Engagement of Princess Märtha Louise and Durek Verrett: June 7, 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Now is up to the government to set this couple up straight that they can marry but she is not going to be part of the succession line if they reject this charlatan for good.

It's not up to them. The Constitution not only has it as a matter of the monarch's consent, not theirs, Harald himself established a precedent that it was entirely up to him and not them when Haakon wanted to marry Mette-Marit.
 
The problem is that in Norway (like in most other monarchies), she only needs the permission of the Sovereign. Given Harald's own history with a father who refused to give permission for him to marry for many years, it seems he is rather 'soft' in this issue and decided that he will support his children in their choice of partners no matter what...

Personally, I think a system in which parliament has to approve a royal marriage is preferable over the one in which it is only a close family member deciding.
 
Do I get this right, Harald V has consented even if he did not spell it out exactly? Would this be valid, if the non-thinkable tragedy strikes?
But I guess law or not, ML and her conman would never be Q&K, it would be the end of the monarchy in Norway.
 
Do I get this right, Harald V has consented even if he did not spell it out exactly? Would this be valid, if the non-thinkable tragedy strikes?
But I guess law or not, ML and her conman would never be Q&K, it would be the end of the monarchy in Norway.

It's pretty odd, considering ML has by most accounts been offered the chance to be queen not once but twice (before the reform and by Haakon prior to getting married) and both times fairly vehemently said "nei".

Since she doesn't actually want to be the monarch by anyone's stretch of the imagination, why not just take the opportunity to bow out and save her country and family all this stress?
 
The problem is that in Norway (like in most other monarchies), she only needs the permission of the Sovereign. Given Harald's own history with a father who refused to give permission for him to marry for many years, it seems he is rather 'soft' in this issue and decided that he will support his children in their choice of partners no matter what...

Personally, I think a system in which parliament has to approve a royal marriage is preferable over the one in which it is only a close family member deciding.
In Belgium, the constitution says that the King gives consent to marriages of people in the line of succession (hereafter referred to as "royal marriages"), but consent is declared by means of a royal decree which must be countersigned by a responsible minister. So, in practice, the person who gets married needs the dual consent of the King and the government.

On the other hand, the monarch must give his/her consent to a royal marriage in a meeting of the Privy Council in the UK or a meeting of the Council of State in Denmark. So, in accordance with the constitutional practice in those countries, it is implied that consent is granted by the King/Queen in Council, rather than the King/Queen personally, therefore also with the consent of the government.

The Act of Succession in Sweden says in turn that consent to royal marriages is explicitly given by the government, but the government can only give its consent upon a request by the monarch. So, again in practice, dual consent of the monarch and the government is required.

The Netherlands and Spain are the only European kingdoms where Parliament is explicitly involved in the process. In the Netherlands, consent must be given in the form of an act of Parliament passed in a joint session of the two houses, but a bill to that end must be introduced exclusively by the government on behalf of the King/Queen, so pre-approval by the government is needed. Spain, on the other hand, is somewhat odd because the Spanish constitution of 1978 does not explicitly require official consent to marriages of people in the line of succession, but the constitution allows the monarch and the Parliament to jointly forbid such marriages, in which case the person who gets married and the future descendants of the marriage lose their succession rights if the marriage takes place despite the prohibition. The important point though is that neither the monarch nor the Parliament can individually prohibit a marriage; the prohibition is legally binding only if both the monarch and the Parliament agree to it.

I am aware that King Harald V has declared in the past that he personally interprets the Norwegian constitution as vesting the power to consent to marriages of princes of the royal house in the King alone. However, even though the Norwegian constitution, unlike in Denmark and unlike in British law, does not explicitly say that consent must be given "in Council", I still feel that the King's interpretation is at odds with Norwegian constitutional doctrine. I say so because it is currently implied that all references in the constitution to official acts of "the King" are interpreted as acts of the King in Council. In any case, I don't think the King could realistically consent to a marriage despite an advice to the contrary by the government without triggering a constitutional crisis in practice.
 
Last edited:
Historically it would be helpful/interesting to refer back to the actual words and setting that Harold used to officially consent to the marriages of Haakon and Mette- Marit, and also when ML married Ari. One would think it would have been much more official than howdy, welcome to the fam.

