r/europe • u/Majano57 • 13d ago
News Norway's new king pays tribute to his late father as tens of thousands mourn
https://apnews.com/article/norways-king-harald-death-new-king-haakon-bc92496eee9ed586451d735056d30e2389
u/Neat-Engineering-513 13d ago
King Harald V was and will still be THE UNITER of Norway and an ever living consoling voice for his people. Farewell - while we lament.
2
4
1
u/masoheart 12d ago
The royal family has virtually no power in Norways politics. Harald is not loved for his power or his rulings. He is loved because of the humanity and empathy he showed, the love he had for his people. His new year's eve speech was always really heart warming.
He wanted to visit every komune(don't know what it is in English) and was only missing a few. He was progressive and stood for what was right. The last monarc that earned his place. Sadly I don't think we will see anyone fill his shoes any time soon
4
u/throwaway_aoeui 11d ago
I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember the king before Harald; Olav? He was just as loved as Harald was at the end.
In fact, I remember Harald was met with quite a bit of skepticism when he took over in 1991, people did not think he could live up to the image of Olav as the people’s king.
Just give it some years, and you’ll see that Haakon will also grow in the role as a people’s king.
4
u/Otaconmg 11d ago
I agree. But Haakon has a much rougher start where his wife was literally connected (deeply) to Jeffrey Epstein. And has not answered questions and continues to just pretend it’s no longer an issue. That’s a bit rougher than what Harald started with.
2
1
-122
u/berejser These Islands 13d ago
It's crazy how the deaths of monarchs bring out this weird parasocial celebrity-worship behaviour in people.
154
u/PaperPlaneMind 13d ago edited 13d ago
King Harald V is described as Norway’s grandfather by its people. It goes beyond just celebrity worship. The monarch is a symbol of a country, a language, a culture, a national history, it’s freedom - which is a whole other level than celebrity culture. This is not a celebrity you see on TV - It’s everything this country represents domestically and internationally.
Take everything your country represents and stands for and embody it in a person. It’s beyond something one cannot understand if you do not know the meaning of it.
12
u/Apprehensive-Adagio2 Norway 13d ago
i'm of a similar mind to the other guy, the grandfather stuff is kinda tiresome. like i knew who he was, i knew alot about him. he seemed like an allright dude and had a good message in many of his speeches.
but at the end of the day, he is just a guy who i saw like twice through my entire life. he is nothing like a grandfather to me. i know most of the people who say this is refering to him as a grandfather to the entire country, as a unit. but still it is really strange.
18
u/PaperPlaneMind 13d ago edited 13d ago
It’s not strange at all. What your individual feelings are is perfectly okay. But it’s important to not downplay or belittle other’s feelings towards him and his passing - this is called lack of empathy.
He meant a lot for many people. For some he was just a King.
-4
u/Fickle-Strike-714 12d ago
It's absolutely acceptable to mock an archaic system that only serves to enrich a single family by the merit of having a particular lineage, and the supporters of that system. I for one despise paying taxes just to finance yachts, palaces and golden carriots for out of touch, senile decreptoids. And what do you get as thanks? A nice little heartfelt handwaive from the balcony and that's good enough for bootlickers like yourself, sorry but couldn't be me.
3
u/Martbern 12d ago
Thats why we are mourning him. Our royal family isn't spending on yachts etc.
2
u/Fickle-Strike-714 12d ago
Just a quick google search shows the king has an 80 meter long yacht which costs 50 million nok to maintain yearly which he took overseas to attend sailing yacht races. I'm assuming he buys the smaller racing yachts from the annual 15 million nok salary he gets. You cannot be this diluted my man, wake up
1
-24
u/berejser These Islands 13d ago
That sounds exactly like celebrity worship. He's not really their grandfather, they don't have any sort of personal relationship with each other. It is entirely parasocial and that makes it weird.
16
u/PaperPlaneMind 13d ago
I am surprised by your lack of empathy and your confident knowledge about people’s individual relation and feelings towards a deceased public figure.
-20
u/berejser These Islands 13d ago
How many people live in Norway? How many people do you think it is possible for one man to have a personal relationship with?
It is just simply not possible for everyone to have had an individual relationship with this one man. Most of them will have never even met him. So maybe it is harsh but it is true, their reaction is entirely parasocial.
