding the flag day and her brother's marriage? I would have thought the loss of an official function and appanage would have mattered more than a flag day.
 
Tatiana Maria said:
What did Princess Ragnhild say regarding the flag day and her brother's marriage? I would have thought the loss of an official function and appanage would have mattered more than a flag day.
Click to expand...


Perhaps I didn't put this the right way. Someone above mentioned Ragnhild losing flag day, whereas her brother got to marry a "commoner" and still went on to become King, that's what I was referring to. Obviously she lost more than that and I think she was the most resentful about basically having to leave the country?

Which I can understand, obviously. I think the point is she lost everything, meanwhile her sister and brother were later able to marry commoners and retain royal functions. I don't think she has commented on their marriages specifically, it was just obvious that she was angry about having been "exiled" if you can put it that way. Again, that's understandable.

I believe what she did comment on were Haakon and Märtha-Louise's marriages, which she found inappropriate and she could not understand why they would be accepted when her own was not. But so much of this really has to do with the times. When Ragnhild married a commoner in 1953 it simply wasn't acceptable. Then in 1961, it was already easier for Astrid than Ragnhild, but still not allowed for Harald, the heir. For Haakon's bride, being a commoner was no longer a factor and it was other things that were new and perhaps controversial.

But really, as you also mention, the Norwegians have broken ground in many ways. Princess Astrid was allowed to marry a divorced "commoner" in 1961 and Sonja did become the first "commoner" to marry a future King. Almost a decade before Silvia in 1976 and that actually wouldn't have been so easily possible if Carl Gustaf hadn't already been King & therefore able to decide for himself. Haakon later became the first heir to marry a single mother... So yes, it's not that Norway was backwards as a country.
 
:previous:

Thank you for the clarification, and now I understand. I would be interested to read the interview in which the princess criticized the way she and her husband were treated in comparison to the later royal-commoner couples. Do you have a link? I agree with you that it is fully understandable, and King Harald apparently feels the same, since Royal Norway commented here that according to Princess Märtha Louise and Crown Prince Haakon, their father excluded Märtha and Magnus from the Royal House because in his opinion, allowing them to retain their membership after marriage would have been unfair to Princesses Ragnhild and Astrid.


Princess_Eleanor said:
Well, the fact that she was offered the chance to become Queen is certainly a new and very interesting piece of information.
Click to expand...

Do you mean it is new to yourself (although it's clear you are well-read on the royal family) and non-Norwegian royal watchers, or that this is the first time it has been publicly revealed anywhere? If it's the latter, then I would find it a bit strange that she chose the foreign media for this interview.


Princess_Eleanor said:
She might not see it, but looking at royal families in general, being asked whether you want to be the heir and having nobody know in case you declined, is actually a great privilege.
Click to expand...

Very good point. It was certainly considerate of the government to investigate how the people who would be directly affected felt about the matter, before any formal succession planning took place.


Prinsara said:
It's an excuse, I'm afraid. If she'd been a boy and the heir, (s)he'd be complaining about being stuck and having no choice in life. If he'd been younger, it would be not having a role and only being a spare part, like we see elsewhere. She's looking for excuses to reject the Court like she always does. As a highly sensitive person, she's probably looking for the least-overwhelming situation. And she may never find it.
Click to expand...

I didn't detect any complaints in the interview; on the contrary, she repeats what she has said before, that she is happy not to be the crown princess and relieved to be free of the pressure.



Prinsara said:
They said "what do you want?", though. If she had said "I want to be Queen!", would they in fact have managed to change the rules for her? I'm not so sure. (Two decades earlier, but no one asked Margrethe in Denmark. Her wishes were not a part of the monarch-making process.
Click to expand...

In Denmark, applying the change only in the next generation would have defeated the purpose of the change, which was to dethrone the then heirs to the throne who were disliked by much of the public.

Many royal watchers today want Aiko to replace Hisahito as heir to the Japanese throne, and they are around the same age as Märtha Louise and Haakon were at the time.

It would seem as if in the late 1980s, neither Märtha nor Haakon were considered unsuitable and the teenage years were perceived as early enough to make the switch if desired. In that case, it was just as well to allow the royal family (who would know them best) to take the decision.