Btw, the above discussions have been fascinating to read and much appreciated. Shaman Durek is a real piece of work i.e. rhymes with fuzz ball to say the least.
 
When Haakon married it was said that the King har told (orientert) the State council that his son would get married, after the state council a letter from the King to the Stortinget with this message was read out loud by the president of Stortinget.


The PM has said the King had discussed it with him beforehand and Haakon also said this in his recent book.

When the engagement of ML and Ari Behn was anounced it was said that the King had told (orientert) the PM Bondevik.

In the Norwegian constitution there are both articles that imply the King as the King in state council, but also the King as only the King.
 
As Prinsara and Mbruno pointed out, King Harald V claimed at the time of Crown Prince Haakon's engagement that he, the King, was entitled to unilaterally authorize marriages under article 36 of the Constitution even without the Government's consent. Below is Royal Norway's post about that event for those who have not viewed it before:

To those who are interested, here's some information about it:

Haakon has said in interviews that when he told his parents about MM's past, the King said, "Is it more?" To which Haakon replied "no" - and the King said that "Dette klarer vi!" (''We'll manage this!'')

And then to the constitutional stuff:

According to the then Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, the King called him to the palace before the engagement - and informed him that Haakon wanted to marry MM.
He told the PM that he knew about Article 36 in the Constitution, which states:

He explained that he understood that when the word "King" is written in the Constitution, it had to be interpreted as "the King in Council of State'' (which, today, means the government).

But after that, the King said the following: ''Men akkurat når det gjelder denne paragrafen om at kongen må godkjenne kronprinsens ekteskap, vil jeg mene at kongen faktisk er kongen, det vil si meg – og ikke deg''.
("But just when it comes to this Article about that the King must approve the Crown Prince's marriage, I would think that the King is actually the King, that means me - and not you.")

And then it was done, neither Stoltenberg nor any other prime minister could do anything about it.
 
It's pretty odd, considering ML has by most accounts been offered the chance to be queen not once but twice (before the reform and by Haakon prior to getting married) and both times fairly vehemently said "nei".

Since she doesn't actually want to be the monarch by anyone's stretch of the imagination, why not just take the opportunity to bow out and save her country and family all this stress?

Bow out of being titled Princess?
Nah, she just bowed out from doing any royal work.

I have to say it's a very informal consent from the King that took place. Not so straight forward that many are confused.
 
Bow out of being titled Princess?

No, bow out of the line of succession. She can keep the Princess title. I don't care and I doubt anyone else does about that.

Afaik ML was liked by her patronages and with the very limited amount of princessing she formerly did, so it's a bit of a shame she can't actually do something people benefited from.
 
Afaik ML was liked by her patronages and with the very limited amount of princessing she formerly did, so it's a bit of a shame she can't actually do something people benefited from.

Relatedly, the solution chosen by the King and supported by the public (stripping the princess of her limited patronage engagements but maintaining her rights to the throne) seems backward to me.

If the issue is her suitability to represent, how can an individual deemed unsuitable even as a patron of a few charitable organizations still be officially deemed suitable to represent and lead an entire country as its head of state?

If the issue is the supposed unfairness of "punishing" an adult for her choice of spouse, is it not a harsher punishment to remove the princess from charitable work which she enjoyed and earned her the appreciation of at least some members of the public, compared to taking away the already slim possibility of a job (queen) that she never wanted in the first place?


It's pretty odd, considering ML has by most accounts been offered the chance to be queen not once but twice (before the reform and by Haakon prior to getting married) and both times fairly vehemently said "nei".

Since she doesn't actually want to be the monarch by anyone's stretch of the imagination, why not just take the opportunity to bow out and save her country and family all this stress?

It would not be the first time her actions have seemed contradictory, but I also wonder if perhaps King Harald V and/or Crown Prince Haakon want her and/or her daughters (since if the Constitution is interpreted literally, their rights to the throne would also be endangered if their mother remarried without constitutional authorization) to remain in line to the throne for one reason or another.
 
Back
Top Bottom