Crown Princess Mette-Marit's connection with Jeffrey Epstein

[Mbruno]

That is certainly an optimistic take. In some circles, unfortunately, the novel is still categorized as erotic fiction, and while more nuanced and feminist readings exist, there are still those who insist on framing HH as a sincere victim and Dolores as a manipulative figure. We do not know what was discussed regarding the book, and why it was recommended, but the fact that it was discussed at all is disturbing, and it reflects a troubling sympathy on MM’s part toward a convicted child sex offender such as Epstein.

The Norwegian Book Clubs included Lolita in its famous 2002 list of top 100 books of all times. Although it is a Norwegian-published list, it was actually compiled based on a survey of 100 renowned authors in 54 countries, I think.

 

[LadyFinn]

The Norwegian Rheumatology Association:
Today, February 5, the NRF has sent a letter to the Palace requesting an explanation about HRH the Crown Princess's contact with Jeffrey Epstein.
The NRF's board of directors held a meeting on February 5 to discuss the information that has emerged in the media regarding the Crown Princess and her contact with Jeffrey Epstein. HRH Crown Princess Mette-Marit has been the association's royal patron since 2023.
NRF Association Leader, Marleen Rones says:
– In a board meeting today, we decided to send a letter to the Palace. We believe it is important to get more information about the matter before we make a decision.
We therefore urge the Royal House to provide an account of the matter as soon as possible and what the truth is about the Crown Princess's contact with Jeffrey Epstein, as Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre so clearly urged earlier this week. We believe it is crucial to shed further light on the matter, so that we can consider further cooperation.
We look forward to receiving a report.

Brev til Slottet om Kronprinsessens kontakt med Jeffrey Epstein | Norsk Revmatikerforbund

NRF har i dag, 5. februar, sendt et brev til Slottet der vi ber om en redegjørelse om H.K.H. Kronprinsessens kontakt med Jeffrey Epstein.

www.revmatiker.no

​

Mette-Marit and Epstein's hairdresser
Philippe Barr (Epstein's hairdresser for 15 years) says he cut both Epstein and Mette-Marit's hair at the house in Palm Beach.
VG met him on Palm Beach in. When they said they are journalists from Norway, Barr immediately understood who they want to talk about and said: "I remember her. She was beautiful, a real lady".
He has been her hairdresser on at least two occasions, he has been with Mette-Marit and Epstein in Epstein's luxury villa in Palm Beach.
VG has asked the Palace's communications manager Guri Varpe, whether Mette-Marit was cut by Epstein's hairdresser, but hasn't got an answer.

Epsteins frisør til VG: – Jeg klippet prinsessens hår

Philippe Barr, Jeffrey Epsteins frisør gjennom 15 år, sier han klippet både Epstein og kronprinsesse Mette-Marit i huset i Palm Beach.

www.vg.no

 

[Moran]

Looks like MM is on her way to be free of some of the things that bored her so much. If it wasn't done in this way and circumstances, she might have even been relieved.

I can't fathom how MM wouldn't think it important enough when it had already escalated to the moment of her being forced to give explanations - perhaps she (or someone with more of a common sense) had cleared her own e-mails and she couldn't remember. And the Palace flew with the time she gave but since it's now been proven incorrect, they don't care to repeat the experience or say explicitly, "We were lied to". It would defy their own main purpose - to clear her image as much as possible.

 

[Maryrose]

I wonder if she will voluntarily step down from all her patronages and save herself more embarrassment. Family issues and her health could be used as an excuse.

 

[tihkon2]

I wonder if she will voluntarily step down from all her patronages and save herself more embarrassment. Family issues and her health could be used as an excuse.

I doubt it. She has awful judgement. So don't expect her to do the right thing.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Regarding MM's comment about the GD wedding seeming like an old film, what did she mean by adding"you know the characters won't be sticking around for long".

I cannot figure out what she meant there...any ideas?

 

[An Ard Ri]

Regarding MM's comment about the GD wedding seeming like an old film, what did she mean by adding"you know the characters won't be sticking around for long".

I cannot figure out what she meant there...any ideas?

Asides from being plain nasty I think she meant that it was so boring that everyone left!
She was probably all smiles to them too and then says that about them afterwards.
As the saying goes about showing your True Colours and she has , I would have always had time for her in the past but not anymore.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Nobody left the ceremony that I know of...I understand that dancing was canceled at the pre-wedding Gala due to Court mourning for Comtesse Alix. I can see MM being disappointed by that, even though one would hope the other guests understood.

All I can remember of the festivities was that it was very "grand", and the guests looked magnificent in all their jewels and decorations the night before.

Oh well. Too bad HRH didn't have any fun.

Thank you An Ard Ri.