Countessmeout said:
Sweden didn't make the changes retroactively (like Belgium did). They started the process before Victoria was even born. [...] Victoria became Crown Princess as it was dated to when the process started, not when it finished.
Click to expand...

Countessmeout said:
The point you seem to be missing is they had no age.

The decision was Made before Silvia was pregnant. There was no debate. Even if Victoria or CP were old enough for an opinion when the law was passed (if they had been teens) it was too late for opinions. The process had already been started.
Click to expand...

Heavs was referring to the opinions of Carl Gustaf and Silvia, not Victoria and Carl Philip. And neither the Swedish nor Belgian changes were applied retroactively, but I will move my complete answer to the Swedish forum.
 
Countessmeout said:
Things slowly change with time.

When Harald married, his father had been a widower since before he took the throne. So for him when he attended parliament, he was accompanied only by his heir and no one else. His eldest daughter who acted as first lady until Sonja married in, did not accompany them. He didn't see the need to change that when his son married. Simply the sovereign and the heir, no one else. When Harald came to the throne he saw it as important that the sovereign's spouse should attend, so Sonja could accompany him. But just them, and the heir, not the heir's spouse when he married. Haakon may choose to ammend this himself in the future, and allow his heir's spouse to attend.
Click to expand...

I hope he will because at least having the monarch and heir attend is consistent in none of the spouses attending. Allowing the monarch's spouse to attend but excluding the heir's spouse is the weirdest in imho. If Harald had been consistent he would also have allowed Mette-Marit to attend. I wonder whether her 'reputation' before marriage did contribute to his decision of not including his heir's spouse once he was married. At that time he probably thought it to be a sensitive issue?! And including her later on would be harder to explain.
 
Somebody said:
I hope he will because at least having the monarch and heir attend is consistent in none of the spouses attending. Allowing the monarch's spouse to attend but excluding the heir's spouse is the weirdest in imho.
Click to expand...

It is consistent with having the first three persons in the royal family's order of precedence in attendance. Were it the other way around (the monarch's spouse is absent while the heir's spouse is present) I would agree it is odd.
 
Princess Märtha Louise and her daughter, Leah, have posted tributes to Ari Behn on Instagram to mark one year since his death.
Both wished everyone a Merry Christmas but also encouraged others who may be having suicidal thoughts.

Martha Louise:

"ust wanted to wish you all a Merry Christmas. This year has been a very different Holiday season because Ari, the beloved father of my three girls, is no longer among us. He chose to leave this plane last year on this day. We celebrated his life today, we cried over his loss and how much we miss him. It has been a day of loving whatever is. LIFE hits us all. We can’t avoid it. We have to meet it. I reach out to all of you who are struggling through the Holidays. Know you are loved. Know you are needed. Know you are worth the help you can get. Please ask for help. Please express how you are. You are loved. ❤️"

https://www.instagram.com/p/CJPQeQOgIBA/

Leah:

"Hey! I wanted to come on here and wish everyone a Merry Christmas and if you don’t celebrate Christmas, Happy Holidays! I wanted to say: One year ago today, my dad killed himself and it’s really been one of the hardest years of my life. But if you are alone and/or feeling lonely, I want you to know that you’re not alone! I know my words can maybe not do anything, but if it can help at least one person it’s so worth it. In these hard times, mental and physical health are so important!...."

https://www.instagram.com/p/CJPOetppIan/
 
What lovely tributes to Ari, and considerate by using his memory to support others who are in need of help.
 
The tributes to Ari from ML and Leah Isadora made me tear up a little. I can't believe it's been almost a year since he passed.
 
:previous: Congratulations to Martha Louise in her media driven completion of an indoor ski contest. The Spanish "Hola" article elaborates on ML's 2021 media plans.

"Princess Marta Luisa of Norway has started 2021 with great energy and wants Norwegians to know her beyond her role as Princess and member of the Royal Family."
"In addition, this year it is also planned that a docureality will be issued on her life, which will focus on her most personal facets, including her relationship with the shaman Durek Verret."
ML has also spoken intimately about her life on podcasts such as Relasjonspodden 2.0 podcast.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavs said:
I suppose it's not very surprising that the palace was run like a military operation with no place for women given that King Olav was military and never had a Queen given his wife's death. I'm glad Sonja was able to start rectifying that once she became Queen.
Click to expand...

