The Future of the Norwegian Monarchy


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I think you make good points. And given the longetivity of King Olav and his wife's relatives, as well as the present King's earnest work ethic, there may not be a significant gap between the oldest generation's departure and Princess Ingrid Alexandra assuming her full-time duties.

But her consort, unless she marries quite young or her mother's health unexpectedly improves, is likely to be required to step into a full-time role with little time for transition, and probably even, as Sonja did, assume the role of First Lady (Gentleman) immediately upon marriage.
I don't really see how Ingrid-Alexandra's husband is supposed to assume the role of First Lady/Gentleman. In Sonja's case she took over as the 'leading woman' at court from her sister-in-law Astrid in support of king Olav (the 'leading man' at court). In Ingrid-Alexandra's case, she herself would be the leading woman if her mother is not able to take that spot once her father becomes king (and her grandmother is no longer active either). So her husband would the 'second gentleman' behind king Haakon but not the first.

Another scenario is that Norway becomes a republic.
We do not have a tradition of nobility. The monarchy has always been "slim". Most Norwegians love the monarchy, but it is expected that the monarchy is not pompous. Many think the Norwegian monarchy looks more like a republic than a real monarchy. We have a strong mentality like "do what you want to do", "marry who you want to", "live your life like you want to", equal rights etc. Maybe Ingrid Alexandra does not want to become Queen. Maybe she will call for a republic. Who knows.

The way Ingrid Alexandra presented herself at her confirmation to me showed that she is very well aware of the responsibility on her shoulders and willing to take it on. Of course, she might have doubts at times but she seems prepared to one day become the crown princess and later on a reigning queen.
 
Last edited:
How "noble" will future generations still be, when nobility plays no any role anymore?
Ergo: if nobility is totally irrelevant, why then not choose our own favoured commoner to become head of state?

For the nobility time will tell. At least we have 'til then the Royal Forums...:flowers:

And nobility is - at least for me - important.

Ok, not every royal family has a "timeline" going back to some Gods, like the Danish one, of which the folks in the viking age thought, it would be going back to Odin. Or Japan: right back to the sun Goddess, if I remember this correctly.

But a bit of national history embodied by the royal family - That is a good thing!

The Norwegians did choose their King among a group of more or less danish noblemen - That is good enough for me!
 
For the nobility time will tell. At least we have 'til then the Royal Forums...:flowers:

And nobility is - at least for me - important.

Ok, not every royal family has a "timeline" going back to some Gods, like the Danish one, of which the folks in the viking age thought, it would be going back to Odin. Or Japan: right back to the sun Goddess, if I remember this correctly.

But a bit of national history embodied by the royal family - That is a good thing!

The Norwegians did choose their King among a group of more or less danish noblemen - That is good enough for me!

I prefer royal or noble unions too becauss they give fascinating links to a country's history and gives "something special". For an example, the future Grand-Duchess of Luxemboyrg, the Comtesse Stéphanie de Lannoy, from a family which owns Château d'Anvaing, with sixteen (!) De Lannoys as Knights of the Golden Fleece, or linking it to the Nassaus: the first spouse of Willem I of Nassau, Prince of Orange was daughter of a Comte d'Egmont and a Comtesse de Lannoy... It oozes centuries of history and that appeals to me.

But but but... to by far the most people this plays zero role. Probably Mette Marit is more popular than a most noble Komtesse Danneskiold-Samsøe as Crown Princess of Norway will ever be. Who knows?
 
Last edited:
Just because she's being educated to be queen doesn't mean she will become queen. She may hate the idea. She may want to marry soemone who isn't interested in living in Noway... Or the country may become a republic in years to come and she wont be queen.
Different from Princes William and Harry, who even as children or adolescents have been reported to be not too fond of the idea being members of a royal family or even having to succeed one day, IA never gave any hint she would not like the institution. I was always impressed how self assured and comfortable she looked whenever she did her first royal "engagements", be it as "hostess" of the Duke and Dchss of Cambridge at her sculpture park, at launching ships together with her grandfather and her father or at her confirmation during her speech. I think her parents gave her great confidence and as a result she seems to be fine with her destiny so far.

I remember that little anecdote when she and the CP appeared in a pre christmas television show at norwegian television being asked what she would like to do later by one of the hostesses and Ingrid asking very firmly "I want to become Crown Princess!" I remember being pretty baffled by this answer as she could have said anything else!
Yes, she was a little girl back then. But there is no sign the Princess was struggeling with the prospect of becoming Queen one day so far - and until that might happen we have no reason to doubt she wouldn´t want to take on the role she was born for!
If she wants to marry someone who would not be interested in living in Norway, I guess she either would not marry that person or, for love, he would pretty sure understand he would need to if he wouldn´t want to lose Ingrid!
I guess Prince Henrik would also have prefered to stay in France instead of moving to Denmark, the same might go with the dutch Prince consorts or the D o Edinburgh surely prefering to stay abroad serving as an officer at the navy...

