Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy

[Prinsara]

But which family members of diplomatic personnel or presidents typically receive diplomatic passports?

Anne Sacoolas, although a CIA employee at some point, was originally described as "the wife of a diplomat". Death of Harry Dunn - Wikipedia

 

[Muhler]

Well, in DK it's the Monarch alone who can judge and sentence members of the DRF. - The Monarch can of course also repeal the immunity that members of the DRF enjoy. And that is widely believed to be what will happen should such a situation occur in DK.
I believe it's similar in Norway.
But, the Monarch can also impose additional sanctions on a transgressing member of the DRF. Like removal of titles, being ousted from the official royal family. It's actually pretty open.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

More on Article 37 of the Constitution (which I am splitting here to page 2 for my personal convenience):

Article 37.

The Royal Princes and Princesses shall not personally be answerable to anyone other than the King, or whomever he decrees to sit in judgment on them.

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway - Lovdata

The Constitution

lovdata.no

The head of the Bar Association's committee on criminal law, Bernt Heiberg, was interviewed about Article 37.

Kongen kan ikke straffes for noe. For de andre gjelder andre regler.

Han er en del av kongefamilien. Men ingenting står i veien for at Marius Borg Høiby kan tiltales i en straffesak. For de kongelige er situasjonen en litt annen.

www.aftenposten.no

He makes the important point that Article 37 does not grant "the Royal Princes and Princesses" immunity from the law. It only exempts them from the jurisdiction of the courts. That means the person may be prosecuted for committing a crime, but it is "the King" (not the judicial court system) who will judge whether the person is innocent or guilty and decide on the sentence if any. (Unless "the King" chooses to appoint another party to judge the case, as allowed by Article 37.)

(His point is entirely correct, but I will probably continue to informally refer to the Article 37 privilege as "immunity" (even Scandinavian royal experts do it), since I am assuming "the King" is not required to abide by the same rules of procedure, evidence, sentencing, etc. as the judicial system and is free to allow the person to escape consequences. Please correct me if I am wrong on that score.)


Mr. Heiberg's own opinion is that "the Royal Princes and Princesses" means all the persons with a right to the throne and nobody else, but he says this is a disputed issue amongst legal theorists.

He states that most legal theorists believe the reference to "the King" in Article 37 should be interpreted as "the Government". (This is the manner in which most other references to "the King" in the Constitution are interpreted.)

He does not know of any constitutional restrictions that would prevent the police from entering Skaugum estate for the purposes of arresting Marius Borg Høiby or searching his home or possessions.

The ICL project translation of the Norwegian constitution uses the header "Immunity of the Successor" for Article 37. To be clear, that is not an official header and reflects , I suppose, an interpretation of the people who run the ICL project, but it is consistent with the assumption that Article 37 applies only to persons who are in the line of succession to the Norwegian throne, which is also a common interpretation of what "Royal Princes and Princesses" mean in the Norwegian constitution.

LOV nr 20001 af 14/11/1665, Statsministeriet

Lex Regia (Konge-Lov) (Kongeloven)

www.retsinformation.dk

Kongeloven, 14. november 1665

danmarkshistorien.dk

The Danish law of royal immunity in Article 25 of the Lex Regia states that "They" have immunity without specifying who "They" are, but the preceding paragraph (which has been repealed) referred to "Princes and Princesses of the Blood".

If the Danish law was the inspiration for the Norwegian law of royal immunity (Article 37 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway, as posted above), that would support Mbruno's interpretation that royal immunity only applies to persons who are in line to the throne.[...]).

Another indication that "the Royal Princes and Princesses" in Article 37 was meant to include only people who are in line to the throne: There is no mention, anywhere in the Constitution, of the Queen (consort) having immunity. It would be strange if Queen Sonja had no immunity but Crown Princess Mette-Marit did, which would be the case if Article 37 coverage were interpreted as being based on titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Diplomatic passports are only for official use and must not be used for private travel, says the Foreign Ministry. Then you must use the normal passport issued by the police.
There are limited opportunities to check which passports have been used in passport controls abroad. There are no examples of misuse of diplomatic passports in recent times.
The royals are not considered private individuals traveling, and only have diplomatic passports. Marius Borg Høiby, on the other hand, has an ordinary passport which he will use for private travel.
(..)

Hvilke fordeler gir et diplomatpass?

Dette er reglene som gjelder for diplomatpass i Norge.

www.faktisk.no

Interesting report. But which royals are considered to be on official travel on the time and therefore only have a diplomatic passport?

Good point, thank you. But which family members of diplomatic personnel or presidents typically receive diplomatic passports?

The poster Somebody found an answer, which I will repost to this thread.

Diplomat in Norway

This guide provides information to diplomats and their families on how the various privileges and immunities under the Vienna Conventions are implemented in Norway, and to offer other information.

www.regjeringen.no

1.10 Family members

Family members forming part of the household of a member of a mission, or a consular officer enjoy the same privileges and immunities as the member of the mission or consular officer. The privileges and immunities of family members forming part of the household are in general considered to be derivative. However, the Vienna Conventions do not provide any definition of the term “family”, and the definition of this term varies from one country to another. It is generally agreed that receiving States may formulate a reasonable definition in order to specify who may enjoy the privileges and immunities of this category of persons.

As a general rule, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs defines the term “family”, for the purposes of the Vienna Conventions, as including:

a spouse, or
a cohabitant/partner, on condition that this status is legally recognised by the sending State, and
unmarried children under 21 years of age who are not members of some other household and who reside exclusively in the household of the parent in question.

Children between the ages of 21 and 23 will continue to enjoy privileges and immunities on condition that they are attending an accredited institution of higher learning (i.e. university or similar) on a full-time basis in Norway. In such cases, proof of enrolment must be presented to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs together with the request for the issuance or renewal of the child’s ID card. (See Chapter 7.)​

 

[LadyFinn]

The websites of Kongehuset have been updated
There is just "The Royal House". "The Royal Family" has been taken away. Instead "Other royals" has been put down at the site.

The Royal House of Norway

Presentation of the Royal House of Norway and other members of The Royal Family.

www.royalcourt.no

Kongehuset

Inngangsside til informasjon om Det norske kongehuset.

www.kongehuset.no

"Other royals" consists of the other three with royal titles: Prince Sverre Magnus, Princess Märtha Louise and Princess Astrid.
This means that neither Marius Borg Høiby, Maud Angelica Behn, Leah Isadora Behn and Emma Tallulah Behn, nor Durek Verrett, belong to these official categories.
- The changes to Kongehuset.no have been made to clarify who represents the royal house, as well as who the other royals are. This is in line with the current definitions of the royal house and its members, says communications manager Guri Varpe at the Court to NRK.
- Several members of the king's family are mentioned in the royal biographies, she adds.

Kong Harald rydder opp – fjerner «kongefamilien»

Kongen har sett seg nødt til å rydde opp. Kategorien «kongefamilien» er nå slettet fra kongehusets nettsider.

www.nrk.no

 

[Somebody]

Interesting move; so, the recent events have led to the decision to not present/include Durek as member of the royal family but from now on speak about 'the king's family' - comparable to the language that is used in Spain. The three prince(sse)s who are no royal highnesses as still considered 'royals' (which makes sense from a practical perspective but is a bit strange from a more literal perspective given that the all lost or purposefully were never made ROYAL highnesses) and therefore are included in a separate category - other princes and princesses would have been more accurate.

 

[Blog Real]

It is an interesting decision by the King. This decision must be related to recent events in the royal family.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

A question about the technicalities: Does this decision take effect from today (so that Durek Verrett was a member of the Royal Family for three days from August 31 to September 2) or is it retroactive (so that he never was a member of the Royal Family)?

Interesting move; so, the recent events have led to the decision to not present/include Durek as member of the royal family but from now on speak about 'the king's family' - comparable to the language that is used in Spain.

It is an interesting decision by the King. This decision must be related to recent events in the royal family.

Were Maud Angelica, Leah Isadora and Emma Tallulah Behn (who were members of the Royal Family from birth) and Durek Verrett (whom the King announced in November 2022 would become a member of the Royal Family on marriage) "sacrificed" in order to spare the feelings of Marius Borg Høiby (or possibly the feelings of his mother/parents)? If the King had stripped only Marius of his Royal Family membership, it would have probably been seen as a stronger rebuke to him than stripping it from five people at once.

Or did the King also sincerely regret his decisions to grant membership of the Royal Family to the Behn daughters and Durek Verrett?

 

[LadyFinn]

Nettavisen's royal expert Tove Taalesen thinks this is a desperate attempt to remove themselves from all the problems that have been there recently. The decision comes from the king and Haakon, there is no doubt about that. It was time to clarify who represents the royal house, it has been very unclear. Now they make it clear to us, but that perhaps also makes it a little clearer for those internally in the royal house. Taalesen hopes that there will be more than just a change on the royal house's website, and that this is only the first step in clarifying who the working royals are.

«Kongefamilien» fjernet fra kongehusets nettsider

– Dette er jo et desperat forsøk på å fjerne seg fra alle problemene som har vært den siste tiden, sier kongehusekspert.

www.nettavisen.no

 

[Prinsara]

Were Maud Angelica, Leah Isadora and Emma Tallulah Behn (who were members of the Royal Family from birth) and Durek Verrett (whom the King announced in November 2022 would become a member of the Royal Family on marriage) "sacrificed" in order to spare the feelings of Marius Borg Høiby (or possibly the feelings of his mother/parents)? If the King had stripped only Marius of his Royal Family membership, it would have probably been seen as a stronger rebuke to him than stripping it from five people at once.

Or did the King also sincerely regret his decisions to grant membership of the Royal Family to the Behn daughters and Durek Verrett?

Maybe neither?

The Norwegian royals have been a very small contingent for most of the period since 1905. The two-tier system was relatively new. Paring things back down again accords more with the “classic” way of things and less as making five people collateral, including Harald’s granddaughters whom he surely has no issue with (alternatively, look at Queen Margrethe’s family decision, which many praise her for). Although timing, optics, and likely damage control obviously played a part, it’s not like this “new” model has never been seen before.

 

[taogg]

The websites of Kongehuset have been updated
There is just "The Royal House". "The Royal Family" has been taken away. Instead "Other royals" has been put down at the site.

The Royal House of Norway

Presentation of the Royal House of Norway and other members of The Royal Family.

www.royalcourt.no

Kongehuset

Inngangsside til informasjon om Det norske kongehuset.

www.kongehuset.no

"Other royals" consists of the other three with royal titles: Prince Sverre Magnus, Princess Märtha Louise and Princess Astrid.
This means that neither Marius Borg Høiby, Maud Angelica Behn, Leah Isadora Behn and Emma Tallulah Behn, nor Durek Verrett, belong to these official categories.
- The changes to Kongehuset.no have been made to clarify who represents the royal house, as well as who the other royals are. This is in line with the current definitions of the royal house and its members, says communications manager Guri Varpe at the Court to NRK.
- Several members of the king's family are mentioned in the royal biographies, she adds.

Kong Harald rydder opp – fjerner «kongefamilien»

Kongen har sett seg nødt til å rydde opp. Kategorien «kongefamilien» er nå slettet fra kongehusets nettsider.

www.nrk.no

I was a bit surprised that Prince Sverre Magnus is classified as Other Royals. I thought he remained in the "core" royals

 

[Tatiana Maria]

For comparison, here is how the memberships of the Royal House and Royal Family respectively were defined before September 3, as given on the official website of the Royal House in Norwegian and English:

Kongefamilien

Det norske kongehuset tilhører fyrsteslekten Glücksburg og består av Deres Majesteter Kong Harald og Dronning Sonja og Deres Kongelige Høyheter Kronprins Haakon og Kronprinsesse Mette-Marit og Hennes Kongelige Høyhet Prinsesse Ingrid Alexandra.

Kongefamilien omfatter i tillegg Prins Sverre Magnus, Marius Borg Høiby, Prinsesse Märtha Louise, Maud Angelica Behn, Leah Isadora Behn, Emma Tallulah Behn og Prinsesse Astrid, fru Ferner.

Kongefamilien

Inngangsside til informasjon om det norske Kongehuset og Kongefamilien.

web.archive.org

The Royal Family

The Royal House of Norway belongs to the House of Glücksburg. The members of the Norwegian Royal House are Their Majesties King Harald and Queen Sonja and Their Royal Highnesses Crown Prince Haakon, Crown Princess Mette-Marit and Princess Ingrid Alexandra.