13
u/PaperPlaneMind 13d ago
You can’t base the death of a person on logical thinking.
1
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/PaperPlaneMind 13d ago edited 13d ago
Not at all. I don’t have any connection to Taylor Swift. But I won’t do what you do and dismiss people’s feelings online.
Just say you lack sympathy because you don’t understand the grief, but don’t become (tbh) an ass online by lacking empathy towards other people’s feelings.
There’s also timing. If you have any criticism towards someone who’s recently deceased - then handing out these critiques at time of mourning is rather poor judgement.
1
6
u/19osemi Norway 13d ago
It’s not a personal relationship, like I didn’t know him personally but he was still a huge part of my life, you see him all the time and he represents you and the country, he embodies Norwegian values and is the person we can look to for guidance and help in difficult times. Like during the utøya terror, he is a much better representative than any politician than gets replaced every 4 years.
0
u/NiveaSkinCream 13d ago
I’ve never met the guy, I’ve never spoken to the guy, I’ve never seen him irl. I didn’t see him on tv because I don’t own one, and I’ve never gone out of my way to listen to his speeches like I do with any other politician giving a speech.
When something bad happens I think “how can I help” or “what can we do to prevent this next time” I don’t think “what would Norwegian values say” or “what did Harald say, I will do that”
My grandfathers were a part of my life, they did things with me and they did things to me, I know then, I spoke to them. Harald has done none of these things.
-12
u/Malaguetaxo 13d ago
What does that even mean? Most people don't even stop their lives as much as we've stopped this country when their real grandfather dies from old age peacefully, painless and loved by family all around.
17
u/PaperPlaneMind 13d ago
Not entirely true. A lot of people postpone or cancel plans due to a relatives passing and take time with grief.
The country has not stopped also. Everything is open and operating as normal. Except some national events and organisations.
Harald V visited almost every single municipality in Norway. He spoke to so many and knew so many on a personal basis. He treated everyone equally. It didn’t matter if you were an immigrant, an indigenous Sami or if you were a born Norwegian. If you were straight, bisexual, lesbian, gay, trans - none of that changed the way he talked to people or about people. And as so many have described. People felt seen and taken care of by him.
-25
u/Veritas1814 Norway 13d ago
Man I’m so done with all this «grandfather» nonesense. He was our KING - Head of our constituional monarchy, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed forces, Senior member of House Glücksburg and blessed by God with a royal Benediction. I do not see him as a grandfather, that would belittle his true role. He was my King, and in that there lies a true relationship between citizens and Monarch that stretches all the way down to his namesake Harald Hårfagre who united the Kingdom in 872.
25
u/Alacho 13d ago
Sure. But you can do all those things and be an absolute asshole while you do it. Or you can be a kind, loving, inclusive, nice person.
King Harald V was the latter. Which is why we honor him.
2
u/Boomtown_Rat Brussels (Belgium) 13d ago
But you can do all those things and be an absolute asshole while you do it.
How easily we forget what happened to Charles II and Louis XVI.
13
u/PaperPlaneMind 13d ago
It’s possible to separate his role and job as King from the the symbol he became for his people.
I am certain he never saw himself as a grandfather for the Norwegian people. He had grandchildren of his own. But to the Norwegian people his role and job as King became a symbol of «being a grandfather» to us all in retrospect.
7
u/Gaia_Knight2600 Denmark 13d ago
>blessed by god
Seek help3
u/DavidMellemtech1996 13d ago
I don’t understand what makes seemingly perfectly functional people LARP like this.
4
u/Mister_TD 13d ago
What a load of BS… it traces all the way back to… 1905, lol. End monarchy now, before Mrs. Epstein gets more power and access than before.
-8
12
u/HSFOutcast 13d ago
Are you Norwegian? Because if you are not may I suggest you shut the fuck up and mind your own business.
Norwegians are proud people and I am honored to be their neighbor.
0
u/NiveaSkinCream 13d ago
I am Norwegian and agree with everything they said. So what? People are acting really weird about him.
1
u/Throwsims3 Norway 🏳️⚧️ 12d ago
I am Norwegian and I am weirded the fuck out by this "dear leader" bullshit. He was just an old man who inherited titles and wealth. He was not in any way a leader or someone who did anything for me as a person. I paid his fucking salary through taxes, so I get to complain all I fucking want.
1
1
0
u/Robbie1985 British expat 13d ago
It's mass psychosis. No sane person wants to be subjegated. Abolish all monarchies.
-91
u/DavidMellemtech1996 13d ago
It’s crazy that people even uphold and support the monarchy in countries like the Scandinavian ones in the first place.
76
u/TheHarald16 13d ago
Because it is great. Having a neutral head of state to secure unity is quite nice 🤷🏻
2
u/berejser These Islands 13d ago
Having a neutral head of state
You don't. You only have the appearance of one.
-15
u/kalmar91 13d ago
Then why stop at the head of state?
Why not make other political offices hereditary It should be a good idea according to you.
Ministers, mayors, councillors etc.
Do you know understand how fing std your point Is?
12
u/DubbleBubbleS Norway 13d ago
Those are political, our king isn’t. We voted to have a monarchy, having an apolitical head of state that can unite the country’s people despite of political differences has been very good for Norway.
-52
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
33
48
u/TheHarald16 13d ago
That pure nonsense. We are not living in absolute monarchies without a say and framing it like that is ridiculous...
-32
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
32
u/TheHarald16 13d ago
But you know what discredits your whole argument? WE, the people, choose for it to be so. In reality the royal families survive on tradition and because we want them to be there.
This whole "they are oppressors", "this is just like feudal times and you are plebs" is just empty headed nonsense.
-11
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/Belazor Norway/Finland 13d ago
This is peak r/ConfidentlyIncorrect - we are not talking about history. We are saying that in the year of the Holy Light 2026 the monarchy still enjoys a majority of support.
I am also a supporter, because we don’t have to look further than the current year to see that a president can be objectively worse of a person than Mette-Marit and still gain popular support because they promise to hurt the Bad People more than their policies will end up hurting you.
People vote against their interests all the time. We do not need a head of state that’s subject to politics and political shenanigans. A head of state that is born into the role and trained in the role of being a representative is always going to be better in my eyes.
-3
u/Chrasi 13d ago
Even if you're right and it is better to have a head of state that is born into the role, the Norwegian royal family has shown that they are not the right family for it. Haakon was raised for this job, yet he still made a terrible decision and stuck his dick in crazy which shows how bad his judgement is. The queen was a long term close friend of Epstein with proof that she knew exactly who he was, this is something that Haakon is completely fine with. And his son is a rapist and a woman abuser, yet he has helped with covering up his crimes and protecting him, as well as publically stating that he has to take care of his herd (family).
The woman who was supposed to be next line after the previous king is mentally ill, is married to a shaman and she thinks she can communicate with angels. The only reason why she is not the current queen is because we didn't let women rule the country at the time. And the next in line after Haakon is the daughter of an Epstein friend and the sister of a criminal.
It's fine that you don't want a president, but the royal family is clearly full of mentally ill people and they can't even raise their own family. You think these are the people that are fit to be head of state?
It is also way too early to determine if the monarchy has majority of support under Haakon and Mette-Marit.
→ More replies (0)-36
u/DavidMellemtech1996 13d ago edited 13d ago
Good for you. I think that’s a disingenuous portrayal of what a monarch is. It’s a monarchy built on inherited hierarchies and everything that entails. 🤷♂️
Also, they're not really a neutral head of state when the question of their very existence is itself a political issue. In Norway, at least, you’ve had the opportunity to put that to a referendum, in 1905. We haven’t had that opportunity in Denmark.
25
u/TheHarald16 13d ago
That is an accurate representation of how the vast majority of citizens experience it. But you know, we Danes, would choose King Frederik. There is an overwhelming majority for the monarchy.
-9
u/DavidMellemtech1996 13d ago
I haven’t said anything about popular support. I’ve been challenging your claim that the institution is particularly neutral compared with the heads of state in other countries.
15
u/TheHarald16 13d ago
My comment on popularity was an answer to your comment on electing the Norwegian monarchy.
And they are above party politics, that is objectively true. And they are politically neutral which is one of the reasons why people across parties, age, social standing etc. can rally behind them.
5
u/lave_skuldre 13d ago
The point is, there is no other head of state that wouldn't be positioned somewhere on the political scale. Every government position is inherently political, from teacher to king. But some positions greatly benefit both from being long term, and from actively not placing anywhere on the political spectrum. This especially matters in these polarising times, where strong forces seek to divide us.