So, from my point of view all these discussions about if country x or country y could become republics in the near future is in vain and making-up sensation as no country seriously being in danger becoming one in a couple of years time comes to my mind.
 
Last edited:
Different from Princes William and Harry, who even as children or adolescents have been reported to be not too fond of the idea being members of a royal family or even having to succeed one day, IA never gave any hint she would not like the institution. I was always impressed how self assured and comfortable she looked whenever she did her first royal "engagements", be it as "hostess" of the Duke and Dchss of Cambridge at her sculpture park, at launching ships together with her grandfather and her father or at her confirmation during her speech. I think her parents gave her great confidence and as a result she seems to be fine with her destiny so far.

I remember that little anecdote when she and the CP appeared in a pre christmas television show at norwegian television being asked what she would like to do later by one of the hostesses and Ingrid asking very firmly "I want to become Crown Princess!" I remember being pretty baffled by this answer as she could have said anything else!
Yes, she was a little girl back then. But there is no sign the Princess was struggeling with the prospect of becoming Queen one day so far - and until that might happen we have no reason to doubt she wouldn´t want to take on the role she was born for!
If she wants to marry someone who would not be interested in living in Norway, I guess she either would not marry that person or, for love, he would pretty sure understand he would need to if he wouldn´t want to lose Ingrid!
I guess Prince Henrik would also have prefered to stay in France instead of moving to Denmark, the same might go with the dutch Prince consorts or the D o Edinburgh surely prefering to stay abroad serving as an officer at the navy...

So, from my point of view all these discussions about if country x or country y could become republics in the near future is in vain and making-up sensation as no country seriously being in danger becoming one in a couple of years time comes to my mind.

I think Ingrid Alexandra has had the advantage of being appropriately exposed to her parents' professional royal life from very early on, and has always been been presented as an important part of the team. I doubt she can remember a time when the monarchy wasn't a big part of her life, not just in terms of her royal title, but in terms of first hand exposure to the day to day life of her future role. We all learn by doing, and the earlier we start, the easier things tend to be.

Given how complicated it would be for all these heirs/heiresses to give up their roles, it's better if they grow up having the positive sides of their positions emphasized to them, rather than being made to feel like a lamb being led to the slaughter. Maybe it's just her innate personality, but IA seems to be at ease with what's coming, and shows a nice mix of confidence and good humour that should hold her in good stead.
 
But her consort, unless she marries quite young or her mother's health unexpectedly improves, is likely to be required to step into a full-time role with little time for transition, and probably even, as Sonja did, assume the role of First Lady (Gentleman) immediately upon marriage.

I don't really see how Ingrid-Alexandra's husband is supposed to assume the role of First Lady/Gentleman. In Sonja's case she took over as the 'leading woman' at court from her sister-in-law Astrid in support of king Olav (the 'leading man' at court). In Ingrid-Alexandra's case, she herself would be the leading woman if her mother is not able to take that spot once her father becomes king (and her grandmother is no longer active either). So her husband would the 'second gentleman' behind king Haakon but not the first.

I am working from the assumption that the representational roles will be guided more by the family members' positions than their genders, so that Princess Ingrid Alexandra's role would match that of the King or Crown Prince and her husband's role would match that of the Queen or Crown Princess. But there is no precedent, and my assumption certainly could prove incorrect.

In the order of precedence, the Crown Prince would of course be ahead of both the Princess and her husband, but I think it was the roles which were being discussed.

On a related note, Royal Norway, who is Norwegian and familiar with the history of the monarchy, once answered my question about predicting whether Prince Sverre Magnus and his future spouse and children would (since Magnus is male) be given a more prominent role than the Princesses and their husbands and children. I think the predictions are relevant to this discussion:

1. To receive state funding (apanage), he has to be a member of the Royal House. - So no, he won't.
2. Well, I think we must assume that he won't perform any royal duties at all. - Why?

Märtha: She carries out some few public duties on behalf of the King in areas concerning persons with disabilities. She is also active as patron of eight organisations, and as Chair of Princess Märtha Louise's Fund. - But as I wrote in post 579, she is (since her marriage) not a Royal Highness, her birthday are not an official flag day, she's not longer on the balcony on May 17th, she does not receive any apanage from the state, and she pays taxes.

Sverre: Unlike Märtha, he has never been a member of the Royal House, and is not likely to accept any patronages when he turns 18 (age of legal majority in Norway).

Would Sverre's wife [...] give up her career once she marries? No, she won't (I will actually go so far as to say that I'm 100% sure about that). - Why? Well, because that woman will marry a prince who is not a member of the Royal House, and he will most likely have a career of his own. Their alternative is to live of a trust-fund, but the NRF isn't that rich, so that would be quite difficult.
Would she perform public duties? No, she won't (I will say that I'm 100% sure about that too). - Why? Same as above.

[...]

Would their children have professional careers? Yes, they would (I will say that I'm 200% sure about that too). - Why? Well, they will need something to live of.
Would their children be offered patronages? No way (and I couldn't be more sure). - Why? Because (as the children of Ragnhild, Astrid, and Märtha) they won't have any titles, or official functions at all.