The members of the Royal Family are in addition the Crown Prince and Crown Princess’s other children, His Highness Prince Sverre Magnus and Mr Marius Borg Høiby; Her Highness Princess Märtha Louise, Miss Maud Angelica Behn, Miss Leah Isadora Behn, Miss Emma Tallulah Behn and Her Highness Princess Astrid, Mrs Ferner.

The Royal Family

Presentation of the Royal House of Norway and other members of The Royal Family.

web.archive.org

Notice that the Royal Family was not restricted to people with a title: Marius Borg Høiby and the Behns were official members of the Royal Family.



Another change has been made to the royal website today: The profiles of the non-Royal House royals (Sverre Magnus, Märtha Louise and Astrid) have been demoted. They are no longer visible on the front page of the "Royal Family" (now "Royal House") section of the website, but hidden one level further down under "Other royals".

Kongehuset

Inngangsside til informasjon om Det norske kongehuset.

www.kongehuset.no

The Royal House of Norway

Presentation of the Royal House of Norway and other members of The Royal Family.

www.royalcourt.no

I was a bit surprised that Prince Sverre Magnus is classified as Other Royals. I thought he remained in the "core" royals

Prince Sverre Magnus has never been a "core" royal (member of the Royal House).

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

A question about the technicalities: Does this decision take effect from today (so that Durek Verrett was a member of the Royal Family for three days from August 31 to September 2) or is it retroactive (so that he never was a member of the Royal Family)?





Were Maud Angelica, Leah Isadora and Emma Tallulah Behn (who were members of the Royal Family from birth) and Durek Verrett (whom the King announced in November 2022 would become a member of the Royal Family on marriage) "sacrificed" in order to spare the feelings of Marius Borg Høiby (or possibly the feelings of his mother/parents)? If the King had stripped only Marius of his Royal Family membership, it would have probably been seen as a stronger rebuke to him than stripping it from five people at once.

Or did the King also sincerely regret his decisions to grant membership of the Royal Family to the Behn daughters and Durek Verrett?

This is a really thoughtful question. I think the whole “royal house/royal family” language was confusing - at least in English. I struggled to keep it straight!
This is a way to make it clear that neither Marius nor Durek are “other royals.” Were Martha’s three girls HRH or HH at birth and chose nor to use it (like Louise and James in BRF)?
This change shows me that the king and CP understand that they need to do something- this is a start.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Interestingly, King Harald V did not confer membership of the Royal Family on Marius Borg Høiby until 2006, according to the annual reports of the Royal Court and the archived previous editions of the Royal House's website. That means Marius was only made an official member of the Royal Family approximately five years after his mother's marriage to the Crown Prince in 2001.

So I wonder if the birth of Prince Sverre Magnus in December 2005, and/or King Harald V's decision at the time of his birth that Prince Sverre Magnus would be "only" a member of the Royal Family but not the Royal House, somehow resulted in the King's decision to grant Marius membership of the Royal Family in 2006. Perhaps he wanted to minimize the difference between the half-brothers' status, at a time when Marius had become old enough to be aware of those differences.

The Norwegian royals have been a very small contingent for most of the period since 1905. The two-tier system was relatively new. Paring things back down again accords more with the “classic” way of things and less as making five people collateral, including Harald’s granddaughters whom he surely has no issue with (alternatively, look at Queen Margrethe’s family decision, which many praise her for). Although timing, optics, and likely damage control obviously played a part, it’s not like this “new” model has never been seen before.

That's an excellent point. It can also be seen as a simple reversion to the trend towards slimmer royal families, a process which has been ongoing in Norway and Europe for decades.

I notice NRK asked the Palace's head of communications Guri Varpe: "Does this have to do with Marius Borg Høiby and Durek Verrett?" and her answer was no. Still, I have trouble believing her answer was entirely truthful.

This is a really thoughtful question. I think the whole “royal house/royal family” language was confusing - at least in English. I struggled to keep it straight!

Even Norwegians seem to have struggled to keep it straight. Perhaps that is why Guri Varpe told NRK "We recognized a need for clarification of roles".

Were Martha’s three girls HRH or HH at birth and chose nor to use it (like Louise and James in BRF)?

No, King Harald V decided that they would be untitled from birth.

 

[royalwatcher96]

I sometimes wonder how meaningful such changes actually are. Royalty, after all, is not something that is solely based around titles or membership of a working monarchy. It's also ancestry and relations. You may want to distance yourself from troublesome family members by making clear that they have no role within the institution, but they are still family members. And their scandals will always fall back on the monarchy, one way or another.

I also don't think the general public cares that much about such differentiations, certainly not as much as we royal watchers.

 

[Prinsara]

I notice NRK asked the Palace's head of communications Guri Varpe: "Does this have to do with Marius Borg Høiby and Durek Verrett?" and her answer was no. Still, I have trouble believing her answer was entirely truthful.

I'm not sure anyone will take that without a few grains of salt, but if the question is generously interpreted as "entirely to do with Marius and Verrett", then maybe no, some other reasons have also hastily surfaced.

I'm not sure how Mr. Verrett will take this and I honestly hope we don't find out (although he and ML have an additional upcoming meeting of their own, seemingly), but I can't see this making any sort of difference to the Behn girls –– they were "Miss", the king's granddaughters, and in line for the throne yesterday, and the same today.

 

[Toledo]

I was a bit surprised that Prince Sverre Magnus is classified as Other Royals. I thought he remained in the "core" royals

After reading the comments and the NRF website it all makes sense to me this was a brilliant move. If you notice the names, only House of Glucksberg blood relatives are part of the royal and extended family mentioned.

No other person without blood relation to the king will be named on the site, so that defeats any intent, planned or not, from the likes of the Shaman to tell pals 'My name is on the list, check the NRF website'.

Sorry, Shaman, but with all your magical powers, incarnations and predicting the future and yet you never saw King Harald's moves were one step ahead of yours!

 

[taogg]

After reading the comments and the NRF website it all makes sense to me this was a brilliant move. If you notice the names, only House of Glucksberg blood relatives are part of the royal and extended family mentioned.

No other person without blood relation to the king will be named on the site, so that defeats any intent, planned or not, from the likes of the Shaman to tell pals 'My name is on the list, check the NRF website'.

Sorry, Shaman, but with all your magical powers, incarnations and predicting the future and yet you never saw King Harald's moves were one step ahead of yours!

I agree with what the previous poster said— the Royal House/Family differentiation doesn’t really make a significant difference to the general public. ML is still a Princess of Norway, and she and her shaman can continue to leverage that title. But I also think that stripping the title from ML could cause even more chaos.

 

[Toledo]

I agree with what the previous poster said— the Royal House/Family differentiation doesn’t really make a significant difference to the general public. ML is still a Princess of Norway, and she and her shaman can continue to leverage that title. But I also think that stripping the title from ML could cause even more chaos.

Hi @taogg , belated welcome to the RFs!

I agree with your comment on the chaos it would create. Imagine Durek marketing to the press victimization for his wife being stripped of a title for marrying him, an ex-five-times USA inmate. Next this you know the Kennedy sisters would give him an award, too.

 

[taogg]

Hi @taogg , belated welcome to the RFs!

I agree with your comment on the chaos it would create. Imagine Durek marketing to the press victimization for his wife being stripped of a title for marrying him, an ex-five-times USA inmate. Next this you know the Kennedy sisters would give him an award, too.

Thank you, Toledo! You've nailed exactly what I was thinking—don’t forget to add the race card into the chaos as well. Then ML and the shaman could become the Norwegian Duke and Duchess of Windsor, giving up the royal title for love.
I know many here want the king to strip ML off her title (I admit, I do too), but I seriously doubt the consequences would be positive. I just see an old man trying to hold everything together, but the outcome, IMO, looks pretty bleak

 

[Toledo]

Thank you, Toledo! You've nailed exactly what I was thinking—don’t forget to add the race card into the chaos as well. Then ML and the shaman could become the Norwegian Duke and Duchess of Windsor, giving up the royal title for love.
I know many here want the king to strip ML off her title (I admit, I do too), but I seriously doubt the consequences would be positive. I just see an old man trying to hold everything together, but the outcome, IMO, looks pretty bleak

I don't agree with removing her title, she was born a princess of the House of Glucksberg and just by association to her Danish ancestry she belongs to the oldest ruling family in Europe. You can't take that away with a document and a signature. Limiting her spouse's intentions to exploit her title is the problem and King Harald did just that by removing non-blood relations from the list in the royal website. Harald won over the Shaman this week without affecting his daughter's title.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I sometimes wonder how meaningful such changes actually are. Royalty, after all, is not something that is solely based around titles or membership of a working monarchy. It's also ancestry and relations. You may want to distance yourself from troublesome family members by making clear that they have no role within the institution, but they are still family members. And their scandals will always fall back on the monarchy, one way or another.

I also don't think the general public cares that much about such differentiations, certainly not as much as we royal watchers.

I think you are exactly right. I think both royal watchers and the general public should take certain elements of monarchies more seriously – especially with issues like the order of succession to the throne and royal immunity from the courts, which have serious practical consequences – but the monarchy must deal with the truth that they do not. That is why, unlike most royal watchers (or so it seems), I disagree with the King's decision of September 3.

Most non-royal-watcher Norwegians will, I believe, view Marius Borg Høiby, Durek Verrett, and the Behns as members of the "royal family" to the extent that headlines about them, good or bad, will be associated with the monarchy and its working royals whether they like it or not.

Some have compared Marius to the stepchildren of King Charles III of the United Kingdom, who unlike Marius were never official members of the British royal family. But Charles III's stepchildren were not raised from the age of four in a royal residence, starring in royal family photoshoots and videos, having his own biography on the royal website, waving to the parade in national dress from the steps of the royal residence on National Days, being publicly embraced (literally and figuratively) by all the senior royals, walking the red carpet at royal events, being the subject of close family stories in the future queen's coming-of-age speech and interview, and having official statements issued, sometimes on the royal website, defending against media coverage of them. (Not to mention that Charles III's stepchildren have not had their foreign employer market them as a "Norwegian prince").

Durek Verrett is much newer to the scene, but the choices he and his wife have made in conducting their commercial lives and public relations have ensured that he is indelibly linked in the public mind to the royal family – and he still has a realistic chance to become Prince Consort of Norway. The Behn sisters, while they may not have explicitly traded on their royal connections, still attract much of their audience due to who they are and, more importantly, they remain in line to be Queen of Norway.

King Harald V's previous definition of the Royal Family simply made the formal definition correspond to the reality of daily life, the constitution, and public perceptions. Since September 3rd, there is now a split between them (and it is interesting that the King's decision hasn't actually redefined the term "Royal Family", he has simply retired the term from official use). That is why I preferred the previous definition, which acknowledged the state of affairs as it actually was.

 

[moby]

Hvilke fordeler gir et diplomatpass?

Dette er reglene som gjelder for diplomatpass i Norge.

www.faktisk.no

Interesting report. But which royals are considered to be on official travel on the time and therefore only have a diplomatic passport?




The poster Somebody found an answer, which I will repost to this thread.

Diplomat in Norway

This guide provides information to diplomats and their families on how the various privileges and immunities under the Vienna Conventions are implemented in Norway, and to offer other information.

www.regjeringen.no

1.10 Family members​

​

Family members forming part of the household of a member of a mission, or a consular officer enjoy the same privileges and immunities as the member of the mission or consular officer. The privileges and immunities of family members forming part of the household are in general considered to be derivative. However, the Vienna Conventions do not provide any definition of the term “family”, and the definition of this term varies from one country to another. It is generally agreed that receiving States may formulate a reasonable definition in order to specify who may enjoy the privileges and immunities of this category of persons.​

​

As a general rule, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs defines the term “family”, for the purposes of the Vienna Conventions, as including:​

​

a spouse, or​

a cohabitant/partner, on condition that this status is legally recognised by the sending State, and​

unmarried children under 21 years of age who are not members of some other household and who reside exclusively in the household of the parent in question.​

​

Children between the ages of 21 and 23 will continue to enjoy privileges and immunities on condition that they are attending an accredited institution of higher learning (i.e. university or similar) on a full-time basis in Norway. In such cases, proof of enrolment must be presented to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs together with the request for the issuance or renewal of the child’s ID card. (See Chapter 7.)​