 

[Somebody]

Regarding MM's comment about the GD wedding seeming like an old film, what did she mean by adding"you know the characters won't be sticking around for long".

I cannot figure out what she meant there...any ideas?

My initial interpretation was that she expected a quick divorce. I don’t think that in anyway reflected the couple but if anything it was a reflection of herself.

 

[tihkon2]

Regarding MM's comment about the GD wedding seeming like an old film, what did she mean by adding"you know the characters won't be sticking around for long".

I cannot figure out what she meant there...any ideas?

I read it as "These 2 aren't main characters so no one will care about this very much and they'll disappear from our interest as soon as this wedding is over."

 

[Moran]

Oh well. Too bad HRH didn't have any fun.

I can imagine how bored everyone was at her own wedding. Since she was in her "woe is me but I'll do better from now on" phase, I doubt she offered serviettes with naked women or any drugs.

 

[Queen Claude]

Regarding MM's comment about the GD wedding seeming like an old film, what did she mean by adding"you know the characters won't be sticking around for long".

I cannot figure out what she meant there...any ideas?

The full quote:

"Boring wedding. Was like some kind of old movie. Where you know the characters are not hanging around for much long"​

I took it to mean that it was a boring event and that the attendees would not be sticking around for long.

 

[hereditarytitles]

One thing must be said: none of us knows Mette personally. The image we have of her is based on many years of observing her behavior and knowledge of her past, for which she has publicly apologized.

Whether this apology was sincere or made under pressure from her family, we do not know. But what has now become clear through the publication of her contacts with Epstein is her attitude, both toward her work as crown princess and her moral values. She probably finds all the other royals she has met “conformist, boring, and uninteresting.”

Of course, she liked her former life somehow, otherwise she wouldn't have stayed in it for so long. There were also emails about “fitting dresses, that's just the princess's job,” which, apart from all her other statements, shows how reluctant she was to perform these duties. And then she, of all people, takes on sponsorships for such sensitive issues as “sexual exploitation of women” and so on. .
In retrospect, it was unfortunate that Haakon fell in love with her. It could have worked out, but obviously it didn't. Mette would probably have been better off with some rich man who could have offered her a life of luxury without any official obligations.
But her “prince charming” happened to be a Norwegian crown prince, and she seized the opportunity without understanding the social, obligatory, and moral principles that go with it.

 

[An Ard Ri]

I can imagine how bored everyone was at her own wedding. Since she was in her "woe is me but I'll do better from now on" phase, I doubt she offered serviettes with naked women or any drugs.

Given that poor Stephanie had just lost her mother before the wedding , MM's comments are even more distasteful and down right insensitive.
(I had forgotten about the death of Countess Alix prior to the wedding)
Goodness knows what else is in the unreleased files if she appeared over 1,000 times in the released ones!

 

[EvaH]

Interestingly, I thought she meant that they would get a divorce/wouldn't stay together for long.

My initial interpretation was that she expected a quick divorce. I don’t think that in anyway reflected the couple but if anything it was a reflection of herself.

Same! I believe she thought they would be divorced, probably because she couldn't see the "passion" (people used to say the same of the Wales')

 

[Mbruno]

My initial interpretation was that she expected a quick divorce. I don’t think that in anyway reflected the couple but if anything it was a reflection of herself.

My initial interpretation was that It was a veiled reference to Guillaume’s rumored sexual orientation, but that is a pretty cynical interpretation which I cannot corroborate.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

Regarding MM's comment about the GD wedding seeming like an old film, what did she mean by adding"you know the characters won't be sticking around for long".

I cannot figure out what she meant there...any ideas?

She probably viewed (and likely still views) Gulliaume and Stephanie as so boring and mismatched persons that she thought they would divorce…

My spontaneous reaction is that it was more telling of the state of Haakon’s and Mette-Marit’s own marriage, than of Gulliaume’s and Stephanie’s…

Aside from that sms being very inappropriate, she also took a big risk by writing such things over sms clearly believing that noone else than her and Epstein would read it…. Phones and computers easily gets hacked nowdays… Even ”secure lines” can get hacked by those who really knows how to do it…

She has willingly and repeatedly put the Norwegian RF at very big security risks over the years and made them very vulnerable, obviously without thinking twice…

One cannot help but wonder what is not boring for her… Marius drug-parties perhaps ? A culture she herself has a very long experience of…

Noone questions that royal life must sometimes be incredibly hard, difficult, and yes probably even boring. Especially for those who were not born into it and suddenly is expected to act and behave as if they were…. Luckily most ”married-in” royals have judgement abilities though…

 

[sm1939]

I though she meant that there was lots of people who were over quite old at the wedding ,

 

[kalnel]

I though she meant that there was lots of people who were over quite old at the wedding ,

I did, too. I thought she was saying most of the guests were so old they wouldn’t be alive much longer.

 

[Moran]

I did, too. I thought she was saying most of the guests were so old they wouldn’t be alive much longer.

What a vulgar way to express it, then! I'll give it to their PR, they completely managed to sell the image of someone who had outgrown their unfortunate genes and nurture to me. But since she didn't need to present an image for her sweetness, I guess we're treated to the real MM now.

What's wrong with Haakon, with being attracted to THAT?

 

[theroyalfly]

I've always felt something terrible about her. Haakon showed poor judgment in marrying her. King Harald shares the blame. Princess Ragnhild would turn in her grave. She's beyond redemption.

There was a time when Guillaume, who was then HGD, was involved in a serious romance with Haakon's cousin Pia Haraldsen, whom he had met at the wedding of Mette-Marit and Haakon.

It looked for a while like Guillaume and Pia would go the distance. I can see both Haakon and Mette-Marit facilitating the
relationship and growing closer to the Lux Royals as a result.

But once the relationship with Pia ended, it could be that the connection with the GD family gradually became less close.

I wonder if the same thing happened to Haakon and Felipe. They were so close during Felipe's relationship with Eva. He was even made a godfather to Ingrid Alexandra.

 

[bh555]

Remember how much hassle she gave her dad ? She is way worse than her dad and her dad has more morals than Epstein !!

 

[Muhler]

I don't know what she meant and I do not care.

It was a very immature and insensitive thing to write - to anyone.

A royal wedding is a part of the royal show and depending on the local custom, traditions and expectations it is celebrated the way it is. You can't dance on the tables or snort funny-powder.

If she had written, that the wedding was a bit subdued and expressed understanding for that, given the circumstances, then it would IMO be more acceptable.
But here it leaves the impression that MM has never really understood her role as a royal and never really understood that other rules apply for royals.
It baffles me that she cannot comprehend that and understand that a very merry wedding shortly after a death in the family will be considered inappropriate.

We are seeing MM's true character here - and it's a childish, immature and to be honest not particularly bright character, lacking empathy.

If it isn't fun, then it's boooring! And I get the impression that she'd prefer to opt out when she possibly could from the tedious bits of her position.

- Well, MM will go down in royal history as the one who put and end to heirs just marrying whomever they want for love. The future vetting processes in the European monarchies will be much stricter from now on, I'm convinced.

 

[Moran]

I don't know what she meant and I do not care.

But here it leaves the impression that MM has never really understood her role as a royal and never really understood that other rules apply for royals.
It baffles me that she cannot comprehend that and understand that a very merry wedding shortly after a death in the family will be considered inappropriate.

Same here. I don't understand either.

And I think it didn't take a royal wedding but just a wedding to tone it down when the mother of the bride had just died.

I guess the newlyweds were lucky that she didn't offer some white around or start waiting the tables to liven it up.

 

[tommy100]

Just shows IMO that MM is very very different from many of her European counterparts - even those who married in. I am sure most others probably thought the wedding sweet, touching and heart warming, especially given the circumstances and being so close to the death of the mother of the bride. Likewise, I am sure many of them may have been bored at times, it as a long wedding (as Catholic services can sometimes seem) especially for those who aren't catholic themselves, and a lot of it was carried out in French, Luxembourgish and German as well as English.
The difference is none of MM's counterparts would dream of saying it was boring outloud even if they thought it, and certainly would never glibly remark it to someone in an email.

 

[TRL]

Sorry if that has already been mentioned, but did Epstein recommend the book Lolita to Mette-Marit or the other way around? Because Epstein also referred to his private plane (on which he trafficked underage girls) as the Lolita Express...

IIRC, it was the Mirror who first coined the term "Lolita Express" in 2015.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

I don't know what she meant and I do not care.

It was a very immature and insensitive thing to write - to anyone.

A royal wedding is a part of the royal show and depending on the local custom, traditions and expectations it is celebrated the way it is. You can't dance on the tables or snort funny-powder.

If she had written, that the wedding was a bit subdued and expressed understanding for that, given the circumstances, then it would IMO be more acceptable.
But here it leaves the impression that MM has never really understood her role as a royal and never really understood that other rules apply for royals.
It baffles me that she cannot comprehend that and understand that a very merry wedding shortly after a death in the family will be considered inappropriate.

We are seeing MM's true character here - and it's a childish, immature and to be honest not particularly bright character, lacking empathy.

If it isn't fun, then it's boooring! And I get the impression that she'd prefer to opt out when she possibly could from the tedious bits of her position.

- Well, MM will go down in royal history as the one who put and end to heirs just marrying whomever they want for love. The future vetting processes in the European monarchies will be much stricter from now on, I'm convinced.