I would be interested if anybody else has thoughts or predictions on the matter.
 
Last edited:
Interesting topic about having enough working royals vs having too many working royals.

The King is frail, I have no idea how Sonja’s health is and of course MM’s a wildcard.

The worst case scenario is that the King, Queen and MM are either gone or unable to do duties within the next 5 years. This will leave only Haakon as a full time royal and IA may just have to became a full time royal and forgo higher education.

Of course if MM is gone, Haakon will have immense pressure to remarry ASAP so that his new wife can do duties, allowing IA a few years of part time work. Unfortunately, the obvious choice to step in, ML is too far gone to be of any help to her brother or Norway.
 
Interesting topic about having enough working royals vs having too many working royals.

The King is frail, I have no idea how Sonja’s health is and of course MM’s a wildcard.

The worst case scenario is that the King, Queen and MM are either gone or unable to do duties within the next 5 years. This will leave only Haakon as a full time royal and IA may just have to became a full time royal and forgo higher education.

Of course if MM is gone, Haakon will have immense pressure to remarry ASAP so that his new wife can do duties, allowing IA a few years of part time work. Unfortunately, the obvious choice to step in, ML is too far gone to be of any help to her brother or Norway.


Norweigian Royalf Family has alwasys managed work with pretty small family. On early years of modern Norway king Haakon VII and queen Maud were long time only active royals on NRF. And even later the royal family had operate with very small family. So even if worst happen and Harald, Sonja and MM are all gone or otherwise unable commit their duties Haakon manage make make his duties. And Ingrid-Alexandra and Sverre-Magnus might give some help at some point altough education takes lot of time of their life on 2020's and early 2030's.


And even if Haakon re-marry them have still educate new queen. It takes some time. Yes, Daniel and Sofia became pretty quickly part of Swedish royal family but that still took some years. And searching of new wife and marriage is not fast operation.
 
Interesting topic about having enough working royals vs having too many working royals.

The King is frail, I have no idea how Sonja’s health is and of course MM’s a wildcard.

The worst case scenario is that the King, Queen and MM are either gone or unable to do duties within the next 5 years. This will leave only Haakon as a full time royal and IA may just have to became a full time royal and forgo higher education.

Of course if MM is gone, Haakon will have immense pressure to remarry ASAP so that his new wife can do duties, allowing IA a few years of part time work. Unfortunately, the obvious choice to step in, ML is too far gone to be of any help to her brother or Norway.


I think Sonja's health is good - after all she is still hiking mountains and cross-country skiing, which is a whole lot more than most 83-year-olds can do.

I don't think anyone would want Ingrid Alexandra to forgo higher education. In the worst case scenario, she probably would have to do more appearances than otherwise, next to her studies. But there are also regular students who work next to their studies and Ingrid seems like a hard-working and dedicated girl, so part time royal work might be feasible.

I don't think her father or the Norwegian people would expect her to take on a full time role before she has completed university, though. In that case, Haakon would, though difficult, probably do the job by himself. There was also a time when Olav did almost everything by himself, with help from Astrid, who was also sick, and Harald, when he could next to his studies.

I agree it's unfortunate that the obvious choice, ML can't step in. Well, personally I believe she could but obviously doesn't want to.
 
Interesting topic about having enough working royals vs having too many working royals.

The King is frail, I have no idea how Sonja’s health is and of course MM’s a wildcard.

The worst case scenario is that the King, Queen and MM are either gone or unable to do duties within the next 5 years. This will leave only Haakon as a full time royal and IA may just have to became a full time royal and forgo higher education.

Of course if MM is gone, Haakon will have immense pressure to remarry ASAP so that his new wife can do duties, allowing IA a few years of part time work. Unfortunately, the obvious choice to step in, ML is too far gone to be of any help to her brother or Norway.


This is nothing new at for Norway. King Olav V was a widower for much of his life. When Prince Olav became King, his daughter Princess Ragnhild was already living in Brazil. His son, Prince Harald was still a cadet at he Military Academy. Back then the Norwegian Royal House was functioning with just two persons: the King and Princess Astrid.


This is similar to the Netherlands where between 1934 and 1937 the Royal House was two persons (Queen Wilhelmina and Princess Juliana), was three persons between 1937 and 1948 (Prince Bernhard joined the club) and was two persons again between 1948 and 1956 (Queen Juliana and Prince Bernhard).
 
:previous:

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.
 
I think that Princess Atrid must have a tribute in life.:flowers:
 
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?
 
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 ��
 
Last edited:
Moving the discussion to a different thread:
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.
 
Last edited:
As a Scandinavian I hope that the trend of abdication doesn't catch on here. To me a monarch holds their office for life.
 
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).
 
Last edited:
I don't see how abdication makes a royal family like an elected first family :ermm:

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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..
 
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.)
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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!
 
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.
 
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 ;)

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
 
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.

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..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom