The Future of the Norwegian Monarchy

[Tatiana Maria]

Moreover, I am sure that Princess Astrid, who has dedicated her life to the monarchy, will persist in helping for so long as she has the health to continue. Princess Märtha Louise, despite her career and periods of time abroad, has continued to maintain her patronage of a number of organizations.

[marian]

I think that Princess Atrid must have a tribute in life.

[Prinsara]

If a scenario occurred where Haakon had to be Haakon VIII "all alone", the people of Norway would probably understand and let the king have an appropriately reduced workload, or am I misunderstanding something?

[Hans-Rickard]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

If a scenario occurred where Haakon had to be Haakon VIII "all alone", the people of Norway would probably understand and let the king have an appropriately reduced workload, or am I misunderstanding something?

Yes people will understand... Remember that Haakons popular grandfather King Olav came to the throne as a widowed man in 1957. The 20 year old Crown Prince Harald was still in the military and Princess Ragnhild was already married and lived in Brazil. It was just King Olav and Princess Astrid for awhile.

But Queen Sonja won’t slow down anytime soon unless something dramatically happens so i am sure her granddaughter has time... Tell me wich other 83 year old Queen is still several times every year walking paths in the mountains that is difficult even for young people ��

[Somebody]

Moving the discussion to a different thread:

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard

There would certainly be legitimate health-related reasons for it and a big amount of understanding among the norwegian people for an abdication - But i strongly doubt Harald would let himself be remembered as the first King of Norway who abdicated... He views it as a job for life like his father did, who was unwell and on sick leave for a year before he died in 1991. Harald even opened the norwegian parliament as Crown Prince Regent in 1990.

An abdication would also not help Mette-Marit who is also ill, can only take on engagements on a day-to-day basis and will not be able to assume many Queen-duties. If any at all...

The best would be (unless he becomes critically ill) to stay on the throne at least until Princess Ingrid Alexandra and Prince Sverre Magnus is above 18 and has started to help out... Otherwise Haakon will be VERY alone for some years...

Someone has to be the first one. But probably not his generation (for the Scandinavian monarchies); hopefully the next will feel free to do so if it is in the best interest of the country... as I personally don't think it is in the best interest for a country to have an old and ill monarch - having a younger healthy one who is allowed to ascend the throne well before retirement age makes much more sense to me.

There is no reason why Sonja couldn't continue to help out; and it is unlikely that Mette Marit's health will get better over time, so it might even be preferable for them if she can at least carry out some queenly duties (which aren't that different from CP duties (I only can think of attending the opening of parliament; and accompanying a visiting head of state's spouse - as Haakon will be head of state)).

Nonetheless, I can see why Harald if he would consider abdication might prefer to wait for Ingrid-Alexandra to turn 18, so she can occasionally help out as crown princess - to support her father and 'replace' her mother whenever necessary. So, that would be a little less than a year and a half from now.

[JR76]

As a Scandinavian I hope that the trend of abdication doesn't catch on here. To me a monarch holds their office for life.

[Hans-Rickard]

As a swede, i am not overly excited about the prospect of ”abdication” unless it becomes a must to save the monarchy (like in Spain)... What works good for the ”House of Nassau” doesn’t necessarily work in all countries.

And if it becomes too similar to having an elected President, politicians and the general public will begin to seriously question the point of having a Royal Family at all when there is no difference to an elected First Family. The support for a republic is quite huge in all 3 scandinavian parliaments, likely in a majority here in Sweden... The only reason why nothing is done is because the general public still prefers their monarch’s.

The Pope can abdicate for health reasons but he has no one who can replace him with a president. And Albert of Belgium likely bitterly regrets that he abdicated after the recent rounds up at the court (=lost immunity).

[Countessmeout]

I don't see how abdication makes a royal family like an elected first family

Its still the same process as if the king died. His natural heir, the child who would have taken the throne if he keeled over and died, would succeed him. Simply its done before they are dead.

Now if we start talking about 'term limits on being king'. They can only serve for this many years. Or they have to abdicate at this age. Now I guess we could draw a comparison. Like those who suggest Elizabeth should abdicate because her son is so old and he should get a chance to reign.