I believe 1.10 applies to foreign diplomats accredited in Oslo. As to who gets a Norwegian diplomatic passport, or which gets a diplomatic passport in any country, there's almost always a corresponding "Passport Act" that details which individuals are entitled one. It is also not unusual for such laws to include a line that says the Head of State or Minister of Foreign Affairs has the discretion to issue a diplomatic passport to a citizen.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Foreign Affairs Department has provided the press with its list of classes eligible for Norwegian diplomatic passports. The list includes "4. The Royal House and the Royal Family's other members.", "5. Members of the Royal Court and adjutant staff, on request from the Chief of the Court.", and "11. The Royal Family's police escort and bodyguard corps".

Now that there is no longer any official definition of the Royal Family, numbers 4 and 11 will need to be revised.

1 Utenriksdepartementets embets- og tjenestemenn som under utetjeneste tilmeldes med diplomatisk status i mottakerstaten, samt til deres medfølgende familiemedlemmer.
2 Utenriksdepartementets embets- og tjenestemenn som ikke er administrativt personell, under hjemmetjeneste.
3 Spesialutsendinger, andre utsendinger og deres medfølgende familiemedlemmer. En generell betingelse er diplomatisk tilmelding ved en norsk utenriksstasjon med anerkjent diplomatisk tittel (f.eks. handelsråd).
4 Kongehuset og kongefamiliens øvrige medlemmer.
5 Medlemmer av Det kgl. Hoff og adjutantstaben, på anmodning fra Hoffsjefen.
6 Medlemmene av Stortingets presidentskap og leder/nestleder i Utenriks- og forsvarskomiteen.
7 Regjeringens medlemmer.
8 Høyesterettsjustitiarius.
9 Statssekretærer.
10 Politiske rådgivere ved SMK og i UD.
11 Kongefamiliens politieskorte og livvaktavsnittet.
12 Ansatte ved Internasjonal avdeling ved SMK, samt ved behov til medarbeidere ved SMK som regelmessig følger Statsministeren på reiser i utlandet.
13 Unntaksvis til personer med tidsavgrensede offisielle oppdrag i utlandet på vegne av den norske stat, og der det av tjenstlige og/eller sikkerhetsmessige årsaker er klart tilrådelig.

Kilde: UD.​

Derfor får han ikke diplomatpass

Durek Verret har giftet seg inn i kongefamilien. Men det betyr ikke at han får diplomatpass.

www.kk.no

After reading the comments and the NRF website it all makes sense to me this was a brilliant move. If you notice the names, only House of Glucksberg blood relatives are part of the royal and extended family mentioned.

No other person without blood relation to the king will be named on the site, so that defeats any intent, planned or not, from the likes of the Shaman to tell pals 'My name is on the list, check the NRF website'

I don't think the change was about blood relations. Queen Sonja and Crown Princess Mette-Marit, who are not the King's blood relations, remain members of the Royal House and prominently featured on the website, while his Behn granddaughters, who are the King's blood relations, are no longer recognized members of the Royal Family.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

I was a bit surprised that Prince Sverre Magnus is classified as Other Royals. I thought he remained in the "core" royals

Prince Sverre Magnus has never been considered a member of the Royal House.
That has always been -
T.M. The King and Queen
T.R.H. The Crown Prince and Crown Princess
H.R.H. Princess Ingrid Alexandra

Prince Sverre Magnus is still (according to his father) not expected to become an H.R.H. and not expected to become a working royal… We are many who hope that decision will change, given how small and vulnerable that family are, but the plan is for him to virtually be a private citizen.

 

[taogg]

Prince Sverre Magnus has never been considered a member of the Royal House.
That has always been -
T.M. The King and Queen
T.R.H. The Crown Prince and Crown Princess
H.R.H. Princess Ingrid Alexandra

Prince Sverre Magnus is still (according to his father) not expected to become an H.R.H. and not expected to become a working royal… We are many who hope that decision will change, given how small and vulnerable that family are, but the plan is for him to virtually be a private citizen.