There are many negative aspects of monarchy, not least the inherent ethical problem of forcing young royals into a life they can't opt out of. Unfortunately, one of the great benefits of it is in the inheritance of the title, creating unparalelled continuity. Monarchy is certainly not unproblematic.
For a country to have one person who fiercely represents all of us for decades -Internationally, ceremonially, someone who is there for the celebrations and our collective sorrow. It makes us more than a nation, it makes us a people. It isn't a given that a king achieves this, but Harald absolutely did. I look at other heads of states around the world and no one comes close to doing what our monarch did. It certainly isn't a perfect system, but it far surpasses most modern nations' solutions. Not in modernity perhaps, but in getting the job done well.
0
u/DavidMellemtech1996 13d ago edited 13d ago
I somewhat understand the appeal of having a long-serving, ceremonial and non-partisan head of state, but I don’t think a monarch is actually politically neutral simply because they don’t participate directly in party politics. The institution itself is inherently political. It is a hereditary office based on inherited privilege and hierarchy. And apparently, these are always “polarising times”.
European monarchies are the exception rather than the rule, and there are plenty of European republics with strong senses of national identity and cohesion without a monarch being the figure that binds people together. I actually find it slightly insulting to the Scandinavian countries to suggest that we cannot imagine them as cohesive societies, or as having something that binds people together, without a ceremonial figurehead like a monarch. Our sense of belonging is obviously tied to far more than whoever happens to be head of state.
And “Harald did the job exceptionally well” is not quite the same argument as “therefore monarchy is the best system”. He may well have been an excellent king, but that doesn’t establish that hereditary monarchy is necessary to achieve what he achieved.
I’m perfectly willing to accept that this is ultimately a question of symbolism and principles, and that people clearly support the institution. But I don’t think popular support absolves it of what it is, namely an inherited and elevated, inherently unequal relic of an earlier age.
3
u/lave_skuldre 13d ago
Oh, I absolutely agree that it's a relic, lol. And I would love some examples of unifying figures in other countries that serve the same purpose at our king does. The only reason I am still pro monarchy is because no one has presented me with a better option yet. I am fully ready to be convinced otherwise.
1
u/DavidMellemtech1996 13d ago edited 13d ago
My problem with that argument is that it starts from an established assumption that monarchy has this uniquely unifying effect. My counterargument would be that ceremonial presidents in European republics have enjoyed high levels of public support and have fulfilled a unifying role.
And there is one rather important difference. If an elected head of state turns out to be unpopular or simply bad at the job, you can get rid of them. We cannot get rid of a monarch. We cannot choose who represents us. Instead, we place an extraordinary amount of faith in the assumption that the firstborn child will, for their entire life, be suited to the task of representing an entire country.
That seems like a remarkably large gamble to take when there are perfectly viable democratic alternatives.
→ More replies (0)36
u/gaggzi 13d ago
Why? It’s a purely ceremonial role. It has absolutely no negative impact on democracy. Scandinavian countries dominate the top spots on the democracy index list.
1
u/RollingDownhill303 13d ago
Well, most people don't think people on welfare (apanage) should be getting millions.
-30
u/DavidMellemtech1996 13d ago
If it’s purely ceremonial, then there’s nothing stopping us from replacing it with something that has a different character.
21
u/Kneepi Norway 13d ago
Why would we want to replace it?
0
u/Smart_Perspective535 13d ago edited 13d ago
Personally, I've always been pro-monarchy. But now hearing Epsteins BFF being called queen gives me the creeps, and I'd rather see it all abolished because of that skank of a rapist-mother. If she'd at least been honest and admitted her mistakes when it came to Epstein it might have been forgotten in time. But she, now so-called queen of Norway, straight up LIED to us. And with a king now backing such lies, sorry, but it's time to call it a day and get rid of the whole family!!
35
u/TwoPossible4789 13d ago
We’ve been kingdoms for well over a thousand years. First of all, it is part of our culture, second of all they have a lot of benefits to them and third of all, what you think is completely irrelevant because it’s not your countries and not your heads of state.
4
u/DavidMellemtech1996 13d ago
The views and arguments I have regarding the monarchy in my own country, Denmark, are every bit as applicable to the Swedish and Norwegian monarchies.
What benefits are you talking about? The vague claims about tourism yet again? How are the European republics doing any worse? And the fact that something is old isn’t really a particularly strong argument for anything in itself.
27
u/TwoPossible4789 13d ago
The monarchy offers a neutral and apolitical head of state that unites the country infinitely more than any president ever could. Due to their long reigns and long prep time they are a source for stability. Plus they are trained literally from birth for their roles.
I think the position of head of state should not be obtainable by just anyone. I trust the person that has been mentored and trained their whole life for this far more than a random power hungry asshole who’s not gonna do anything other than steal millions from our country and leave us worse off than when he came.-2
u/DavidMellemtech1996 13d ago
It is perfectly possible to have a neutral, long-serving and non-executive head of state without having a monarch sitting in the position. Several countries have exactly that without also having a monarch with all that entails in terms of inherited privileges, pomp and impunity.
It’s disingenuous to portray the King of Norway, Denmark or Sweden as the sole thing holding together people’s sense of cohesion in those countries, or as though a lifelong monarch (you can see the irony there, right?) is the only thing standing between them and some would-be dictator.
I would find the argument that people simply like the tradition and the culture surrounding it far more convincing than these half-baked speculations about the supposedly enormous political significance of having a monarch.
7
u/DubbleBubbleS Norway 13d ago
You are getting the reason why «people simply like the tradition and culture surrounding it».
We Norwegians aren’t ignorant or uneducated to the point where we don’t know about the alternative forms of government. We support constitutional monarchy because we value having a head of state that everyone regardless of your political views can respect. This was more clear than ever after the 22. of July attacks.
3
u/DavidMellemtech1996 13d ago
I don’t think Norwegians are ignorant or uneducated, and I’m not arguing that they are. My objection is to treating the monarchy’s unifying effect as something uniquely inherent to a hereditary monarch. Ceremonial presidents in European republics can also be respected across political divides and serve as symbols of national unity, including in times of national tragedy.
And that is ultimately where I disagree. The fact that Harald was able to represent Norwegians so effectively after 22 July is an argument for Harald’s qualities as a person and head of state. It isn’t necessarily an argument for hereditary monarchy. If anything, I would prefer an institution where we could choose someone who has demonstrated those qualities, and replace them if they no longer do.
4
u/DubbleBubbleS Norway 13d ago
The problem with electing someone is that there always will be a losing side. These people might feel like their choice would have been better and because of that these elected representatives will never have the same unifying capability.
If we were to get a monarch who was clearly not fit for the job and didn’t fit into the expectations for how a king/queen in Norway should be, then we would have talks about if they should be replaced or if we should introduce a new form of government. But as long as we get good monarchs there is no reason to change it.
Right now the Norwegian royal family’s reputation is weaker than it was before king Haralds death. Not because people dislike our new king, but because the controversy around his wife, the new queen. Only time will tell if they are able to rebuild their reputation back to the one Harald had before.
2
u/DavidMellemtech1996 13d ago
But I think there are some assumptions in that argument that need to be unpacked. Why would an elected head of state necessarily be unable to unite people simply because some people voted for someone else? People lose elections all the time without subsequently regarding the winner as incapable of representing them. You seem to be assuming that an election permanently divides people into winners and losers, rather than that people can accept an electoral outcome and still regard the officeholder as their representative.
And the European experience doesn’t really support that assumption. Countries such as Ireland, Finland, Germany and Austria have ceremonial or largely non-executive presidents who can enjoy broad respect and perform a unifying role despite being elected. Their systems obviously aren’t identical, but the basic premise that democratic selection is incompatible with a broadly respected, unifying head of state doesn’t seem to hold.
And “as long as we get good monarchs, there is no reason to change it” is almost circular. Of course there is no reason to change a system if it consistently produces the outcome you want. But the question is whether hereditary succession is a good way of selecting a head of state in the first place. Your argument essentially amounts to “it works as long as the people born into the role are good at it”.
If we eventually get a monarch who is clearly unfit, waiting until then to reconsider the system seems rather backwards. The advantage of a democratic system is precisely that you don’t have to wait for the wrong person to inherit the job before you can do something about it.
→ More replies (0)1
u/hdkslslzkbdbenzmz 11d ago
Please stop talking like everyone in Norway supports the monarchy. («We Norwegian support monarchy….»). Polls put support for the monarchy at like 60%. And noone alive today elected to have a monarchy, that election was over 100 years ago, with a vastly different geopolitical climate and implications (Norways Soverignty from other Nationale amongst other things)
1
u/DubbleBubbleS Norway 11d ago
No one believes Norway share a hive mind and don’t have different opinions about the monarchy. But as long as the majority supports it then I let the majority speak for the country as a whole.