Princess_Eleanor said:
This is a nice compliment to her mother though: "Watching her fight for equality, and how she managed with little wins there, little losses there, and my father supporting her, seeing her persisting for such a long time that it paid off in the end — I learned so much from her." Certainly, Sonja had a difficult time at court for many years, but has persevered in the end. :flowers:
Click to expand...

I fully agree. If my recollection serves me correctly, Norway was the first European monarchy to appoint a woman as the head of the court. (The King, as the head of the house, deserves some credit for that as well.)


Countessmeout said:
Her portraying the royal family as military like and excluding women until her mother married? Astrid served as first lady for years before her brother married. She actively was at her father's side helping with functions that normally would have been filled by her mother, or her brother's wife. Clearly women were not excluded from royal life.
Click to expand...

Well, as Princess_Eleanor mentioned in message #173, she is not the first member of the Royal Family to describe King Olav V's court as masculine and military dominated. While I haven't personally read many of their older interviews, several have been discussed in these threads in recent years (I will quote them in King Olav's thread).
 
Last edited:
:previous: A stock-share capital of 70.000 NKR???

That's about the price for a bag of potatoes!
Okay, perhaps slightly more, but you get my meaning, right? It's about 10.000 $.
Is it a YouTube channel with a semi-professional camera?

Is anyone here in the know about media companies? ?
 
Muhler said:
:previous: A stock-share capital of 70.000 NKR???



That's about the price for a bag of potatoes!

[emoji2]
Click to expand...
I - a working-class man have more in the bank than that
 
Muhler said:
:previous: A stock-share capital of 70.000 NKR???

That's about the price for a bag of potatoes!
Okay, perhaps slightly more, but you get my meaning, right? It's about 10.000 $.
Is it a YouTube channel with a semi-professional camera?

Is anyone here in the know about media companies? ?
Click to expand...

I'd say that even many semi professional YouTube channels have a bigger budget than that once you factor in cameras, lighting, editing, music, other production costs.

From what I gather from the translation her partner in this as worked on a programme called "The Power of the Spirits" which seems on brand for ML and something similar wouldn't cost much to produce.

Although assuming it's been translated correctly 70,000 is the share capital not the total budget available for a show.

I presume they could/would partner with other production companies and TV stations for any actual content, but I don't know.
 
Stock share capital? Does this actually mean they raised 70,000 NOK ($8,142.62 in US dollars) by offering public stock shares in their production company. I wonder if this is on the OSL Oslo Stock Exchange? Getting other people to invest in their company as a start up, if I am understanding this correctly, might actually work. Especially if they enter into a collaboration with other production companies.

Their company is Dragonflies AS in Son i Viken, I understand dragonflies, what does AS in Son I Viken mean? Another money making adventure for Martha Louise. I wonder if Durek is involved? Hmm?
 
Märtha Louise has run a clothing brand for over a year. Now she and her colleagues are launching a knitting book.
The book is named «Hèst - klassisk og moderne strikk» (Hèst - classic and modern knitwear).
Dagbladet has been in contact with Märtha Louise's manager, Carina Scheele Carlsen, and the publisher Pitch. Carlsen confirms that the book will be published on 20 September.
Previously, Märtha Louise has been criticized for using the princess title in connection with commercial assignments. Märtha Louise does not use her princess title in the new book.
Märtha Louise_ - Kommer med bok
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Such a beauty! Can anyone give a summary of the interview please?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
A daughter for princess Märtha Louise and Ari Behn
2
Replies
35
Views
10K
agisele
agisele
Josefine
princess Märtha Louise is pregnant new baby in April 2005
Replies
22
Views
10K
electre
E
KikkiB
King Harald's New Years Speeches
2
Replies
30
Views
9K
Blog Real
Blog Real
liliawodna
  • Locked
Haakon and Mette-Marit at refugee centre
Replies
5
Views
2K
fortimo
fortimo
norwegianne
  • Locked
Sonja in South-Africa and Antarctica, 2005
Replies
6
Views
3K
pdas1201
pdas1201

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom