The Future of the Norwegian Monarchy

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard

Frederik may very well suceed but out of him, Haakon and Victoria, he is the one who will get the biggest shoes to fill..

I trust the Danes are astute enough to know that he doesn't have to fill his mothers shoes, he can just wear his own when the time comes...

Perhaps if his parents had given him more support growing up, he needn't have been insecure about his future (more than 20 years ago).

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard

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.

Even queen Elizabeth delegated many of the duties that normally lay with the Sovereign to her heir: she for example no longer undertakes state visits abroad (a very reasonable expectation of a head of state), so, that proofs Duc_et_Pair's point that if you water the position down to what a healthy 90+ monarch can do, it shows that very little is required of a monarch...

And both Harald and Juliana took over from their parent after somewhat lengthy regencies (not only a few weeks because of short-term illness). However, Juliana did so because Wilhelmina concluded that abdication was preferable to a long regency while Harald had to wait for his father to die (sounds rather cruel but that was the reality).

People get older and older, is it really preferable to (for example) have a Sovereign with dementia than have his/her heir take over before a permanent regency is unavoidable?

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

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.

Surely it's still better than the other way around, having support for a monarchy but a deeply unpopular monarch?

To bring the discussion back to Norway, they've always had a virtually "republican" or at least democratic-style of modern monarchy, from offering the crown to having a referendum to back it up to horrifying the ancien regime by "Carl is going around thanking the people for electing him!!"

I can't see a republican Norway anytime soon because the monarchy (and the people who make it up and have made it up) is important there, in a low-fuss, integrated kind of way. What is there to rid themselves of?

[Hans-Rickard]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Even queen Elizabeth delegated many of the duties that normally lay with the Sovereign to her heir: she for example no longer undertakes state visits abroad (a very reasonable expectation of a head of state), so, that proofs Duc_et_Pair's point that if you water the position down to what a healthy 90+ monarch can do, it shows that very little is required of a monarch...

And both Harald and Juliana took over from their parent after somewhat lengthy regencies (not only a few weeks because of short-term illness). However, Juliana did so because Wilhelmina concluded that abdication was preferable to a long regency while Harald had to wait for his father to die (sounds rather cruel but that was the reality).

People get older and older, is it really preferable to (for example) have a Sovereign with dementia than have his/her heir take over before a permanent regency is unavoidable?

Yes but QEII did up until 89. And she is still as healthy as she was then.

King Olav was not in good health through much of 1990 but he still took part in quite a lot of things. Just not being the regent. I don’t see how it was ”cruel” for Harald to having to wait for his father to die. It’s just the way it is in Scandinavia. Like it’s just the way it is in UK.

Have i ever said that a monarch shouldn’t be able to abdicate or be declared incapacitated if they get dementia ? No i haven’t ! Just because i am not a fan of royal abdications does not mean that there can be exceptions in for example mental illness.

With that said i leave the discussion now. I think it’s safe to assume that we disagree about some things regarding abdication and that won’t change.

[Blog Real]

I also prefer a monarch to stay on the throne for the rest of his life.
Except in cases where it is tradition to abdicate (Luxembourg and The Netherlands) or when it is necessary to save the monarchy (Spain).
But if a monarch wants to abdicate freely and with good will for reasons of health or old age, his will must be respected, of course.

[Prinsara]

I think a monarch usually gains "stature points" with tenure. Elizabeth is beloved and revered now. That wasn't the case 20 years ago. (The same thing happened with Victoria before her.) If she'd abdicated then, she wouldn't enjoy the status she does today. Harald, too, is more popular now than he once was.

There's also the question of 'do people want their aged monarch to go anywhere?' In the UK and in Norway, the answer would be emphatically "no".

[Duc_et_Pair]

No one would really like to be flown in an Airbus by a 78-years old pilot or having a 81-years old dentist holding the drill in his hands to treat teeth. In boardrooms we see older CEO's making place for younger CEO's We see ministers, judges, ambassadors, civil servants, police officers facing an age of retirement. Essentially for anyone but one person: the hereditary monarch. He should not abdicate because it would harm the institution?

I think the practice in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain and Japan is proof that it can rejuvenate the institution. King Harald, Queen Margrethe, King Carl Gustaf, they all can enjoy wonderful and well-deserved years of rest and see how their successors are doing fantastically well indeed.

King Juan Carlos, Princess Beatrix, King Albert II, Emperor Akihito, all of them see how their successors are doing great in their new positions.

[ricarda]

Originally Posted by Blog Real

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

I would say in Norway and Denmark the monarchy and the monarch and the future monarch have a lot of popular support.
In Sweden neither the monarchy nor the current monarch are popular.
Victoria is quite popular in Sweden - in comparison to her father but not so much in comparison to Haakon's popularity in Norway and Frederik's popularity in Denmark - mostly because she is far more media-friendly than her father. And the ability to handle the media seems to be one of the most important skills which a modern-day-monarch needs.
But if any of the Scandinavian countries is likely to abolish the monarchy my bet would be on Sweden.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

Surely it's still better than the other way around, having support for a monarchy but a deeply unpopular monarch?


[...]

Queen Beatrix never ever topped the popularity polls, unlike her late parents or her son and daughter-in-law. But the support for the monarchy as an institution was greater under Beatrix than when she took over from her mother. And it was greater than now, under her successor, who enjoys a far greater personal popularity.

This is proof that a distant person, not at all aiming for personal popularity, can actually broaden the support for the monarchy, especially when said distance is paired with perfect "execution of the royal dignity".

[Hans-Rickard]

Everyone in the current ”heir to the monarch” generation faces the same problem in 2020. How to execute royal dignity without loosing connection with the reality - while at the same time preserve the institution so the next generation will have something to inherit.

The people who are young and brought up today in western democracies like UK, the BeNeLux countries and the Scandinavian countries no longer buy the ”history” argument as a reason for keeping the monarchy forever... They want full democracy and human rights on all levels... Hereditary Monarchy is hardly democratic and not allowing the 1:st born to become whatever he or she wants in life is hardly something people would call human rights..... Should any monarchy survive longterm, the new Royal generation must prove why the old, historical and not exactly very democratic Monarchy is not just something for the history books but also something worth to keep today and tomorrow...

Haakon, Frederik and Victoria will all face the same problem Regardless of how popular or impopular their parents was... The 3 scandinavian monarchies are all stable and secure today as they are under the current monarch’s - but it is not something that can be taken for granted.... That’s why it is absolutely crucial that younger royal generations (both by birth and by marriage) understands that it is not about themselves - but about the institution.

Otherwise the remaining monarchie’s will soon join the claimant’s to the throne in Greece, Germany, France, Austria, Bulgaria, Romania and Russia.

[maria-olivia]

I wish a long Reign to King Harald and Queen Sonja.

I don't know nothing about the Crown Princess Ilness , but she looks fine.

When I see the wonderful help princess Astrid gave her whole life to the Monarchy , Haakon will heve no help from his extrange Sister

[norwegianne]

New survey from NRK on the monarchy with IA’s birthday coming up

https://www-nrk-no.translate.goog/no..._x_tr_pto=wapp

[An Ard Ri]

Though its just one poll it still indeed good news for the Norwegian royal family!

[Blog Real]

Yes this survey is good news for the Royal Family of Norway.

[Prinsara]

117 years straight of being popular?

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Adda

Shortage of Royals? Just make Sverre Magnus an HRH like he should be. I don't want nor need an embarrassment like Märtha-Louise representing Norway. Thank you very much.

Originally Posted by Alisa

2. Upgrade Sverre Magnus in a few months for his 18th birthday so that when Haakon becomes King he can rely on his children to help him carry out royal duties. They can go to school and carry out royal duties at the same.