No one is suggesting that Harald abdicate just for the sake of abdicating. If he were to abdicate it would be due to his health problems. I don't see the public screaming for a republic because their king is too sick to represent them.

That said I don't see the need. The king can simply slow down and do the ceremonial roles required of him. And appear at important events. And hand over more and more responsibility to Haakon.

I think MM's health concerns are a worry for him. Even if the thought of abdicating had crossed his mind. With ML out of the working royal picture, Haakon doesn't have a sibling to step in and help. And his mother is only going to be able to do so much. There may be some wish to keep going as is for as long as possible, to give IA a chance to graduate from college and get some experience under her feet before she has to take on royal duties.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard

As a swede, i am not overly excited about the prospect of ”abdication” unless it becomes a must to save the monarchy (like in Spain)... What works good for the ”House of Nassau” doesn’t necessarily work in all countries.

I'd say the 'becoming a must' is exactly the wrong reason to abdicate. That gives abdication a bad name... While it can be used for the benefit of the people: holding on to an office that you cannot longer perform -but need a regent to replace you- in my opinion is not the best way of serving your country.

And if it becomes too similar to having an elected President, politicians and the general public will begin to seriously question the point of having a Royal Family at all when there is no difference to an elected First Family. The support for a republic is quite huge in all 3 scandinavian parliaments, likely in a majority here in Sweden... The only reason why nothing is done is because the general public still prefers their monarch’s.

I don't understand this reasoning? How does abdication in old age/for health reasons is more similar to having an elected president?

The Pope can abdicate for health reasons but he has no one who can replace him with a president. And Albert of Belgium likely bitterly regrets that he abdicated after the recent rounds up at the court (=lost immunity).

The papal succession is indeed a bit more like a presidential system in which abdicating at the right time can make the pope influence who his successor is; however, in regular monarchies it doesn't work that way as there is no doubt about the heir (well, the only exception might be if the monarch doesn't have children of his/her own; in that case the question of moving on to sibling or niece/nephew might be part of the discussion).

As with many topics, I guess our points of views are heavily influenced by our own experiences.

[Blog Real]

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard

As a swede, i am not overly excited about the prospect of ”abdication” unless it becomes a must to save the monarchy (like in Spain)... What works good for the ”House of Nassau” doesn’t necessarily work in all countries.

And if it becomes too similar to having an elected President, politicians and the general public will begin to seriously question the point of having a Royal Family at all when there is no difference to an elected First Family. The support for a republic is quite huge in all 3 scandinavian parliaments, likely in a majority here in Sweden... The only reason why nothing is done is because the general public still prefers their monarch’s.

The Pope can abdicate for health reasons but he has no one who can replace him with a president. And Albert of Belgium likely bitterly regrets that he abdicated after the recent rounds up at the court (=lost immunity).

Do the monarchies of Norway, Sweden and Denmark have much popular support?

[Eskimo]

Originally Posted by JR76

As a Scandinavian I hope that the trend of abdication doesn't catch on here. To me a monarch holds their office for life.

It will start in Denmark in the next reign.... I seriously doubt Fred reigns for long..

[Blog Real]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

It will start in Denmark in the next reign.... I seriously doubt Fred reigns for long..

Why do you say that?

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Blog Real

Do the monarchies of Norway, Sweden and Denmark have much popular support?

As a non-Scandinavian I would say the monarchies do not. The monarchs do.

(And I would say in Sweden people are holding out for Victoria, and there seems to be some question in Denmark as to how much of Fred's heart is in the future-king thing, especially given his mother's decades of adulation.)

[Hans-Rickard]

Originally Posted by Somebody

I'd say the 'becoming a must' is exactly the wrong reason to abdicate. That gives abdication a bad name... While it can be used for the benefit of the people: holding on to an office that you cannot longer perform -but need a regent to replace you- in my opinion is not the best way of serving your country.


I don't understand this reasoning? How does abdication in old age/for health reasons is more similar to having an elected president?


The papal succession is indeed a bit more like a presidential system in which abdicating at the right time can make the pope influence who his successor is; however, in regular monarchies it doesn't work that way as there is no doubt about the heir (well, the only exception might be if the monarch doesn't have children of his/her own; in that case the question of moving on to sibling or niece/nephew might be part of the discussion).

