Succession rules

[vestfoldlilja]

The constitution clearly says no one who is not in the line of succession can inherit the throne, to me this makes it more likely that Martha Louise and not Mette Marit would be made regent, but that will be decided by the parliament (see below).

I’ve read through the Norwegian constitution pertaining to the royal family and this is some of what I found (besides the already linked article 6):

One can only ascend when one has turned 18 and taken an oath in a cabinet meeting to rule Norway to the best of one’s ability and according to Norwegian laws.

When a Prince or Princess has turned 18 they can partake in cabinet meetings, though without vote or responsibility, unless he or she is acting regent which they can be if the King/Queen is sick or out of the country.

If the king or heir dies before the next heir is 18 the ministers must assemble at the Parliament and call in the Parliment. Until all the members of the Parliament is in attendance the rule of the country is by the ministers of the present government. The parliament decides who will act as regent.

[casualfan]

Originally Posted by vestfoldlilja

The constitution clearly says no one who is not in the line of succession can inherit the throne, to me this makes it more likely that Martha Louise and not Mette Marit would be made regent, but that will be decided by the parliament (see below).



I’ve read through the Norwegian constitution pertaining to the royal family and this is some of what I found (besides the already linked article 6):



One can only ascend when one has turned 18 and taken an oath in a cabinet meeting to rule Norway to the best of one’s ability and according to Norwegian laws.



When a Prince or Princess has turned 18 they can partake in cabinet meetings, though without vote or responsibility, unless he or she is acting regent which they can be if the King/Queen is sick or out of the country.



If the king or heir dies before the next heir is 18 the ministers must assemble at the Parliament and call in the Parliment. Until all the members of the Parliament is in attendance the rule of the country is by the ministers of the present government. The parliament decides who will act as regent.

Aren't these two separate issues-1 is ascending to the throne and 2-is acting as regent. MM would not ascend to the throne, but i haven't seen anything that suggests that she can't act as regent with Parliament's consent.

[Lee-Z]

Please note that in the dutch example there already was a precedent when Queen Emma, the wife of Willem III, became regent for her daughter Wilhelmina after Willem III died until Wilhelmina was 18. (Emma herself obviously not being in the line of succession as she was "only" a spouse and mother.) Wilhelmina was the Queen, Emma the Queen-regent.

It's still possible that Mette-Marit would get a similar role in Norway, but from what Vestfoldlilja mentions, that would first be determined by the parliament (so basically: similar to what happened in the Netherlands with Maxima, only in the NL it was arranged straight away and not waiting until something unfortunate happened to the King, maybe this also had to do a little bit with the ordeal of P.Friso, which showed an accident can happen very quickly..)

[vestfoldlilja]

Originally Posted by casualfan

Aren't these two separate issues-1 is ascending to the throne and 2-is acting as regent. MM would not ascend to the throne, but i haven't seen anything that suggests that she can't act as regent with Parliament's consent.

Yes, I agree there are two separate issues, ascending the throne vs acting as regent, but I just can’t imagine the parliament choosing Mette Marit to act as regent if one who was in the line of succession was around to do the same.

In any case, hopefully we will never know!

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Lee-Z

Please note that in the dutch example there already was a precedent when Queen Emma, the wife of Willem III, became regent for her daughter Wilhelmina after Willem III died until Wilhelmina was 18. (Emma herself obviously not being in the line of succession as she was "only" a spouse and mother.) Wilhelmina was the Queen, Emma the Queen-regent.

It's still possible that Mette-Marit would get a similar role in Norway, but from what Vestfoldlilja mentions, that would first be determined by the parliament (so basically: similar to what happened in the Netherlands with Maxima, only in the NL it was arranged straight away and not waiting until something unfortunate happened to the King, maybe this also had to do a little bit with the ordeal of P.Friso, which showed an accident can happen very quickly..)

It's pretty common for regents to be pre-established when the heir to a throne is still a minor. This hasn't happened in most realms because the heir is, typically, someone in their 30s or 40s, and thus a regent isn't necessary.

I believe, but I could be wrong, that the only monarchy with an underage heir that hasn't established who the regent would be is Belgium, but that's likely because the king is still new.

The monarchies that have adult heirs and a regency system in place are those that have a cover-all system in - ie Britain. Even then, however, the system sometimes is changed when the heir is underage. While Charles was a child the British regency act was altered so that his father and not his aunt would serve as his regent if the need rose.

[fortimo]

I found this short article to this theme:
Norway Succession | The Royal Fanzine
"Only descendants of the reigning monarch’s siblings and their descendants are entitled to succeed."
When this is the rule, than ML should be made the regent for IA, not MM.
But I don't know how much ML follows the royallife, how much is she clear with the things (rules, laws), what a regent should to know. Or do you think she get sometimes "lessons" for the case if this situation would come? How much is she involved in the works of her father? What should she know as regent? Well, interesting, she is not the type who I can imagine to be a regent...

[Lee-Z]

Originally Posted by fortimo

I found this short article to this theme:
Norway Succession | The Royal Fanzine
"Only descendants of the reigning monarch’s siblings and their descendants are entitled to succeed."
When this is the rule, than ML should be made the regent for IA, not MM.
But I don't know how much ML follows the royallife, how much is she clear with the things (rules, laws), what a regent should to know. Or do you think she get sometimes "lessons" for the case if this situation would come? How much is she involved in the works of her father? What should she know as regent? Well, interesting, she is not the type who I can imagine to be a regent...

Being a regent does not make you in line for the throne, being in line for the throne is no requirement to be a regent. In the link only the succession line is described, this is something different...

In other words: should both the king and P.Haakon die, P. IA is the new Queen, if she is at that time underage, she will require a regent, but who that regent is is a seperate story

[norwegianne]

Interestingly, the Norwegian constitution also limits the people in the succession, and at some point in the recent years as they translated it to New Norwegian, it got even more narrow in some ways.

Before it was:

Dog tilkommer arverett ikke noen som ikke er født i rett nedstigende linje fra den sist regjerende konge eller dronning eller fra dennes bror eller søster, eller selv er dennes bror eller søster.

Anyone not born in line from the last reigning King or Queen, or from his or her brother or sister, or are his or her brother or sister do not have Inheritance rights.

Arverett har likevel berre dei som ættar frå foreldra til den sist regjerande dronninga eller kongen.

Right to inheritance have only those who descend from the parents to the last reigning queen or king.

At the moment the succession is:
1. CP Haakon
2. Ingrid Alexandra
3. Sverre Magnus
4. Märtha Louise
5. Maud Angelica
6. Leah Isadora
7. Emma Tallulah.

If either of ML's kids have children when Haakon becomes King, they would be in the line of succession.

But with the change, the moment Ingrid Alexandra becomes Queen - new additions to the line of succession are limited to her descendants and her brother's. Whereas before, it also included ML's future descendants a bit longer .

[Friedrich Karl II]

Originally Posted by norwegianne

Interestingly, the Norwegian constitution also limits the people in the succession, and at some point in the recent years as they translated it to New Norwegian, it got even more narrow in some ways.

Before it was:
Anyone not born in line from the last reigning King or Queen, or from his or her brother or sister, or are his or her brother or sister do not have Inheritance rights.

Right to inheritance have only those who descend from the parents to the last reigning queen or king.

At the moment the succession is:
1. CP Haakon
2. Ingrid Alexandra
3. Sverre Magnus
4. Märtha Louise
5. Maud Angelica
6. Leah Isadora
7. Emma Tallulah.

If either of ML's kids have children when Haakon becomes King, they would be in the line of succession.

But with the change, the moment Ingrid Alexandra becomes Queen - new additions to the line of succession are limited to her descendants and her brother's. Whereas before, it also included ML's future descendants a bit longer .