I also hope that Prince Sverre Magnus is considered a working royal or at least a member of the royal household, especially before his sister marries. With both MM's and the King's health limiting their public engagements, the Norwegian royal household is already quite small and could really use the added support

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Would those who advocate for Prince Sverre Magnus to become a member of the Royal House also be in favor of restoring Princess Astrid's membership of the Royal House, which she, like her sister, lost for marrying a commoner? After all, Princess Astrid has served Norway as a full- and part-time working royal for much longer than her great-nephew probably ever will.

Moved the conversation about plans for Prince Sverre Magnus here:

The Future of the Norwegian Monarchy

:previous: You make some quite good points, particularly in regard to cultural bias and blurred lines between institution and family (which apply to all monarchies). To address your question no. 3 about the membership of the Royal House: In Norway, a distinction is made (particularly in the...

www.theroyalforums.com

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Også kongelige kan straffes. Grunnlovens immunitet er ikke absolutt.

Kongehuset og kongefamiliens medlemmer er til en viss grad beskyttet mot straffeforfølgelse, ifølge Grunnloven. Men immuniteten er ikke absolutt.

www.vg.no

This is another article on Article 37 of the Constitution, which reads:

Article 37.

The Royal Princes and Princesses shall not personally be answerable to anyone other than the King, or whomever he decrees to sit in judgment on them.

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway - Lovdata

lovdata.no

It quotes an interesting argument from former civil ombudsman and supreme court lawyer Arne Fliflet. He points out that Article 96 of the Constitution states "No one may be sentenced except according to law, or be punished except after a court judgment." In his opinion, this means "the King" in Article 37 (as a reminder, most legal theorists read constitutional references to "the King" to mean "the Government") cannot pass a sentence and, if the King wishes a punishment to be imposed, the King must delegate sentencing to a court of law using the "whomever he decrees to sit in judgment on them" clause of article 37.


Most of the article consists of quoting longtime legal experts on whether they believe queens consort and crown princesses consort are covered under article 37.

Carl August Fleischer, an expert in international and state law, believes consorts are not covered, since they are not specifically mentioned.

Eivind Smith, an expert in administrative and constitutional law, considers Mette-Marit to be covered because she has the title of Princess and Sonja to be covered because she formerly had it when she was Crown Princess, and because Article 37 does not specifically say "those who are entitled to succeed to the Crown" as in Article 34. (So if King Harald V were to remarry, would Mr. Smith argue that his second wife would not have immunity since she would never have been a Princess? And in my view the Article 34 comparison is not a good one, mainly because the current version of Article 34 eliminated a privilege while Article 37 is conferring a privilege).

The mid-19th century legal theorist Peder Krabbe Gaarder deemed "princes and princesses" to refer only to the king's marital-born children, but not his grandchildren. However, Gaarder believed that the King's immunity under article 5 of the Constitution extended to the queen consort.

Frede Castberg, constitutional law expert, wrote in 1935 that Article 37's provision for "princes and princesses" must apply to the queen consort by "analogical usage".


Given the unclarity of Article 37 and the disunity of expert opinion about whether spouses have immunity, wouldn't it be prudent for the authorities to decide on their interpretation before a royal spouse is investigated for potentially illegal behavior?

 

[Somebody]

And except for Haakon, Mette Marit and Ingrid-Alexandra, the other three prince(sse)s are no (longer) royal highnesses, so if we are being literal they aren't royal princes or princesses either...

 

[LadyFinn]

Nettavisen about Durek's possibility to get a diplomatic passport
It is an absolute requirement to be a Norwegian citizen to obtain a diplomatic passport.
Nettavisen has tried to contact Verrett and ask if he plans to apply for Norwegian citizenship, but Durek has not answered yet.
Nettavisen's royal house expert Tove Taalesen:
- I take it as a matter of course that he will apply for citizenship when he has the opportunity. He has married into the most Norwegian of Norwegians. He has hijacked the princess and half the kingdom, and I see it as natural that he will also apply for Norwegian citizenship.
If Verrett were to become a Norwegian citizen, it is not the case that he will automatically receive a diplomatic passport. It will still be up to the Royal Household if they wish to send an official request to the UDI where they expressly justify the issue of an official passport.

Dette må til for at Durek Verrett skal få diplomatpass

Én stor hindring ligger mellom sjamanen og det gjeve reisedokumentet.

www.nettavisen.no