Originally Posted by JR76

As has been discussed many times before here in the forums Norway probably doesn't need any more working royals. The current four plus Ingrid Alexandra and Astrid doing a few engagements each are more than the country has ever had. It seems that the Royal family have themselves decided that Ingrid Alexandra won't need extensive support from her brother and are therefore preparing him for a private life with, I'm guessing, a few engagements a year.

Agreed with JR76. In addition, although I would personally like working representation to be more clearly reserved for members of the Royal House, both Princess Astrid and Princess Märtha Louise carried out their respective of royal duties while remaining outside of the Royal House. It follows that if Sverre Magnus is someday called upon to replace Princess Astrid or Princess Märtha Louise, he would most likely also retain his current status, without formal membership of the Royal House and its accompanying benefits (primarily an appanage, tax exemption and HRH).

Princess Astrid and Princess Märtha Louise's respective royal engagements had dwindled in number even before Princess Märtha Louise's recent retirement, so there is not all that much to substitute for.

It is also unlikely that anyone is able to make confident predictions at this time about Prince Sverre Magnus's future careers, partners, and opinions. In case they turn out to be as unpopular as those of his aunt, it would seem unwise to promote him prematurely and run the risk that the promotion would need to be reversed for the same reasons.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by maria-olivia

I wish a long Reign to King Harald and Queen Sonja.

I don't know nothing about the Crown Princess Ilness , but she looks fine.

When I see the wonderful help princess Astrid gave her whole life to the Monarchy , Haakon will heve no help from his extrange Sister

She isnt fine. She has a serious illness which makes it likely she wont be able to do full time royal duties.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard

The plan when Sverre Magnus was not made an H.R.H was ofcourse that The Crown Princess would be able to increase her royal duties significantly to help her husband… With Ingrid there as well, he would not be needed as a full time working royal… Now we know that she can’t increase her workload and sadly never will, so that plan obviously doesn’t exist anymore and new thinking is needed….

Can I ask where you heard that? While the Crown Princess's illness wasn't known in 2005, I wouldn't expect Crown Prince Haakon having a full-time working spouse to be considered essential. After all, King Haakon and especially King Olav spent many years unmarried after the deaths of their wives. From 1954 until 1968 there was no Queen or Crown Princess.

[HRHTalDuchess]

Why was Prince Sverre not given the title of HRH? I think it's a mistake to shrink the number of members of the Royal Family. Asian (Middle East, SE Asia) monarchies don't operate this way. They are always seeking to grow in numbers, which is what makes them strong. Also, their members have both public duties and private careers...not all Asian HRHs receive state support, tax status I'm not sure of. Most of the oil-rich ME states don't even impose income taxes on their citizens...

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by HRHTalDuchess

Why was Prince Sverre not given the title of HRH?

By the time Prince Sverre Magnus was born, all other Norwegian royals outside the direct line of succession to the throne (Ragnhild, Astrid, and Märtha Louise) had already lost their membership of the Royal House and thus their HRH.

Here is a post from a Norwegian royal expert which summarizes what the royal family have said on this topic in interviews:

Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY

Well, Princess Astrid and the late Princess Ragnhild stopped being members of the Royal House when they married ''non-royal'' men.
The media didn't want this to happen to Märtha when she married in 2002, but the King meant it would have been unfair to his sisters if she had retained her position, while they had to let go of theirs.

That means:
They are no longer Royal Highnesses.
Their birthdays are not an official flag day anymore.
They are no longer on the balcony on May 17th.
They are not required to perform royal duties.
They does not receive money from the state.
They have to pay taxes.

It was the same with Sverre. The King and Haakon meant it would have been unfair to Raghnild, Astrid and Märtha if he was to retain his position after he marries. So, therefore, Haakon and MM thought it was best that he was born without being a member of the Royal House, because then he don't have to go through the same process as the princesses had to do, when they lost their positions.