I think the vetting process in the Euro monarchies is fine - we can see that with commoner consorts (present and future) of Mary, Daniel, Maxima, Letizia, Charlene and Catherine, and noble consorts (present and future) of Mathilde, Stephanie and Sophie (Liechtenstein). The issue is in Norway alone; and I suspect Harald and Sonja didn't want their son and daughter to have to go through what they did, and thus, were a lot more lenient with their children. Perhaps the Norwegian constitution needs to be amended that the marriage of prince/ess need to be approved by government, just other European monarchies

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Perhaps the Norwegian constitution needs to be amended that the marriage of prince/ess need to be approved by government, just other European monarchies

Normally, the Constitution's references to "the King" are interpreted as "the King and Government", or, more bluntly, "the Government, with the King rubber-stamping its decisions".

This is the case in most European monarchies.

For example, the Constitution states that the King appoints the Prime Minister (Article 12), but in practice the King appoints whomever politicians have chosen as Prime Minister based on the results of elections and party negotiations.

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway - Lovdata

The Constitution

lovdata.no

However, when Crown Prince Haakon was engaged to marry Mette-Marit Tjessem Høiby, King Harald V claimed that for marriage approval (Article 36) only, "the King" should be interpreted as "Harald personally".

The then prime minister Jens Stoltenberg acquiesced to that dubious constitutional interpretation.

See @ROYAL NORWAY's post here for details:

Opposition to Royal Marriages

:previous: I don't know "for sure" but the components of the tiara date back to Queen Victoria's time so I don't think that Queen would give her son carte blanche. I tend to think that the Queen had a hand in it because other jewels that have been created on QEII's watch ranged from meh to...

www.theroyalforums.com

So I would say there is no need for an amendment, just for the King to give up his arbitrary, illogical interpretation of Article 36 of the Constitution, or for a Prime Minister to put their foot down and insist that "the King" in Article 36 means the same thing as "the King" in every other place in the Constitution.

I think the vetting process in the Euro monarchies is fine - we can see that with commoner consorts (present and future) of Mary, Daniel, Maxima, Letizia, Charlene and Catherine, and noble consorts (present and future) of Mathilde, Stephanie and Sophie (Liechtenstein).

Regardless of how good they may be as consorts, I don't think all of the listed spouses were vetted. Daniel Westling certainly wasn't: The King of Sweden only notified the Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of the engagement immediately before the announcement, and the prime minister signed his approval immediately afterwards, treating it as a mere formality.

ETA: Perhaps I should move this to Opposition to Royal Marriages ?

 

[Somebody]

Indeed. The government is also to blame for allowing Harald's dubious interpretation of the Constitution - even more so, since it led to multiple dubious spouses within the Norwegian royal family.

Apparently, even the king himself was worried that the government would not be happy with Mette-Marit as future queen - otherwise, there would have been little reason to stress that point.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

Normally, the Constitution's references to "the King" are interpreted as "the King and Government", or, more bluntly, "the Government, with the King rubber-stamping its decisions".

This is the case in most European monarchies.

For example, the Constitution states that the King appoints the Prime Minister (Article 12), but in practice the King appoints whomever politicians have chosen as Prime Minister based on the results of elections and party negotiations.

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway - Lovdata

The Constitution

lovdata.no

However, when Crown Prince Haakon was engaged to marry Mette-Marit Tjessem Høiby, King Harald V claimed that for marriage approval (Article 36) only, "the King" should be interpreted as "Harald personally".

The then prime minister Jens Stoltenberg acquiesced to that dubious constitutional interpretation.

See @ROYAL NORWAY's post here for details:

Opposition to Royal Marriages

:previous: I don't know "for sure" but the components of the tiara date back to Queen Victoria's time so I don't think that Queen would give her son carte blanche. I tend to think that the Queen had a hand in it because other jewels that have been created on QEII's watch ranged from meh to...

www.theroyalforums.com

So I would say there is no need for an amendment, just for the King to give up his arbitrary, illogical interpretation of Article 36 of the Constitution, or for a Prime Minister to put their foot down and insist that "the King" in Article 36 means the same thing as "the King" in every other place in the Constitution.



Regardless of how good they may be as consorts, I don't think all of the listed spouses were vetted. Daniel Westling certainly wasn't: The King of Sweden only notified the Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of the engagement immediately before the announcement, and the prime minister signed his approval immediately afterwards, treating it as a mere formality.

ETA: Perhaps I should move this to Opposition to Royal Marriages ?

Although there was no proof that Daniel was vetted, there is no proof that he wasn't either - stating that he certainly wasn't is a false assumption imho. Vetting isn't about the formalities, it's about suitability. Had there been massive red flags, the government of the day may have not approved the marriage. Obviously, this is not the same in Norway....