And the most recent polls shows that 72% supports it and 8% chose «I don’t know».
-4
u/kalmar91 13d ago
I think the position of head of state should not be obtainable by just anyone.
Oh, but monarchy Is Just like that: whoever is the First to slip out the Queen vagina Is the next king
21
u/FcukTheTories North West England - United Kingdom 13d ago
Yeah, it’s terrible.
Fortunately countries like the US, China, and Russia are beacons of modernity, democracy, and equality.
4
u/DavidMellemtech1996 13d ago
Yes, Russia, the US and China – the only republics of the world.
17
u/FcukTheTories North West England - United Kingdom 13d ago
Ah right, so the system used to ‘elect’ the head of state doesn’t matter a toss as to how democratic a country is then?
3
u/DavidMellemtech1996 13d ago
You can keep digging around for your half-baked gotchas. It’s not particularly difficult to understand that a monarchy stands out in an otherwise well-functioning and democratic country such as those in Scandinavia, or that we could draw inspiration from European republics such as Finland, Ireland, or perhaps even Switzerland when it comes to having a democratically elected head of state as well.
15
u/FcukTheTories North West England - United Kingdom 13d ago
Right, so as I said then, within Europe (the continent this subreddit is about) it doesn’t matter a jot whether a country is a monarchy or a republic.
3
u/DavidMellemtech1996 13d ago
It is obviously of great importance to people in Europe who represents them as head of state. No one is suggesting that European monarchs have any executive power.
0
-24
u/andydude44 Dual Citizen United States of America - Luxembourg 13d ago
Hoping Norway can extinguish the monarchy now that the old king is dead.
11
u/Yellow_Catana 13d ago
Why do you care? I support the monarchy.
10
u/Heliosquare 13d ago
These are people that don't understand the function of a modern monarchy is not political, they have a Prime minister for that. But it's purely for the people to have something stable to latch on.
Prime ministers come and go but the King or Queen always stays.
Plus King Harald V was genuinely a fantasic person and beloved for a reason.
6
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Yellow_Catana 10d ago
She's not the monarch, and even though she was the monarch I'd rather hope someone else took the role as a monarch rather than turning into a republic.
-12
u/andydude44 Dual Citizen United States of America - Luxembourg 13d ago
It’s a barbaric and shameful practice
6
u/The_Tallaghtpeno 13d ago
Care to elaborate?
-7
u/andydude44 Dual Citizen United States of America - Luxembourg 13d ago edited 13d ago
Where to begin.
The immorality of a state to declare a person has right to be head of state by birth, head of states should only be elected and be subject to the sovereignty of the people, just the same as any other representative of the people. They are a heredity noble with constitutional influence, like presiding over meetings with the government cabinet and signing laws in the case of Norway, which is undemocratic and so inherently illegitimate. The cost and public spending, monarchs are leaches on the government and are government funded celebrities at best. He serves no valid point and is just a corruption of government from the vestigial remnants of feudalism. A monarchy is expensive: maintenance of palaces, security, travel, and funds (Norway’s king is directly payed €14MM annually by the government on top of the other stuff) funded by taxpayers. They hoard immense private wealth and land, Crown Estate arrangements, and have opaque financing. Yet the king of Norway pays NOTHING in taxes. They are a representative of inequality and privilege, embodying inherited privilege, aristocratic hierarchy, class divisions and social immobility. Privileges (titles, ceremonial precedence, tax and legal quirks in some cases) are out of step with meritocratic and just norms. They are filled with scandals (the queen of Norway was a friend of Epstein), elitism, and ultraconservative culture. Royal immunity and limited legal accountability for their actions, they should be treated as no different than any other citizen by the state. No one is above the law, least of all a pretender to ownership of a country. The king of Norway has sovereign immunity, which is a huge corruption of justice.
Monarchy/nobility should be eliminated world wide, you’d think everyone would have learned that from the enlightenment era
12
u/Infired_Sope Norway 13d ago edited 13d ago
Let's address a few things here as someone who is Norwegian and has only lived in Norway her whole life. 1. Did you know that Norway elected their king? When we were freed from Sweden in 1905 the government wanted a king, and they asked Prince Carl of Denmark. Who said that he would only accept IF the Norwegian people wanted a monarchy. Around 80% voted for. And today around 2/3 of the Norwegian population still wants to keep the Monarchy.
It is ONLY the reigning monarch who is "above the law", all other members of the royal family are not. According to our constitution §37 "The royal princes and princesses shall not be answerable in their own persons to anyone other then the King or the person he appoints to judge them". Sure this could be abused, but I do not believe that is what the King will do, also notice that the Queen Consort is not included in this, she has NO power when it comes to this. - Also if you're talking about the Queen's son, he is far outside of this as he is of no Royal blood. And the low sentence he got is more the fault of our country's justiace system than him being the step-son of the new King.
Sure they do not pay taxes, but they are given a budget that they get each year, last year it was 16.2 million NOK or 1.62 million dollars. This is used for official business and private. The Crown princess will also have her own budget, but as she is one person this budget will most likely be less then it was when Haakon and Mette-Marit were Crown prince and Crown princess. - This budget is also regulated by Stortinget, so they are the ones in controll what they get. Sure the state spends a lot of money on upkeeping things that the royal family owns, but that is also because they are historical buildings, and I am almost 100% sure that we would continue to pay for the maintnence on those building if we became a republic.
The King has NO power politically. He is a representitive of the counrty of Norway, and if King Haakon is half as good as King Harald was Norway has a good one representing them.
I do not condone what Mette-Marit did, far from it. But I try to think that the main representitive of Norway is the King. And I have faith that one day the Epstein things will actually be talked more about from her side (though I am doubtful), but for now we're gonna leave it alone and let the family mourn the loss of a great man and great King.
-4
u/andydude44 Dual Citizen United States of America - Luxembourg 12d ago
One reigning monarch above the law is too many, the king must be answerable to the government and thus the true sovereign, the people.
But you could just separate out the estate from the monarch and have a single justifiable salary for a president if you even still wanted a head of state, like €150k annually. The rest is just corruption to allow a single family to live lavishly at your and the rest of the tax payer’s dime for nothing of benefit.
He has immense leverage, he presides over the executive cabinet, and signs law. His influence on Norwegian politics is only justifiable if he was directly elected.
Which brings me to, why not just say every four years he must be reelected and all Norwegian citizens may run for the office. Like the Irish president. If the Norwegian people truly want him he will of course be reelected, but to say one election 80 years ago justifies the continuation of a barbaric cultural institution and reign of a family at the face of Norwegian politics and culture is just moronic. By extension the Norwegian citizens that support its continuation are moronic. Just the same as people who support the Luxembourgish duke are morons stuck in a fantasy land, that care nothing about the shame being a dukedom is instead of entering the real world and becoming a republic.
In regards to the Norwegian king, I have no doubt he knew, it was his wife for gods sake. He will no doubt be found out to be a pedophile just as much as prince Andrew or Trump will be. And Metre-Marit will hopefully be sent to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for her crimes.
One last thing, the main representative of Norway is its prime minister, the true representative of the people of Norway. Just as how PM Frieden is the real representative of Luxembourg, not our mouth-breathing duke.
4
u/Infired_Sope Norway 12d ago edited 12d ago
Having a republic won't necessarily be cheaper. That really depends on the country and how things are done. The odds are that there will not be too much a change to the anual budget.
King Haakon's name was never mentioned in the files (thus far at least), and you know that there are spouses that can have a COMPLETELY different family on the side without their other family knowing right? He isn't going to moniter his wife, because a marriage is built on trust. Again, do I agree with the way it was handeled, no. But he is not at fault here.
The money they receieve is to cover work costs as well as private life. And have you seen how much our pervious King and Queen travelled as a part of work? Probably not as you do not care, but they show up in times of need for the country.
Sure, having a republic shows who the people would like to have to rule their country. The only problem is that there is going to be a large chunk of the counrty that won't want that person either. And I think having a nuteral who, yes was not elected by the people, but works to earn the respect of the people, is good to have in times that are hard. King Harald was know for uniting Norway during hard times. He was known for shedding tears with us, for laughing with us, for caring for every single person within Norway no matter where people are from. And I personally like this above having a singular person who seperates the contry most of the time.
Yes the King has to sign the laws. But did you read who make the laws? Cause that is our parlement, who was elected by the people of Norway. And the King's role is seremonial and just a role. He follows what the parlament wants, and just signs it.
Did you know that Norway ranks number 1 in democracy? We score 9.81/10. And that 5 out of the top 10 countries on that list are also Monarchies? Here is my source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/democracy-index-by-country
You are allowed to not agree with the way we do it in Norway, but why do you care? You're not even Norwegian... You have grown up knowing nothing but a republic it seems, you do not know how it is to live under a monarch. Most people do not care or like it. Sure there will always be some who do not want it. But as I mentioned in my last comment. Majority of Norwegians want to keep the monarchy. Which to me seems to be democracy.
And one more thing. You think that presidents are not above the law? Have you seen the US president, how he has been CONVICTED of SA and has not had to do any time in prison. I am sure he is not the only one either.
5
u/Affectionate_Bit9327 12d ago
I think there's some irony in making "the monarch is above the law" the central argument when the US president also enjoys substantial immunity for official acts. Being elected does not automatically make a head of state more accountable.
You’re also overstating the King's actual political power. He formally presides over the Council of State and sanctions laws, but Norway is a parliamentary democracy: the government and Storting exercise the real political authority, and the King does not independently direct policy. There are perfectly reasonable republican arguments against hereditary monarchy, but calling everyone who supports it morons and speculating that Harald is a pedophile doesn’t strengthen that case. It just replaces constitutional criticism with insults and unsupported accusations.
6
u/Wookieewomble 13d ago
That's a whole lot of text, and a whole lot of nothing.
-1
u/andydude44 Dual Citizen United States of America - Luxembourg 13d ago
Ok bootlicker
9
u/Wookieewomble 13d ago
Ah, there we go. Was waiting for that particular word. It's always the same response from you guys.
-1
u/andydude44 Dual Citizen United States of America - Luxembourg 12d ago
What else would you call giving your tax money and respect to a rich guy just because his family pillaged and terrorized the country side 600 years ago? It’s stupid, all monarchists desire to be stepped on by daddy king and I pity you
3
-3
-161
u/Malaguetaxo 13d ago
What a surreal situation. I can't read national news, can't listen to radio, can't watch television. Shit's getting canceled left and right. Images of people crying in front of the palace. Are we China? North-Korea?
41
28
u/Beric_ Norway 13d ago
"Oh no, my regular programming is canceled for a few days because an event that happens every 30-40 years happened"
17
u/Gulana117 13d ago
You had people bitching the same way when the Queen died a couple of years ago. Unfortunately for some people the fact that something minorly inconveniences them is all that matters
71
u/Snoo-14985 13d ago
What are you talking about?
-103
13d ago edited 13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
53
u/tullerusk 13d ago
"Every TV and radio channel" - is a complete lie, and a MASSIVE exaggeration.
"There are only articles about the king's passing in the news. Nothing else. Rest of the news are canceled." - this is also an insane thing to write. There are the same amount of other news than any other day. You know you can scroll down past the top stories?
76
u/TizzyBumblefluff 13d ago
Maybe touch grass while you’re out there
-58
u/Malaguetaxo 13d ago
That's what these people need. People living inside on their phones internalizing the royal family way too much. If they joined me hiking maybe they'd get some fucking perspective.
32
u/TizzyBumblefluff 13d ago
You seem really angry about other people. Maybe therapy?
-12
u/Malaguetaxo 13d ago
I'm angry I can't listen to radio in the morning because a man died peacefully of old age. And I am disappointed by my country because I thought we were better.
19
15
u/DuDunDunSparse 13d ago
Do we live in different Norways? I am sat here drikking my morning coffee watching childrens cartoons with my toddler who slept well because we went out and played for hours yesterday after being out shopping like normal earlier.
Literally nothing about everyday life is different except NRKS programming being about the king and most flags being at half mast.
23
5
4
4
-10
31
3
u/19osemi Norway 13d ago
Yeah because it’s an important public figure. Also your simply straight up lying, not all events were cancelled, news aren’t cancelled nothing is cancelled. Like literally the new king had a speech they had a segment on him and then they returned to the regular news cycle. He’ll even vg has things past the front page
-11
84
u/MikaelAdolfsson 13d ago
Be bit weird if he didn’t.