As with many topics, I guess our points of views are heavily influenced by our own experiences.

I agree with your last statement. We are most likely heavily influenced from where we are so i respect that we are likely bound to disagree about some things and i am not trying to change anyones opinion.

What i meant was that in the swedish Parliament there is a huge political majority for scrapping the Royal Family and turn Sweden into a republic. And i could very well imagine those plans being under way already hadn’t it been for the extremly popular heir to the throne Crown Princess Victoria who has been carrying the popularity of the swedish monarchy quite alone in recent years. Since 2010 ofcourse together with her husband who is also popular but still has a long way to go to reach his wife’s status among the general public. Though i am sure he will make it there if God gives him time... The King of Sweden is to be honest, no way near as popular among the general public today as he was during the 80:s and 90:s... Even less so among the Mp’s. But as long as his eldest daughter has a star status, none of the big political parties will do anything seriously regarding a republic.

Perhaps the monarchy has a more stable ground in Norway with 3 very successful Kings in a row, to the extent that they are all 3 nicknamed ”Folkekongen” (the people’s king), but i belive we do a mistake if we begin to take the monarchy for granted and make the difference between a Monarchy and a Republic even less visible than what it already is today. At least here in Sweden.

I personally think The King of Norway is more worried for the health of the Crown Princess than his own health. She was expected to be the one to support Haakon like Maxima, Matilde and Letizia supports their husbands but she is chronically ill and will not be able to do so. Only attending on a Day to Day basis when she feels up to it. That situation and that Haakon has no sibling to step in for him when he is abroad (unless M L makes a 180 degree u-turn but she won’t) and his children not even having began their higher education yet - i can imagine is a more worrying thought for King Harald.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard

Perhaps the monarchy has a more stable ground in Norway with 3 very successful Kings in a row, to the extent that they are all 3 nicknamed ”Folkekongen” (the people’s king), but i belive we do a mistake if we begin to take the monarchy for granted and make the difference between a Monarchy and a Republic even less visible than what it already is today. At least here in Sweden.

What I still don't understand is what abdication has to do with making the difference 'less visible' (and it looks like I'm not the only one - given Countessmeout's earlier comment), can you explain that as you've stated it twice but without any explanation, so that makes it hard to understand the 'other point of view'. Thanks in advance!

[Countessmeout]

Its interesting how different cultures approach the monarchy and succession. In Europe it is viewed as simple. Monarch till death, and there is a set natural succession in place. Different countries having different rules (salic, semi salic so on) about who will inherit the throne. And abdication seems a foreign concept only done when required. With a few exceptions like the Nassau family who it has become common enough.

In Bhutan its actually in the constitution that the king will abdicate. Being king is not a life time position (unless you die before you are 65). When the king reaches 65, if his heir is over 21, he is to abdicate the throne. It is seen as a natural retirement. That a monarch is not required to serve for life (though as we see with the king's father and his mother/aunts, retirement is not going off into the sunset they still do a lot).

The current crown prince of Bhutan will be 29 when his father reached 65 so it is expected the king will abdicate in favor of his son.


Abdication isn't such a foreign concept in non-European royal houses. Nor is succession always laid out in stone either.

[Hans-Rickard]

Originally Posted by Somebody

What I still don't understand is what abdication has to do with making the difference 'less visible' (and it looks like I'm not the only one - given Countessmeout's earlier comment), can you explain that as you've stated it twice but without any explanation, so that makes it hard to understand the 'other point of view'. Thanks in advance!

As i see it (and i fully understand that everyone doesn’t) for a monarch to abdicate can absolutely be compared to a President reaching the end of his/her term. Both are stopping. Under different circumstances yes, but still both are alive and effectively retiring from office. If you are dead - then you are dead. If you abdicate or reach your term limit you are very much alive, and can still represent the new head of state whenever asked to do so. What is the difference ? Except that there is a different constitution, one on a democratic ground and the other on a hereditary ground, there is almost no difference.

Perhaps elected King’s like in Malaysia where the office rotates between some families wouldn’t be a bad idea

Originally Posted by Blog Real

Do the monarchies of Norway, Sweden and Denmark have much popular support?

As stated above, the monarch’s are more popular then the institutions they represent... Especially in Norway and Denmark (though regarding the next generation Frederik won’t get it as naturally as Haakon will).

Here in Sweden... well The King is respected for being an experienced King and a uniting force in crisis... Popular ? Neither popular or impopular i would say. His opinion polls aren’t very high anymore. He is more respected than popular.... his eldest daughter on the other hand has the status of a star. A large portion of the politicians and the general public is more or less holding out for the upcoming Victorian-era.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

As a non-Scandinavian I would say the monarchies do not. The monarchs do.

(And I would say in Sweden people are holding out for Victoria, and there seems to be some question in Denmark as to how much of Fred's heart is in the future-king thing, especially given his mother's decades of adulation.)

I am happy you say that because you do the right thing: separate personal popularity and the popularity of having a monarchy. A lot of posters on this forum confuse the two in my opinion: that a Victoria, or a Margrethe, or a Haakon are well-liked and popular is not the same as being in favour for a hereditary monarchy as constitution.

Originally Posted by JR76

As a Scandinavian I hope that the trend of abdication doesn't catch on here. To me a monarch holds their office for life.

The other side of the medal of non-abdicating is the message to the public: apparently the position is so low-demanding that even a 90+ years old can easily perform royal duties.

Ergo: if said position is so non-demanding, we can scrap it all together anyway and make our modern, liberal and progressive country a truly democratic and inclusive society indeed, from top to bottom.

Now I am the devil's advocate but that is the consequence of seeing gerontocrats on the throne. Imagine that the ailing Akihito, the visibly less mobile Juan Carlos, the more and more deaf Albert II would still be on their thrones today? In the UK we see a Heir past retirement age waiting to succeed his mother.

[Blog Real]

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard

As stated above, the monarch’s are more popular then the institutions they represent... Especially in Norway and Denmark (though regarding the next generation Frederik won’t get it as naturally as Haakon will).

Here in Sweden... well The King is respected for being an experienced King and a uniting force in crisis... Popular ? Neither popular or impopular i would say. His opinion polls aren’t very high anymore. He is more respected than popular.... his eldest daughter on the other hand has the status of a star. A large portion of the politicians and the general public is more or less holding out for the upcoming Victorian-era.

Why do you think Frederik won't understand that?
Are the three monarchies of Scandinavia safe at the moment?

[Hans-Rickard]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

The other side of the medal of non-abdicating is the message to the public: apparently the position is so low-demanding that even a 90+ years old can easily perform royal duties.

Ergo: if said position is so non-demanding, we can scrap it all together anyway and make our modern, liberal and progressive country a truly democratic and inclusive society indeed, from top to bottom.

Now I am the devil's advocate but that is the consequence of seeing gerontocrats on the throne. Imagine that the ailing Akihito, the visibly less mobile Juan Carlos, the more and more deaf Albert II would still be on their thrones today? In the UK we see a Heir past retirement age waiting to succeed his mother.

But a healthy 90 + can perform royal duties. We see it in Queen Elizabeth II and until quite recently also Prince Philip. We saw it in Grand Duke Jean well past his abdication. We saw it in Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden who was a viewed as a cold and stern Crown Prince for most of his life but ended his days as a warm and respected old King... in Norway there was absolutely no preassure at King Olav to abdicate in favour of Crown Prince Harald despite not being very healthy towards the end of his life. Sometimes the advancing age is making a person popular... I am sure Princess Beatrix healthwise could have stayed on if she really wanted but she followed the Nassau tradition.

Originally Posted by Blog Real

Why do you think Frederik won't understand that?
Are the three monarchies of Scandinavia safe at the moment?

Yes they are. Nothing will change in the 3 current reign’s.

Frederik has become more and more popular since his wedding. No doubt about that ! Mary has helped him a lot in overcoming his shyness and insecurity. But he has not always been seen as King material and his mother is an extremly hard act to follow... I am old enough to remember the time when most danes wanted Frederik to wave his sucession rights in favour of Joachim (and Alexandra)... Today most danes are glad it didn’t happened... Frederik may very well suceed but out of him, Haakon and Victoria, he is the one who will get the biggest shoes to fill..