Intresting but quiet reasonable too. It not make any sense that on line of succession is tens of names or even hundreds or thousands of names like on British line of succession. Has other monarchies too limitation to numbers of names on line of succession?

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by norwegianne

Interestingly, the Norwegian constitution also limits the people in the succession, and at some point in the recent years as they translated it to New Norwegian, it got even more narrow in some ways.

Before it was:

Dog tilkommer arverett ikke noen som ikke er født i rett nedstigende linje fra den sist regjerende konge eller dronning eller fra dennes bror eller søster, eller selv er dennes bror eller søster.

Anyone not born in line from the last reigning King or Queen, or from his or her brother or sister, or are his or her brother or sister do not have Inheritance rights.

Arverett har likevel berre dei som ættar frå foreldra til den sist regjerande dronninga eller kongen.

Right to inheritance have only those who descend from the parents to the last reigning queen or king.

At the moment the succession is:
1. CP Haakon
2. Ingrid Alexandra
3. Sverre Magnus
4. Märtha Louise
5. Maud Angelica
6. Leah Isadora
7. Emma Tallulah.

If either of ML's kids have children when Haakon becomes King, they would be in the line of succession.

But with the change, the moment Ingrid Alexandra becomes Queen - new additions to the line of succession are limited to her descendants and her brother's. Whereas before, it also included ML's future descendants a bit longer .

Can you explain the difference, please? I don't see the practical difference between the two translations.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Can you explain the difference, please? I don't see the practical difference between the two translations.

They also seem semantically equivalent to me.

[Princess B]

So if Maud, Leah or Emma have descendants while Haakon is king, they’d be in line of succession.
So when IA accedes to the throne, do they lose their place in succession? Or no newer descendants of theirs would be added?

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Princess B

So if Maud, Leah or Emma have descendants while Haakon is king, they’d be in line of succession.
So when IA accedes to the throne, do they lose their place in succession? Or no newer descendants of theirs would be added?

They will lose their places under the third paragraph of Article 6 of the Constitution.

The right of succession shall not, however, belong to any person who is not born in the direct line of descent from the last reigning Queen or King or a sister or brother thereof, or is not herself or himself a sister or brother thereof.

Originally Posted by fortimo

Thanks for the info.
Can Mette-Marit -as the mother of IA and Sverre- say "no" for the succession line, or about this case she couldn't decide?

Originally Posted by vestfoldlilja

Only the regent can write people in and out of the line of succession.

The monarch/regent does not have the authority to unilaterally make changes to the Constitution, which determines the line of succession, apart from having the right to remove a person from the line of succession by withholding their consent to the marriage of that person (Article 36).

https://www.stortinget.no/In-English...-Constitution/

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

She didn't give up her title it was altered for Her Royal Highness to Her Highness so she would be able to lead a normalish life with her husband and children.

The will of the King determined that "Her/His Highness" is only meant to be used when abroad. See the Norwegian version of the website where she is simply Princess Märtha Louise.

https://www.kongehuset.no/artikkel.h...7568&sek=27023

Originally Posted by Friedrich Karl II

Intresting but quiet reasonable too. It not make any sense that on line of succession is tens of names or even hundreds or thousands of names like on British line of succession. Has other monarchies too limitation to numbers of names on line of succession?

The constitution of Monaco uses the same limitation as that of Norway: descendants of the last reigning prince/ss and his or her siblings.

The Constitution of the Netherlands establishes the limit of three degrees of kinship from the last reigning king/queen.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

Question: if ML doesn’t get permission, does marry, and does lose her place in the line of succession, does that affect only her, or also her daughters?

I will quote the following post which cites the relevant article of the Constitution and includes other information which is material to this thread.

Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY

Haakon has said in interviews that when he told his parents about MM's past, the King said, "Is it more?" To which Haakon replied "no" - and the King said that "Dette klarer vi!" (''We'll manage this!'')

And then to the constitutional stuff:

According to the then Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, the King called him to the palace before the engagement - and informed him that Haakon wanted to marry MM.
He told the PM that he knew about Article 36 in the Constitution, which states:

He explained that he understood that when the word "King" is written in the Constitution, it had to be interpreted as "the King in Council of State'' (which, today, means the government).

But after that, the King said the following: ''Men akkurat når det gjelder denne paragrafen om at kongen må godkjenne kronprinsens ekteskap, vil jeg mene at kongen faktisk er kongen, det vil si meg – og ikke deg''.
("But just when it comes to this Article about that the King must approve the Crown Prince's marriage, I would think that the King is actually the King, that means me - and not you.")

And then it was done, neither Stoltenberg nor any other prime minister could do anything about it.

[Tatiana Maria]

I wonder if the legislators truly had the intent to strip even descendants born from a previous marriage of their right to the throne when a prince or princess marries without the consent of the King. If not, and supposing there is preparatory work in evidence that the intention of Parliament was merely to exclude descendants born from the unapproved marriage, could that interpretation be defended by the monarch or government?

On another note, it is strange how even as the constitutional changes in 1990 introduced the possibility of non-royals being in line to the throne, Article 36 was amended to read "a Prince or Princess entitled to succeed to the Crown of Norway" instead of "a person entitled to succeed to the Crown of Norway". If Maud Angelica Behn marries without the King's consent, could she argue that she maintains her right to the throne because she is not a princess?

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

I wonder if the legislators truly had the intent to strip even descendants born from a previous marriage of their right to the throne when a prince or princess marries without the consent of the King. If not, and supposing there is preparatory work in evidence that the intention of Parliament was merely to exclude descendants born from the unapproved marriage, could that interpretation be defended by the monarch or government?

I agree that the intention surely was focused on the off-spring of that marriage (and any future marriages) not on those of a previous marriage.

On another note, it is strange how even as the constitutional changes in 1990 introduced the possibility of non-royals being in line to the throne, Article 36 was amended to read "a Prince or Princess entitled to succeed to the Crown of Norway" instead of "a person entitled to succeed to the Crown of Norway". If Maud Angelica Behn marries without the King's consent, could she argue that she maintains her right to the throne because she is not a princess?

That sounds like a Swedish interpretation/loophole

[Prinsara]

Couldn’t one argue that Maud is not entitled to succeed at all because she’s not a Princess?

[Tatiana Maria]

No, because Article 6, paragraphs one through three, which govern entitlement to succeed refer only to "child" and "person".

Article 6

The order of succession is lineal, so that only a child born in lawful wedlock of the Queen or King, or of one who is herself or himself entitled to the succession, may succeed, and so that the nearest line shall take precedence over the more remote and the elder in the line over the younger.

An unborn child shall also be included among those entitled to the succession and shall immediately take her or his proper place in the line of succession as soon as she or he is born into the world.

The right of succession shall not, however, belong to any person who is not born in the direct line of descent from the last reigning Queen or King or a sister or brother thereof, or is not herself or himself a sister or brother thereof.

When a Princess or Prince entitled to succeed to the Crown of Norway is born, her or his name and time of birth shall be notified to the first Storting in session and be entered in the record of its proceedings.

For those born before the year 1971, Article 6 of the Constitution as it was passed on 18 November 1905 shall, however, apply. For those born before the year 1990 it shall nevertheless be the case that a male shall take precedence over a female.

[Somebody]

Interesting, so, any children of Maud, Leah and Emma will be in line to the throne as long as their grandfather or uncle Haakon is king but will loose their place in the line of succession (together with Märtha Louise, Maud, Leah and Emma themselves) when Ingrid-Alexandra ascends the throne.

Trying to understand the 'last reigning' but at the moment of succession that means who ever just died or abdicated that made the succession possible, so that led me to the interpretation above.

[Blog Real]

Why isn't the king's sister Princess Astrid in the line of succession to the throne?