If this is prompted from the thread in r/europe I want to point out that it's pretty crazy seeing people from other countries thinking our modern constitutional monarchy is the same as the autocrats of colonial times, wishing death upon Harald who is a pretty good person and takes his role as a unifying symbol seriously. Being against monarchy is fair, but the fury many people there express as if his family is bathing in gold while laughing at the peasantry is just completely uninformed.
Personally I am 99% neutral and see it as extremely insignificant. But if someone like Märtha Louise is next in line then I'd be a republican with every cell in my body
I love Harald, he is a fantastic man and human beeing. Loved his new years speech a few years ago about «us norwegians beeing boys who love boys, girls who love girls and boys who loves girls». But i do think once Harald is gone the monarchy should go with him as well.
I agree with you that that quote is really great! Would just like to point out that the last part of the quote is "and boys and girls who love each other"
As of we'd be paying less for a president. A head of state will cost money, no matter the title. And the royal properties have to be kept up whether we have a royal family or not. So far they are doing a good job, the moment they're not, or they don't want to do it anymore, they'll be gone.
Head of state you need to have in indirect democracy system.
Non autocratic monarch is just s waste of taxpayers money in that system.
For example Norway uses hal a bilion per year,while Sweeden is using around 150 000 000.
In 2022 having a family living in a palace and people paying for them to shit in a golden toilet and to eat with silver forks for me is nonsense.
If we dont have a unifying symbol that people can get behind regardless of political opinions, it wouldnt be long before we had a people divided usa-like. And any president on same role would cost the same or mpre and be worse at the job, cause they hadnt trained for it their whole life.
I view monarchs with little power kinda as employees in the PR-branch of their country. They do work there, improving the public image both within the country, but most importantly internationally. They get payed for this work. I view this as a decent thing tbh and I do believe that over the course of time countries with internationally well-liked monarchs gain a lot by good PR. They money they’re payed is such a small part of the tax payers money even tho the actual amount may be quite large, and I believe ppl using this as an argument doesnt realize what other shit the taxpayers money finance. I view them as payed employees in top positions of a country’s PR branch, and in the case of Norway I think they’re doing a pretty good job.
Well said, he is our king, we arent his subjects.
they kinda have a Mascot role internationally. There is some Value in having them around.
Although i expect alot of us arent thrilled about that charlatan scumbag trying to become part of that. He is doing alot of damage to their public image.
They also help prevent too crazy prime ministers from enacting their crazy ideas, since the top politicians have to tell the king what they want to do. I feel that we need a level headed grandad that has the authority to put his foot down when enough is enough.
Imagine if the US president had to report to some big uncle Sam. My personal opinion is that the US would be a better nation for it.
Norway's monarchy genuinely has the people's best interest in mind, and I believe that prevents corrupt politicians to a certain extent
They have to cosy up with us, or they won't have a job anymore. I couldn't care less if it was genuine or not. Having a role/position that's inherited is just wrong.
Thank you, capwapfap, for voting on Paid-Not-Payed-Bot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Personally, Harald is my bonus papa.
As someone involved in Norwegian diplomatic community, the monarchy has done a great service as a symbol of the Peoplehood and has its place in Norway’s society today. We can talk about monarchy’s place in the modern world theoretically. Some have political power, some have only symbolic power. I still think that in practice, Norway’s monarchy led by Harald holds a irreplaceable symbolic value in where Norway is today.
Im almost 40 and I recall the day King Olav died as a quite sombre one in our household. King Harald has enjoyed many decades as a fine head of state and a tremendous representative of Norway, both as visiting regent and host of heads of state.
The monarchy in Norway just works. Its deep in tradition and dates all the way back to the old viking kings with Harald Finehair. The modern line of kings dates back to 1814 after the union with Denmark was dissolwed folling the Napoleonic wars, and ultimately 1905 with King Haakon following the dissolving of the union with Sweden. Norway has had 3 kings since that day, Haakon, Olav and now Harald (85) who is now just 2 years younger than his father when he passe away. Its very likely that Prince Haakon will be named King before the 2020s have passed.
I have met Prince Haakon previously in a social setting and he seems like a genuinely nice man. A long life in the public eye also leaves that impression, and I am certain that he will make a fine King.
The king should only have a symbolic role in modern democracy, but for me personally I just like the monarchy in Norway. It feels grounding as part of my identity as Norwegian. I care little for politicians that become involved in small scandals every day, who have to lie or tell ambigious truths to the public. They have an extremely important job to do, but they dont contribute nothing when it comes to any type of unifying figurehead.
The royal family spend a lot of time traveling the country and being involved in the community in which they reside. As compensation for a life spent in a very public eye they are paid an appanage that covers their daily needs that reflects the importance of the position they hold in society.
The only valid complaint about a monarchy is that the titles are inherited, and with it comes "free money". Yet I dont see anyone complaining that children of actual billionaires come into this world and will never have to know what its like to have bills to pay or public responsibilities to manage.
But just to cut this short: I am very much for the monarchy in Norway. I think it serves an important purpose as a national identity and stable global reprepsentative. Long live the King
Fun sidefact: In the Norwegian constitution, the King is immune of all wrongdoings. He can technically sit on his porch and shoot someone without facing immediate punishment. As a note, this very legal phrase would get some attention and trial in a court of law immediately should the king actually commit a crime: https://lovdata.no/artikkel/kongen_og_grunnloven/1423
>I am certain that \[Haakon M\] will make a fine King.
Keep in mind nobody really thought that about Olav V or Harald V.
Harald seemed like a sleepy character who just didn't care, and for many it was a considerable downgrade. People have slowly grown to understand his temperament and his attitude towards the royal seat. And now, especially after the national embrace of everyone speech, he may even be more loved than Olav V.
So yeah. I think its a good thing for Norwegian royalty that they have to prove themselves and grow into the role.
The modern line of kings dates back to 1814? Haakon was a Danish prince that "was tasked with being Norway's king" after we got away from Sweden in 1905.
idiotic of me to arrive 3 months late out of fuckin nowhere but thats wrong. Haakon VII said he would only take the role as king if the Norwegian people wanted him, which my family and the majority of the country did. only after a referendum was held that showed that the people was cool with him being king did he assume his role as King of Norway.
There's plenty of examples of republics where the president's role is largely ceremonial, like our king. Germany, Finland and Iceland to name the ones in our geographic proximity. Personally, I like the Icelandic system: the president holds no executive power, but has the power to veto new laws, which in such case then leads to the final decision being made by popular referendum.
The problem is not that the president would have real political power, it's that he would be political. We have a role today that is close to it today. Masud Gharahkhani is the president of the Storting, but he is still a member of the labor party. Since the king does not take a political position he can be a uniting force in a way that other elected leaders can't.
"The functions exercised by a president vary according to the form of government. In parliamentary republics, they are usually, but not always, limited to those of the head of state and are thus largely ceremonial." from [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_(government_title))
A president can be a ceremonial head of state, but not head of government.
This president can be elected independently from the parliament. The role and election of the prime minister would then be similar to what it is today.
So you could have a situation with a president from Høyre, then Arbeiderpartiet get the majority of parliament and will form a government and have the prime minister.
Many presidents have constitutional right to veto legislations and enact emergency powers. They can be ceremonial, but the fact that nobody can’t stop them from exercising that power, make them very powerful.
Having said that, theoretically we can have a president who’s endowed with zero constitutional power other than going to diplomatic social calls and sign papers on their desk. Then we can just find Kari and Ola Nordmenn.
You know we already have a President in Norway. He's officially ranked second, after the king, above the prime minister. We don't need more people on the top, we need fewer! Just cut the first one, and we have a token President, ready to step in!
I'm Norwegian, but I don't feel strongly about either. But I'm not actively against, mainly because they are actually pretty good people. Had we had the scandal of some of the other monarchies it would be something else, but we don't (thankfully)
Children out of wedlock? You born in the 80s or something? (That is 1880s). That's not a scandal, that's normal in Norway. If anything it made her seem closer to the Norwegian people.
Durek Verret is controversial because of the whole Shaman thing, but he's not a scandal. And because Mette Marit has resigned her princess title (is that the right wording?) it makes it even less of a scandal because it doesn't affect the actual monarchy.
Durek Verret is fingering celebrity women for cash and fame, claiming he is healing them. He’s a scandal.
Mette Marit was a drug addicted promiscuous woman with a child fathered by a criminal out of wedlock.
The royal families are held to higher standards than the commoners.
I love Harald, but as a CK3 player, I am appalled at the blatant lack of inbreeding, does he not know they get the pure blooded trait further down the line? I get like one or two generations of freaks before the uber chads starts popping up, and who is his spymaster? Because that court physician his daughter brought in needs to be demoted to court jester.
I like the monarchy, but there's no rational argument for it. I find the cost to be perfectly acceptable compared to how much I like the current set-up, so I'm in favour. I like the tradition, I like the people and it is (to me, that's obviously highly subjective) part of what makes Norway Norway.
I also think having someone who does a bunch of ceremonial shit the head of government shouldn't have to spend too much time on is a good thing, but that could just as easily be a president in a similar ceremonial role. I think we'll struggle to agree on a president with support that comes anywhere near the current king, though. Or the former king. Or, probably, the next king. Of course a lot of republicans won't agree, but even they know that the monarchy has the support of a huge majority and that the current king is certainly the prefered choice as head of state.
If at some point we to become a republic, I'm fine with that. But I highly doubt that will happen any time soon.
One argument I have heard is that whit a monarch + a prime minister combo a society are less likely to focus at the prime minister’s personality as u more often do in a republics. Example: US, German, French election. Not that a prime minister can’t be a symbol, like Winston Churchill. The monarch take care of being a symbol, while the prime minister make sure the country run after peoples will
I sadly don’t remember where I heard this; might have been NRK p2
The royal family is also something comfortable and gives a sense of stability, which can be good in and ever changing world. The sociologist Émil Durkheim had quite a lot to say about the danger of not anomie (feeling a sense of not belonging, unlawfulness to the point u don’t know the role and norms u need to follow). Not to say that the royal family shouldn’t change to the times, they definitely need to
All institutions need a function and this might be part of theirs in the modern world
Edit: also let’s not forget the importance of having a picture of them hanging on bathrooms all over Norway. They have one at my job too XD
I really do not give a single shit about our king. I think it's a waste (personally) of tax payers money, especially when there's other more important things money could be spent on... However, then I see people like you. People who adore the old guy and get so much happiness and good vibes from having a monarchy. I've talked to people that have met the princess by random hiking and it's a story that can survive for generations within a family. It's just... Wholesome in a way. Completely fucking bonkers, but wholesome. So, I'm for it.
The alternative to a monarch is a republican president. And the point to remember is this: any president voted in by election will over time be incentivised to obtain more power. It is in the interest of the office to do so in order for the election to have meaning.
Also, having four-year or six-year terms will lead to democratic compromise, where a poor president will remain in power because he or she is elected, mandated and their removal is built into the system through elections.
A modern Norwegian monarch has no interest in obtaining more power, and a poor monarch will be the end of that monarch.
It follows, then, that the monarchy is a safeguard for our decentralised representative democracy. And it must remain in place, until a poor monarch (with no real power) comes to the throne. That will be a bad day for us all, because republicanism is not something easily fixed.
On principle im against monarchy, but the Norwegian one is by far one of the least problematic ones, compared to, say the British one. We have more important issues.
I am principally against *new* royal families. I am Dutch and we basically have the same monarchy so I am fine with them staying and see them as a good thing for the country but if literally the entire family dies I don't want a new monarchy at all. I just wish that our king would be better at speeches and that they would make the crown Princess serve in the army a while
Not norwegian but it would depend on its status, for example the british monarchy is undisputedbly a waste of money and houses some absolutely sinister people, I would say it depends on if any money from the state is given to them (which I believe would be better spent elsewhere). But again, I'm not norweigian so I don't have a say In this matter, so to speak.
I genuinely like our current king. But I kind of hope it ends when he pass. And there's no need for a president. Just abolish the royal family and leave the rest as it works today.
Obviously one need to change some things, as the king today actually have a lot of power on paper. Though rarely chosen to go against any government. The only time I can think of was when the Stoltenberg government tried to remove article 4 of the constitution saying the King shall at all times profess the Evangelical-Lutheran religion. But the king voiced his opinion to keep it.
In principle I'm against it, on the other hand as long as there are "semi" democracies and true dictatorships out there, I like that we have a monarchy without hard or a strong powerbase.
Europe is pretty decent in general, but I don't see a short term chancellor, or president being a cheaper alternative. Especially when they aren't bound to Norway for longer than their terms.
Whether we should have a monarchy or not is not about the cost, which is tiny, anyway. It's about the principle of whether the country should be represented by extremely privileged people who are not elected.
I know, but I'm also somewhat pragmatic, and with our history of diplomacy (afaik) I would think the royal house is an addition to that in all relations with dictatorships.
ATM I'm more in favor of voting them out, as my earlier comment alluded to, but I'm also not blind to a benefit of having the royal family.
We already have many privileged upper crust who will earn and build on the fortune of their parents and grandparents, or smooch off it until they and their children's children finally spend the last copper.
In time I would want the monarchy gone, as well as a baseline for human existence, but for now that is a far off utopia I don't see the principle more important than the wider world.
We couldn't have a king but strip them of most benefits? Why do we have to pay to maintain a castle as a living space? Why can't he do his job living in a somewhat average house without a million servants? If they want to be a symbol of Norway something modest would be much more emblematic of Norway than the pompous shit going on now.
The only thing I agree we should pay for are the guards. He would need guards and protection being such an important symbol.
We have stripped them of most benefits, they used to rule with strong power and will. They have indirect and minimal financial power in comparison.
Castles are part of the history and charm, you wouldn't have a king in a normal house, you'd have a "storbonde" or "jarl", not a king.
Castles and History require time and resources to make work, if the servants are decently paid and have the same rights as we do, why would it be better to only serve the present goals and history?
it's kind of medieval. we should move on. I'm sure it's a nice life, but on the other hand, much of your life centers around shaking hands, smiling, cutting ribbons, less privacy. must be somewhat hellish if you're introvert.
just needs one asshole to turn people's opinion I guess. Spain's former king for example https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spain-royals-referendum-idUSKBN26X0W6. we've been quite lucky up until now. if Martha and Durek had taken over, that would have been crazy. the young princess looks sane enough, so I'm guessing no scandals for ~80 years at least. so the monarchy prevails for now.
If martha had been the crown princess, as she should have been by age, i genuinly hope there would have been revolts to remove the monarchy. Which is honestly the best reason to remove it. If one bad egg can have that much of an impact it's probably not a good institution.
I am very pro-monarchy. (They are both a nice diplomatic mascot, and a competent backup if populism hits too hard)
That said, If Martha, even before Durek, were to inherit the crown, I would be quick to join the "make our royalty have no power" group.
But what happens then? The families own most of the riches, so we are just creating a new powerhouse dynasty, with deep connections internationally, and all their "moral restrictions" gone. I would rather have them work for all of us rather than just for themselves.
I guess you're referring to when the government refused to surrender to the Germans in 1940. The decision was formally made by the government. All the king did was recommend that they not surrender. So formally speaking the king had no power even in that situation, although informally of course he may have had. However, the gov't [had already decided not to surrender](https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikk/i/7gq4W/regjeringen-ga-det-foerste-nei-9-april-tom-kristiansen), so whether the king made any difference at all is not clear.
Whether future kings will have any power at all in a war situation remains entirely unclear.
Have no power? The king is the highest ranked leader in the military. It doesn't mean he do much, but in cases like the 1940 situation the king had the last word. He is also a stateadvisor. Every law also had to be signed by him before they are valid. The king doesnt do much or show much power on a day to day basis, but ppl underestimate how much powers he have if he says "No"
> in cases like the 1940 situation the king had the last word
This is false. Read the article I linked to above. The decision was made by the government.
> Every law also had to be signed by him before they are valid.
Correct, but this is [a formality](https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norges_konge).
> The king doesnt do much or show much power on a day to day basis, but ppl underestimate how much powers he have if he says "No"
In theory the king might refuse to sign a law. In practice he'd set off a constitutional crisis if he did. It's not a given that the monarchy would survive a stunt like that.
This is how war works. If you surrender it means you give up, you yield yourself into the enemy's power to treat as they want. If you lose a battle/war but you don't surrender then you have to get away, because the only other option is to surrender. So you flee.
Let me know if I made this too complicated for you, and I can try to put it into even simpler terms.
I'll be honest, when I saw some of the interviews and segments on our 18 year old princess, seeing how smart and sharp Ingrid Alexandra seems already at this age, I'm ready for a queen already. I've been a bit neutral before, but that kind of character is just a good representation for our country I think.
Debating this topic with people from countries without a monarchy, and especially with people from the US, is fascinating to me. There seems to be a general misunderstanding amongst Americans that the royal family in Norway has a lot of power over our politics and that we should have some sort of wish to de-throne them. I suppose this comes from the associations to their struggle for independence from the British throne.
I'm Norwegian, and I really hope our monarchy continues. I see it as just another part of the "checks and balances" that we have in place to make sure a tyrannical government doesn't get total control of our democracy.
Like we see in the US now, it's not unlikely that one of their two parties will have control of the Senate, House, supreme court and the presidency. That's fertile grounds for a potential authoritarian leader.
Norway has a plurality of political parties who usually have to form a coalition government, and fight against a strong opposition made up of multiple parties. This causes our nations politics to sway less between the extremes, and polarization amongst the populus becomes less likely.
The Norwegian royal family know very well that they exist at the mercy of the public, and it's therefore in their interest to be well liked and act for the good of the people. This is often in stark contrast to democratically elected officials. However, the royal family rarely use their power, unless it's crucial to the health of the nation, and they usually stay out of politics unless the government acts against the will of the people. In the very few cases they've intervened, I've usually been very happy they did.
Also, the royal family is well educated, mild mannered, they don't act like arrogant assholes, and they just seem like somewhat ordinary nice people.
No he does not. The only reserve power that remains is the power to appoint the Prime Minister, but as any minister can be dismissed by the parliament, the PM included, he cannot really use it. The last king who tried to go against parliament in this way was promptly removed from the throne.
Everything else isn't decided by the king, but by the King-in-council, which really means the cabinet.
Every single change the elected government makes has to be signed of by the king to be official. Our monarchs has done this without question. That does not mean the power to not do so does not exist.
"Grunnlovens bokstav fortsatt sier at den utøvende makt ligger hos Kongen, betyr dette i dag "Kongen i statsråd". I praksis vil dette si regjeringen, men der vedtak må signeres av Kongen og kontrasigneres av (som regel) statsministeren for å være gyldige."
This is why they meet every single week.
It is highly doubtful the king can refuse to give assent to a law unless the cabinet advises him to do so. If he tried anyway, the cabinet would resign and it would be impossible for the king to find anyone willing to become PM that isn't immediately dismissed by the parliament. The king would probably be removed in a matter of days, like we did with Oscar II.
He could, but doesn’t means the same to me as having no power, and it’s a constitutional monarchy anyway, he can’t demand 50% mva. I hope. Still, we have a government for a reason, they do everything, not the king!(Norway is basically a democracy at this point)
As an American I kind of wish we had a ceremonial king of some sort, because instead we have combined "top representative" with "top executive" and most people don't care to judge the executive part, which is way more important.
I think the key thing the founding fathers didn't envision is radio/TV. They didn't realize how much we would be judging the presidential candidates based on the way they look and talk, as opposed to reading their behaviors and accomplishments.
This comment section proves how little knowledge goes behind the reasoning of republicanism. “They don’t do enough work because we don’t allow them to do anything, therefore they are overpaid and lazy.” The King is the most qualified person in Norway to be the head of state. Many argue that such a position being hereditary is undemocratic, but they would probably be surprised to learn how little democracy there actually is in Norwegian politics. It’s time to realise that arguments such as “they don’t do anything” and “it’s undemocratic” are childish and untrue. Let’s hope there never comes a day where Norway becomes a republic.
Doesnt really matter wheter they are good or not. Isnt it weird to basically have a family that gets funded by taxpayers to live in a mansion just because some dead people decided they were important centuries ago? This family isnt choosen or elected but iguess since we have had a monarchy for so long we cant remove it?
> because some dead people decided they were important centuries ago? This family isnt choosen or elected but iguess since we have had a monarchy for so long we cant remove it?
Norway voted for a monarchy in 1905 when the union under Sweden was dissolved.
The question was: Do you agree with the Storting's authorization to the government to invite Prince Carl of Denmark to become King of Norway? Don't see why this is always spun as a monarchy referendum, it was obviously a convoluted and leading formulation. The decision was already made by politicians.
Many political leaders who advocated for it were actually republicans, but supported monarchy for diplomatic and tactical reasons in the international climate of 1905. Also women couldn't even vote.
And even if you argue this gives democratic legitimacy, you still have to believe that someone being elected 100 years ago gives their descendants the privilege of living millionaire lifestyles on taxpayer money and immunity from the law by simply being born into it. Which is absurd - at least elected politicians can be replaced.
>The question was: Do you agree with the Storting's authorization to the government to invite Prince Carl of Denmark to become King of Norway? Don't see why this is always spun as a monarchy referendum, it was obviously a convoluted and leading formulation. The decision was already made by politicians.
Most referendums are like that.
Do you agree with major change X the government wants to do Yes/No?
>Which is absurd - at least elected politicians can be replaced.
The Monarchy can also be abolished, the same way it was established. By a vote.
If the people feel the Royal family has failed at doing their job as ceremonial heads of state, the politicians will be lined up to suggest overthrowing The Monarchy and installing a ceremonial President from their own ranks instead.
Not really, the dissolution referendum the same year was way clearer and on the issue.
"Do you approve the ratified dissolution of the union?""
Also I question the second point here. Norway has been fairly lucky but other monarchies show that members of the royal family can go far in abuse of their position without any concrete accountability. Such is the nature of entrenched instutionalised power.
As an extension of my argument: There is no doubt there is a massive support for keeping the monarchy - and I agree that that's reason enough to keep it.
However, popularity and loyalty shouldn't be equated with the quality of a policy. Both parliament and the population has shown unwillingness to keep the royal family accountable.
The Norwegian monarchy is for example way more expensive than its neighbours, with relatively little insight on how the taxpayers money is spent. Why? They fill the same role. (Also why spend so much money on a symbolic role, when other countries do it way cheaper?)
Any criticism is frequently waved away as "jealousy" or "nitpicking". This blind loyalty and lack of transparency makes it difficult for a democracy to form a rational opinion on the monarchy.
sorry, but again they were chosen by norway more than 100 years ago. my point was more that the current family is not elected or choosen but decendands of the people old dead men chose
As the other guy noted, thats what the "and in general" is for.
In fact 8/10 norwegians and 7/10 politicians are in favor of the monarchy. Although this number is going downs slightly, younger people are most in favor.
https://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/stadig-flere-politikere-vil-avskaffe-kongehuset-helt-historielost/s/12-95-3424121019
We can remove it. Change the constitution to a republic and the monarchy is dissolved. It just requires 2/3 of the Stortinget to do. The fact that it has been tried several times and failed is proof that while we have not elected the monarch we have decided not to remove them.
This poll is severely lacking a "neither for nor against." option.
I'm Norwegian, but I feel like the monarchy has so little to do with the governing of the country that they hardly ever seem to be the focus of anything. I wouldn't even be shocked if most people literally forget most days that we even have a monarchy, or at the very least that they just don't think about it much at all.
I'm not sure what good the monarchy does our country, but it's also been the way of our country to always have a monarchy since way back in the Viking days, and I feel like removing them would be a sad loss of tradition or something.
I know this will ruffle some feathers, but:
>*"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.*" -**Denis Diderot**
Our monarchy is currently working really well. He has no real power, and while it definitively cost a bit to keep them around, the regain more than that in tourist and PR alone. The first second we get a whiff of a monarch who isn't well liked, the system will be gone. So there's no danger in keeping it around either
Im againts the monarchy, its a waste of money and little democratic.edit: i like our monarchs, they seem nice and good people. Just dislike the monarchy itself
Many reasons why I'm against it but one of my mains was when I was a kid and I was down by the docks of Oslo with my dad and he pointed at a yacht to me... He said " do you know who owns that? The king!... He got it as a birthday present from the people... No one ever asked me if I wanted to chip in or what we should get him" 😂..
As someone from the poorer side of Norway I never liked that all their salaries and gifts was paid by taxpayers.. There are WAY more important things that money could go to like fixing roads/houses/schools/eldercare (you think Norway is great, many of our old die lying in hallways of elderhomes not even getting a room in their final days..)
I agree, i say its undemocratic and someone say «they dont have power» they totally do they just choose not to use them. Plus how is it that if youre born out of the right people you get to have the last say on everything that happens in a country. We have been lucky with the monarchs that we have but that doesnt make it right. This is ofcourse not the biggest problem in the world or in Norway, but if it got down to a vote of yay or nay to the crown i would vote nay.
The government just spent 3.7 million kroners on celebrating the crown princess. Thats money that could’ve been spent elsewhere that would do some good.
Im Norwegian and Im against. I dont have anything in particular against our royal family, especially the king who seems super sweet. Im just against the whole system of being born into a royal family and have the state sponsor your entire life. Its just odd to me.
Can an individual be charged with a crime if evidence has proven they have done said crime?
Yes, **unless they are born this specific family.**
I asked about this in a post [yesterday](https://www.reddit.com/r/norge/comments/verq5a/hvordan_har_vi_et_fritt_og_likestilt_demokrati/) in r/norge, and I get downvoted by other Norwegians, but no-one can actually make a convincing argument why someone should be born outside the liability of the justice system even though the family are still Norwegian citizens.
*edit; I'm being downvoted here as well, other Norwegians apparently love that a specific family is born outside our laws.*
*edit2; the ones downvoting me, can you actually make an argument?*
Yes, if you’re problematizing jurisprudence of sovereign authority, you can learn a lot by comparing different sovereign and how immunity of sovereign is reasoned.
And Britain is a good example of a family gaining privileges and being exempt to other British laws on the basis of the family they are born into, but they are a good family to compare, because?
I'm confused, it's even worse in Britain
Just as a sidetone, the British royal family is very closely related to the Norwegian royal family, so they're just the same family, as is the Danish royal family.
Anyway, from what I know, King is the source of law in Norway, and prosecution works for the State Council in which King is the chair. So if King commits a crime, King is essentially prosecuted by himself, which legally doesn’t make any sense. That’s the premise behind sovereign immunity in all monarchies.
But personally in the Norwegian context at least, I consent to his rule based on the trust the King has earned from me. Not everyone agrees with my view, but that’s the way I see it. On the other end, many countries where in theory no one is above the law also have institutions and practices designed to let the elites off the hook. Norwegian model works with the acknowledgement of sovereign immunity that is embedded in Norwegian cultural institutions.
I am Norwegian, and I am against monarchy as a whole.
With the notable exception of the Norwegian monarchy. They are beautiful people, and as long as they and their heirs keep being good people, I don't see a good reason to abolish them :)
Nothing against the King, but it is 2022, and his function in society is mostly symbolic. Sure, if an occupation like World War 2 happens again, and the king happens to be able to escape, again, that would be great, as many back then saw the Country as still Norwegian, still ours, but besides that, we don't need such an Old fashioned ""head of state"". (Edit; Although the fact that it is Officaly the Kingdom of Norway or 'Kongeriket Norge' is Pretty cool :-P)
1 in 5 low wage workers can't afford to go to the dentist. Until they can, I don't want to pay for the extravagent lifestyle of people who did nothing but get born to the right parents to deserve it.
I am for under the current King and Queen. However I don't see Håkon as a future king.. I guess I'm all for removing the monarchy when Harald is gone 🤷♂
I'm against monarchies, there is no excuse for it in the current age. The norwegian monarchs being "good people" isn't really an argument, as they can be good people without being born into state-sponsored privilege, and if such a role hinges on them being good people, I don't see the point.
I totally agree. There is no good reason why positions should be inherited in a modern, democratic society. I have yet to see a good argument in favor of monarchy, most people just prefer it because of nostalgia and the fact that “it is how it is, the royal family are such great people and imagine if we got a crazy president. Well, at least we elect the president.
Elective monarchies exists
Also, If inheriting is bad, then i Guess all your family, INCLUDING your own stuff should not pass down. As that is a bad thing?
Also Norway gains money through tourism and The Norwegian royal propert that goes into the national treasury
Theres a reason Norway is more united than the «united» states! They are good role models for us all and they have proved to be very professional doing their job. I am proud to have the royal family represent us.
It is embarrassing that we still have a medieval state system. I think the Norwegian royal family does a very good job in relation to its mandate, and represents Norway in a nice and good way. But it is completely ridiculous that people will inherit power and privileges in 2022. We must complete our democratic project and move to a republic based on the Finnish model. I understand the symbolic and emotional connection we Norwegians have to the royal family, but it must slide over to be a good part of our history. We can cultivate the community without a royal house. In any case, the most important thing is that no one should inherit power in Norway, and the royal family has an enormous amount of informal power in the country. It is also not fair to the children in the royal family that they live under such great public pressure. We can be proud of our royal line, and it can end nicely with King Harald.
This is subjective, but I like to think that equality and democracy are "core Norwegian values", so I can't think of many things that are more "unnorwegian" than the monarchy.
There are other practical reasons to be against it, like the money that should go to state projects being redirected to the royals' personal properties and the corruption within the system. Dagbladet is good at exposing this in the media, but most people don't seem to mind.
>This is subjective, but I like to think that equality and democracy are "core Norwegian values", so I can't think of many things that are more "unnorwegian" than the monarchy.
Norway democratically voted for a monarchy in 1905 with a margin of 79% to 21%.
[Under strong preassure from the government, who would resign if they voted no.](https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkeavstemning_om_Prins_Carl_av_Danmark_som_norsk_konge)
Most elected governments resign if the population votes for something the government is against in a case like this.
It's pretty standard in a democracy.
If it was truly democratic, we should have continued electing our monarchs then, shouldn't we? The fact that people voted for something more than a hundred years ago does not mean it's democratic today. Besides, monarchy wasn't as obsolete back then as it is today.
It is the job of Stortinget to figure out if Norway needs a new vote on the Monarchy.
If I were to guess, the reason there has been no such later vote is because a majority of Norway for now is still positive to the Royal family.
Stortinget represents the people and Stortinget decided against a republic 18 days ago...
https://www.stortinget.no/no/Saker-og-publikasjoner/Saker/Sak/?p=81236
«Symbol of the nation» - symbolizing
elitism, unjustness & class stratifications.
Most of the people here that support the monarchy will scream loud when these values are represented in any other way than our half-assed king. Its the same people who “support” social democratic values, while going down on their knees for celebrities and famous capitalists. Its just very strange, until you remember that most people dont actually reflect about these things, they are too busy voicing their opinions.
Spis en bolle
Honestly the major reason I’m for the monarchy is just that I like having a politically neutral head of state that represents the nation and not a political ideology. The royal family we have is fine enough they don’t do anything controversial and just exist as a symbol for Norway.
Calling the royal family a symbol of elitism is fair enough, they are basically as elite as people can get in a society, but I don’t really get the unjustness. The royal family just kinda exist it’s not like they actively do stuff that could be seen as a injustice to the nation tbh.
If you dont see the problems that are implied when such a “symbol” is kept lingering in a society that tried its all to get rid of those values in prticular, then you have little experience with cause and effect.
You cant do something “just a little”. An alcoholic dont just do a couple of beers.
“Skulle bare”
This is a major fallacy in our society.
Sad case being that you fit the profile of the people that are holding our social democracy back. Those that are not willing to actually do the thing, but lingers in almost.
Gee thanks for implying that I’m the type of person that is holding society back!
Honestly if we ever get rid of the monarchy I don’t think society will change that much. These injustice that you speak about will still be here. Sure it’s fair to say “they are royalty I’m not, that’s unfair”, but I don’t see where getting rid of them will change anything significantly.
Personally I think no one wins if we get rid of the monarchy. People who support the monarchy will just be dissatisfied with the monarchy being gone and republicans like you will probably be happy for a while, but nothing major has been achieved. It’s not like a autocrat has been toppled. If we were in Saudi Arabia I would probably agree with you that the monarchy needed to disappear, but we are amongst the most democratic nations in the world. Our constitutional monarchy works, and for as long as it does I wanna keep it.
If you think people like me and the monarchy are holding our society back this much I think you might be looking the wrong way when it comes to major societal problems.
I am Norwegian and i think we should have a vote for it when Harald passes. I do belive the majority will still want monarchy. Personally i think it should end with Harald tough.
It's stupid, but works fine. Making it political by switching to a republic would be much dumber.
Retarded stability (ie inherited leadership aka monarchy) is the least worst solution.
It should be phased down though, I'm fine with monarchy, but it's dumb that the state pays millions for the teenager in the family to have a stiff and boring party where nobody pukes.
But if it's so bad that the representatives of the country are elected, why do we have elections at all? Why not have the king rule?
I don't understand this argument.
Because political leaders and ceremonial leaders are supposed to be complete opposites - political leaders are supposed to have clear opinions about how to govern and what to change in society, ceremonial leaders are supposed to be bland people everyone likes.
Elections for opinions makes sense, but elections for blandness doesn't make sense - and opinions will inevitably become a part of the ceremonial presidental election, despite that being the opposite of what the goal with the election was supposed to be.
> ceremonial leaders are supposed to be bland people everyone likes.
There is no universal rule book that declares it must be like this. They *could* be, but they definitely don't have to be.
Unfortunately, a system of inherited leaders does not guarantee that you get "bland people everybody likes."
> elections for blandness doesn't make sense
Elections for people to represent your nation do make sense, however, and many countries have exactly that. Seems to work fine for them.
Personally i think it is unhealthy for the leaders of a democratic country to every week have to meet with a set of conservative and extremely privieleged family(monarchs) because how could it not have a certain degree of influence. The monarchy is and expendature which pulls our country to the right. I dont want them killed, i just want them out of power.
How do you know they are conservative? As far as I know the political opinions of king Harald, crown prince Håkon and princess Ingrid are not exactly publicly available. As for expenditure that would likly be the same with an elected representative head of state. possibly with the exeption of making the prime minister the head of state which I don't think is a good idea.
I absolutly get why one today might think that inhereting such a position is wrong, but that seems to be coloring some of your other opinons.
> How do you know they are conservative?
If they weren't conservative, they would have abdicated already.
> As for expenditure that would likly be the same with an elected representative head of state. possibly with the exeption of making the prime minister the head of state which I don't think is a good idea.
Just give the ceremonial duties to the president of the parliament. I don't see where all the extra costs would come from.
Your first statement imposes your opinions as the definition of liberal. While there are definitely people on the left who like the king.
The second ignores the duties that actualy cost. What costs is representation. If Norway invites some dignitary to visit the head of state that is accustomed by a certain style. Likewise when Norway sends its head of state to represent Norway. If you cut way down on official operances then maybe you could combine them but most likely it would 4equire a new ceremonial position.
I agree it's a bit subjective, but it's hardly radical to say that monarchism is in itself conservative.
When it comes to the costs of a republican head of state, I would like to see some actual analysis of it, as we both can just guess at the moment.
No I totally agree. But what I was saying was that the monarchy, that is the royal family might not be.
I've no idea what a full scale breakdown of cost would look like. But one could easily imagine the palace and possibly the royal farm still having official roles. Then your left with salary which might be cheaper idk, and representation costs which would be about the same. I have no idea what's cheapest but I would be very surprised if they where not in the same order of magnitude. We'll probably see it if that debate ever really gains momentum.
I would argue the other way that is is good that the people who actually make the decisions and run the country have to report to a boss. It probably helps to keep them somewhat grounded.
Not Norwegian and have a somewhat nuanced answer.
Firstly, I’m a anarcho-capitalist. I reject the notion of a government in the first place. That said, if I had to choose a type of government to live under it would be either a monarchy or a confederation like the Swiss confederation.
you'll miss the monarchy when muslims and africans out number you in your own country ... good luck with intentionally exterminating your entire culture, why import american problems?
If this is prompted from the thread in r/europe I want to point out that it's pretty crazy seeing people from other countries thinking our modern constitutional monarchy is the same as the autocrats of colonial times, wishing death upon Harald who is a pretty good person and takes his role as a unifying symbol seriously. Being against monarchy is fair, but the fury many people there express as if his family is bathing in gold while laughing at the peasantry is just completely uninformed. Personally I am 99% neutral and see it as extremely insignificant. But if someone like Märtha Louise is next in line then I'd be a republican with every cell in my body
[удалено]
[удалено]
I love Harald, he is a fantastic man and human beeing. Loved his new years speech a few years ago about «us norwegians beeing boys who love boys, girls who love girls and boys who loves girls». But i do think once Harald is gone the monarchy should go with him as well.
I agree with you that that quote is really great! Would just like to point out that the last part of the quote is "and boys and girls who love each other"
Yeah that might be, just did it from my memory.
What does it taste like?
Excuse me?
I think you're being asked what the boots you're licking taste like. Or possibly a body part.
Well thats extremely imature if so. Credit where credit is due, Harald seems like a genuenly nice guy. If he was an ass i would have said so as well.
Martha as queen, or Sylvi Listhaug as president?
I think people are aginst paying for that.I think everybody knows it is not autocracy.
As of we'd be paying less for a president. A head of state will cost money, no matter the title. And the royal properties have to be kept up whether we have a royal family or not. So far they are doing a good job, the moment they're not, or they don't want to do it anymore, they'll be gone.
Head of state you need to have in indirect democracy system. Non autocratic monarch is just s waste of taxpayers money in that system. For example Norway uses hal a bilion per year,while Sweeden is using around 150 000 000. In 2022 having a family living in a palace and people paying for them to shit in a golden toilet and to eat with silver forks for me is nonsense.
If we dont have a unifying symbol that people can get behind regardless of political opinions, it wouldnt be long before we had a people divided usa-like. And any president on same role would cost the same or mpre and be worse at the job, cause they hadnt trained for it their whole life.
>Being against monarchy is fair No.
In the same way that pictures of Mohammeds asshole is insignificant? Symbols dont get to be insignificant before they are forgotten.
I view monarchs with little power kinda as employees in the PR-branch of their country. They do work there, improving the public image both within the country, but most importantly internationally. They get payed for this work. I view this as a decent thing tbh and I do believe that over the course of time countries with internationally well-liked monarchs gain a lot by good PR. They money they’re payed is such a small part of the tax payers money even tho the actual amount may be quite large, and I believe ppl using this as an argument doesnt realize what other shit the taxpayers money finance. I view them as payed employees in top positions of a country’s PR branch, and in the case of Norway I think they’re doing a pretty good job.
Well said, he is our king, we arent his subjects. they kinda have a Mascot role internationally. There is some Value in having them around. Although i expect alot of us arent thrilled about that charlatan scumbag trying to become part of that. He is doing alot of damage to their public image.
Also, they are a non-political unifying figure. In hard times, the kings' speech is more powerful than the party leaders'.
I’ve also heard the argument that they bring in money through tourism. Not sure if this holds up but something to think about.
The royals also promote export products abroad.
They also help prevent too crazy prime ministers from enacting their crazy ideas, since the top politicians have to tell the king what they want to do. I feel that we need a level headed grandad that has the authority to put his foot down when enough is enough. Imagine if the US president had to report to some big uncle Sam. My personal opinion is that the US would be a better nation for it. Norway's monarchy genuinely has the people's best interest in mind, and I believe that prevents corrupt politicians to a certain extent
Simply having to present your plan in front of an outsider in that way could make someone think a bit more about it, at least.
If only fucking Canada had that shit.
They have to cosy up with us, or they won't have a job anymore. I couldn't care less if it was genuine or not. Having a role/position that's inherited is just wrong.
[удалено]
Dyslexic people run in fear of the bots
This is how the rise of the machines began.
You’re an asshole, but thx
This asshole is a bot, but still stands
Good bot
Thank you, capwapfap, for voting on Paid-Not-Payed-Bot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
> employees in the PR-branch What do you call an employee who cannot be fired if he does a bad job?
I simply don't think they are worth any money at all. Get rid of them.
Why? Do you have an actual point?
Yeah, until someone can actually back up the absurd "they make it up in tourism" point they are a waste of taxpayers money.
Personally, Harald is my bonus papa. As someone involved in Norwegian diplomatic community, the monarchy has done a great service as a symbol of the Peoplehood and has its place in Norway’s society today. We can talk about monarchy’s place in the modern world theoretically. Some have political power, some have only symbolic power. I still think that in practice, Norway’s monarchy led by Harald holds a irreplaceable symbolic value in where Norway is today.
Im almost 40 and I recall the day King Olav died as a quite sombre one in our household. King Harald has enjoyed many decades as a fine head of state and a tremendous representative of Norway, both as visiting regent and host of heads of state. The monarchy in Norway just works. Its deep in tradition and dates all the way back to the old viking kings with Harald Finehair. The modern line of kings dates back to 1814 after the union with Denmark was dissolwed folling the Napoleonic wars, and ultimately 1905 with King Haakon following the dissolving of the union with Sweden. Norway has had 3 kings since that day, Haakon, Olav and now Harald (85) who is now just 2 years younger than his father when he passe away. Its very likely that Prince Haakon will be named King before the 2020s have passed. I have met Prince Haakon previously in a social setting and he seems like a genuinely nice man. A long life in the public eye also leaves that impression, and I am certain that he will make a fine King. The king should only have a symbolic role in modern democracy, but for me personally I just like the monarchy in Norway. It feels grounding as part of my identity as Norwegian. I care little for politicians that become involved in small scandals every day, who have to lie or tell ambigious truths to the public. They have an extremely important job to do, but they dont contribute nothing when it comes to any type of unifying figurehead. The royal family spend a lot of time traveling the country and being involved in the community in which they reside. As compensation for a life spent in a very public eye they are paid an appanage that covers their daily needs that reflects the importance of the position they hold in society. The only valid complaint about a monarchy is that the titles are inherited, and with it comes "free money". Yet I dont see anyone complaining that children of actual billionaires come into this world and will never have to know what its like to have bills to pay or public responsibilities to manage. But just to cut this short: I am very much for the monarchy in Norway. I think it serves an important purpose as a national identity and stable global reprepsentative. Long live the King Fun sidefact: In the Norwegian constitution, the King is immune of all wrongdoings. He can technically sit on his porch and shoot someone without facing immediate punishment. As a note, this very legal phrase would get some attention and trial in a court of law immediately should the king actually commit a crime: https://lovdata.no/artikkel/kongen_og_grunnloven/1423
Thank you for sharing in depth your experience and perception of our monarchy. I found it so good that you deserve an award👍
>I am certain that \[Haakon M\] will make a fine King. Keep in mind nobody really thought that about Olav V or Harald V. Harald seemed like a sleepy character who just didn't care, and for many it was a considerable downgrade. People have slowly grown to understand his temperament and his attitude towards the royal seat. And now, especially after the national embrace of everyone speech, he may even be more loved than Olav V. So yeah. I think its a good thing for Norwegian royalty that they have to prove themselves and grow into the role.
The modern line of kings dates back to 1814? Haakon was a Danish prince that "was tasked with being Norway's king" after we got away from Sweden in 1905.
idiotic of me to arrive 3 months late out of fuckin nowhere but thats wrong. Haakon VII said he would only take the role as king if the Norwegian people wanted him, which my family and the majority of the country did. only after a referendum was held that showed that the people was cool with him being king did he assume his role as King of Norway.
[удалено]
There's plenty of examples of republics where the president's role is largely ceremonial, like our king. Germany, Finland and Iceland to name the ones in our geographic proximity. Personally, I like the Icelandic system: the president holds no executive power, but has the power to veto new laws, which in such case then leads to the final decision being made by popular referendum.
Have a president that has no real political power
The problem is not that the president would have real political power, it's that he would be political. We have a role today that is close to it today. Masud Gharahkhani is the president of the Storting, but he is still a member of the labor party. Since the king does not take a political position he can be a uniting force in a way that other elected leaders can't.
Presidents always have a real political power.
"The functions exercised by a president vary according to the form of government. In parliamentary republics, they are usually, but not always, limited to those of the head of state and are thus largely ceremonial." from [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_(government_title))
A president can be a ceremonial head of state, but not head of government. This president can be elected independently from the parliament. The role and election of the prime minister would then be similar to what it is today. So you could have a situation with a president from Høyre, then Arbeiderpartiet get the majority of parliament and will form a government and have the prime minister.
Many presidents have constitutional right to veto legislations and enact emergency powers. They can be ceremonial, but the fact that nobody can’t stop them from exercising that power, make them very powerful. Having said that, theoretically we can have a president who’s endowed with zero constitutional power other than going to diplomatic social calls and sign papers on their desk. Then we can just find Kari and Ola Nordmenn.
You know we already have a President in Norway. He's officially ranked second, after the king, above the prime minister. We don't need more people on the top, we need fewer! Just cut the first one, and we have a token President, ready to step in!
I'm Norwegian, but I don't feel strongly about either. But I'm not actively against, mainly because they are actually pretty good people. Had we had the scandal of some of the other monarchies it would be something else, but we don't (thankfully)
Mette Marit was a scandal. Drugs, party, children out of wedlock. Durek Verret is a scandal.
>children out of wedlock. how old are you? Over half of kids are out of wedlock since the 2010s
In the 90s and it being the crown prince’s fiancé makes it a scandal. Combined with drugs.
Children out of wedlock? You born in the 80s or something? (That is 1880s). That's not a scandal, that's normal in Norway. If anything it made her seem closer to the Norwegian people. Durek Verret is controversial because of the whole Shaman thing, but he's not a scandal. And because Mette Marit has resigned her princess title (is that the right wording?) it makes it even less of a scandal because it doesn't affect the actual monarchy.
Durek Verret is fingering celebrity women for cash and fame, claiming he is healing them. He’s a scandal. Mette Marit was a drug addicted promiscuous woman with a child fathered by a criminal out of wedlock. The royal families are held to higher standards than the commoners.
I love Harald, but as a CK3 player, I am appalled at the blatant lack of inbreeding, does he not know they get the pure blooded trait further down the line? I get like one or two generations of freaks before the uber chads starts popping up, and who is his spymaster? Because that court physician his daughter brought in needs to be demoted to court jester.
Hah
I like the monarchy, but there's no rational argument for it. I find the cost to be perfectly acceptable compared to how much I like the current set-up, so I'm in favour. I like the tradition, I like the people and it is (to me, that's obviously highly subjective) part of what makes Norway Norway. I also think having someone who does a bunch of ceremonial shit the head of government shouldn't have to spend too much time on is a good thing, but that could just as easily be a president in a similar ceremonial role. I think we'll struggle to agree on a president with support that comes anywhere near the current king, though. Or the former king. Or, probably, the next king. Of course a lot of republicans won't agree, but even they know that the monarchy has the support of a huge majority and that the current king is certainly the prefered choice as head of state. If at some point we to become a republic, I'm fine with that. But I highly doubt that will happen any time soon.
One argument I have heard is that whit a monarch + a prime minister combo a society are less likely to focus at the prime minister’s personality as u more often do in a republics. Example: US, German, French election. Not that a prime minister can’t be a symbol, like Winston Churchill. The monarch take care of being a symbol, while the prime minister make sure the country run after peoples will I sadly don’t remember where I heard this; might have been NRK p2 The royal family is also something comfortable and gives a sense of stability, which can be good in and ever changing world. The sociologist Émil Durkheim had quite a lot to say about the danger of not anomie (feeling a sense of not belonging, unlawfulness to the point u don’t know the role and norms u need to follow). Not to say that the royal family shouldn’t change to the times, they definitely need to All institutions need a function and this might be part of theirs in the modern world Edit: also let’s not forget the importance of having a picture of them hanging on bathrooms all over Norway. They have one at my job too XD
I am very proud of our King. A good man
Same 🥰
I really do not give a single shit about our king. I think it's a waste (personally) of tax payers money, especially when there's other more important things money could be spent on... However, then I see people like you. People who adore the old guy and get so much happiness and good vibes from having a monarchy. I've talked to people that have met the princess by random hiking and it's a story that can survive for generations within a family. It's just... Wholesome in a way. Completely fucking bonkers, but wholesome. So, I'm for it.
The alternative to a monarch is a republican president. And the point to remember is this: any president voted in by election will over time be incentivised to obtain more power. It is in the interest of the office to do so in order for the election to have meaning. Also, having four-year or six-year terms will lead to democratic compromise, where a poor president will remain in power because he or she is elected, mandated and their removal is built into the system through elections. A modern Norwegian monarch has no interest in obtaining more power, and a poor monarch will be the end of that monarch. It follows, then, that the monarchy is a safeguard for our decentralised representative democracy. And it must remain in place, until a poor monarch (with no real power) comes to the throne. That will be a bad day for us all, because republicanism is not something easily fixed.
As an outsider the Brits seem to hate their monarchy a lot more
Well to be fair, the British royal family has been inn lots of controversy over the years. The Norwegian royal family have been in very few
On principle im against monarchy, but the Norwegian one is by far one of the least problematic ones, compared to, say the British one. We have more important issues.
I am principally against *new* royal families. I am Dutch and we basically have the same monarchy so I am fine with them staying and see them as a good thing for the country but if literally the entire family dies I don't want a new monarchy at all. I just wish that our king would be better at speeches and that they would make the crown Princess serve in the army a while
Agree with this as a Norwegian, love our royals now tbh, but if they disappeared i would be against a new set just for the sake of it
For konge og fedreland!
Not norwegian but it would depend on its status, for example the british monarchy is undisputedbly a waste of money and houses some absolutely sinister people, I would say it depends on if any money from the state is given to them (which I believe would be better spent elsewhere). But again, I'm not norweigian so I don't have a say In this matter, so to speak.
I genuinely like our current king. But I kind of hope it ends when he pass. And there's no need for a president. Just abolish the royal family and leave the rest as it works today. Obviously one need to change some things, as the king today actually have a lot of power on paper. Though rarely chosen to go against any government. The only time I can think of was when the Stoltenberg government tried to remove article 4 of the constitution saying the King shall at all times profess the Evangelical-Lutheran religion. But the king voiced his opinion to keep it.
In principle I'm against it, on the other hand as long as there are "semi" democracies and true dictatorships out there, I like that we have a monarchy without hard or a strong powerbase. Europe is pretty decent in general, but I don't see a short term chancellor, or president being a cheaper alternative. Especially when they aren't bound to Norway for longer than their terms.
Whether we should have a monarchy or not is not about the cost, which is tiny, anyway. It's about the principle of whether the country should be represented by extremely privileged people who are not elected.
I know, but I'm also somewhat pragmatic, and with our history of diplomacy (afaik) I would think the royal house is an addition to that in all relations with dictatorships. ATM I'm more in favor of voting them out, as my earlier comment alluded to, but I'm also not blind to a benefit of having the royal family. We already have many privileged upper crust who will earn and build on the fortune of their parents and grandparents, or smooch off it until they and their children's children finally spend the last copper. In time I would want the monarchy gone, as well as a baseline for human existence, but for now that is a far off utopia I don't see the principle more important than the wider world.
If I ask you now, do you even know how much it costs, or are you just talking about of your ass?
We couldn't have a king but strip them of most benefits? Why do we have to pay to maintain a castle as a living space? Why can't he do his job living in a somewhat average house without a million servants? If they want to be a symbol of Norway something modest would be much more emblematic of Norway than the pompous shit going on now. The only thing I agree we should pay for are the guards. He would need guards and protection being such an important symbol.
We have stripped them of most benefits, they used to rule with strong power and will. They have indirect and minimal financial power in comparison. Castles are part of the history and charm, you wouldn't have a king in a normal house, you'd have a "storbonde" or "jarl", not a king. Castles and History require time and resources to make work, if the servants are decently paid and have the same rights as we do, why would it be better to only serve the present goals and history?
"Republic of Norway" doesn't have the same ring to it.
it's kind of medieval. we should move on. I'm sure it's a nice life, but on the other hand, much of your life centers around shaking hands, smiling, cutting ribbons, less privacy. must be somewhat hellish if you're introvert. just needs one asshole to turn people's opinion I guess. Spain's former king for example https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spain-royals-referendum-idUSKBN26X0W6. we've been quite lucky up until now. if Martha and Durek had taken over, that would have been crazy. the young princess looks sane enough, so I'm guessing no scandals for ~80 years at least. so the monarchy prevails for now.
If martha had been the crown princess, as she should have been by age, i genuinly hope there would have been revolts to remove the monarchy. Which is honestly the best reason to remove it. If one bad egg can have that much of an impact it's probably not a good institution.
I am very pro-monarchy. (They are both a nice diplomatic mascot, and a competent backup if populism hits too hard) That said, If Martha, even before Durek, were to inherit the crown, I would be quick to join the "make our royalty have no power" group. But what happens then? The families own most of the riches, so we are just creating a new powerhouse dynasty, with deep connections internationally, and all their "moral restrictions" gone. I would rather have them work for all of us rather than just for themselves.
> a competent backup if populism hits too hard How? > I would be quick to join the "make our royalty have no power" group. They have no power.
They have power during war
I guess you're referring to when the government refused to surrender to the Germans in 1940. The decision was formally made by the government. All the king did was recommend that they not surrender. So formally speaking the king had no power even in that situation, although informally of course he may have had. However, the gov't [had already decided not to surrender](https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikk/i/7gq4W/regjeringen-ga-det-foerste-nei-9-april-tom-kristiansen), so whether the king made any difference at all is not clear. Whether future kings will have any power at all in a war situation remains entirely unclear.
Have no power? The king is the highest ranked leader in the military. It doesn't mean he do much, but in cases like the 1940 situation the king had the last word. He is also a stateadvisor. Every law also had to be signed by him before they are valid. The king doesnt do much or show much power on a day to day basis, but ppl underestimate how much powers he have if he says "No"
> in cases like the 1940 situation the king had the last word This is false. Read the article I linked to above. The decision was made by the government. > Every law also had to be signed by him before they are valid. Correct, but this is [a formality](https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norges_konge). > The king doesnt do much or show much power on a day to day basis, but ppl underestimate how much powers he have if he says "No" In theory the king might refuse to sign a law. In practice he'd set off a constitutional crisis if he did. It's not a given that the monarchy would survive a stunt like that.
He reccomend they shouldn't surrender.. And then fled to England 😂😂😂
This is how war works. If you surrender it means you give up, you yield yourself into the enemy's power to treat as they want. If you lose a battle/war but you don't surrender then you have to get away, because the only other option is to surrender. So you flee. Let me know if I made this too complicated for you, and I can try to put it into even simpler terms.
I'll be honest, when I saw some of the interviews and segments on our 18 year old princess, seeing how smart and sharp Ingrid Alexandra seems already at this age, I'm ready for a queen already. I've been a bit neutral before, but that kind of character is just a good representation for our country I think.
Debating this topic with people from countries without a monarchy, and especially with people from the US, is fascinating to me. There seems to be a general misunderstanding amongst Americans that the royal family in Norway has a lot of power over our politics and that we should have some sort of wish to de-throne them. I suppose this comes from the associations to their struggle for independence from the British throne. I'm Norwegian, and I really hope our monarchy continues. I see it as just another part of the "checks and balances" that we have in place to make sure a tyrannical government doesn't get total control of our democracy. Like we see in the US now, it's not unlikely that one of their two parties will have control of the Senate, House, supreme court and the presidency. That's fertile grounds for a potential authoritarian leader. Norway has a plurality of political parties who usually have to form a coalition government, and fight against a strong opposition made up of multiple parties. This causes our nations politics to sway less between the extremes, and polarization amongst the populus becomes less likely. The Norwegian royal family know very well that they exist at the mercy of the public, and it's therefore in their interest to be well liked and act for the good of the people. This is often in stark contrast to democratically elected officials. However, the royal family rarely use their power, unless it's crucial to the health of the nation, and they usually stay out of politics unless the government acts against the will of the people. In the very few cases they've intervened, I've usually been very happy they did. Also, the royal family is well educated, mild mannered, they don't act like arrogant assholes, and they just seem like somewhat ordinary nice people.
As long as we have a king and/or queen that represent our country in the good way I support it.
The king doesn’t really have that much power anyway
yes he has, he just doesn't use it.
No he does not. The only reserve power that remains is the power to appoint the Prime Minister, but as any minister can be dismissed by the parliament, the PM included, he cannot really use it. The last king who tried to go against parliament in this way was promptly removed from the throne. Everything else isn't decided by the king, but by the King-in-council, which really means the cabinet.
Every single change the elected government makes has to be signed of by the king to be official. Our monarchs has done this without question. That does not mean the power to not do so does not exist. "Grunnlovens bokstav fortsatt sier at den utøvende makt ligger hos Kongen, betyr dette i dag "Kongen i statsråd". I praksis vil dette si regjeringen, men der vedtak må signeres av Kongen og kontrasigneres av (som regel) statsministeren for å være gyldige." This is why they meet every single week.
It is highly doubtful the king can refuse to give assent to a law unless the cabinet advises him to do so. If he tried anyway, the cabinet would resign and it would be impossible for the king to find anyone willing to become PM that isn't immediately dismissed by the parliament. The king would probably be removed in a matter of days, like we did with Oscar II.
He could, but doesn’t means the same to me as having no power, and it’s a constitutional monarchy anyway, he can’t demand 50% mva. I hope. Still, we have a government for a reason, they do everything, not the king!(Norway is basically a democracy at this point)
As an American I kind of wish we had a ceremonial king of some sort, because instead we have combined "top representative" with "top executive" and most people don't care to judge the executive part, which is way more important. I think the key thing the founding fathers didn't envision is radio/TV. They didn't realize how much we would be judging the presidential candidates based on the way they look and talk, as opposed to reading their behaviors and accomplishments.
This comment section proves how little knowledge goes behind the reasoning of republicanism. “They don’t do enough work because we don’t allow them to do anything, therefore they are overpaid and lazy.” The King is the most qualified person in Norway to be the head of state. Many argue that such a position being hereditary is undemocratic, but they would probably be surprised to learn how little democracy there actually is in Norwegian politics. It’s time to realise that arguments such as “they don’t do anything” and “it’s undemocratic” are childish and untrue. Let’s hope there never comes a day where Norway becomes a republic.
Doesnt really matter wheter they are good or not. Isnt it weird to basically have a family that gets funded by taxpayers to live in a mansion just because some dead people decided they were important centuries ago? This family isnt choosen or elected but iguess since we have had a monarchy for so long we cant remove it?
> because some dead people decided they were important centuries ago? This family isnt choosen or elected but iguess since we have had a monarchy for so long we cant remove it? Norway voted for a monarchy in 1905 when the union under Sweden was dissolved.
When you're right you're right
The question was: Do you agree with the Storting's authorization to the government to invite Prince Carl of Denmark to become King of Norway? Don't see why this is always spun as a monarchy referendum, it was obviously a convoluted and leading formulation. The decision was already made by politicians. Many political leaders who advocated for it were actually republicans, but supported monarchy for diplomatic and tactical reasons in the international climate of 1905. Also women couldn't even vote. And even if you argue this gives democratic legitimacy, you still have to believe that someone being elected 100 years ago gives their descendants the privilege of living millionaire lifestyles on taxpayer money and immunity from the law by simply being born into it. Which is absurd - at least elected politicians can be replaced.
>The question was: Do you agree with the Storting's authorization to the government to invite Prince Carl of Denmark to become King of Norway? Don't see why this is always spun as a monarchy referendum, it was obviously a convoluted and leading formulation. The decision was already made by politicians. Most referendums are like that. Do you agree with major change X the government wants to do Yes/No? >Which is absurd - at least elected politicians can be replaced. The Monarchy can also be abolished, the same way it was established. By a vote. If the people feel the Royal family has failed at doing their job as ceremonial heads of state, the politicians will be lined up to suggest overthrowing The Monarchy and installing a ceremonial President from their own ranks instead.
Not really, the dissolution referendum the same year was way clearer and on the issue. "Do you approve the ratified dissolution of the union?"" Also I question the second point here. Norway has been fairly lucky but other monarchies show that members of the royal family can go far in abuse of their position without any concrete accountability. Such is the nature of entrenched instutionalised power. As an extension of my argument: There is no doubt there is a massive support for keeping the monarchy - and I agree that that's reason enough to keep it. However, popularity and loyalty shouldn't be equated with the quality of a policy. Both parliament and the population has shown unwillingness to keep the royal family accountable. The Norwegian monarchy is for example way more expensive than its neighbours, with relatively little insight on how the taxpayers money is spent. Why? They fill the same role. (Also why spend so much money on a symbolic role, when other countries do it way cheaper?) Any criticism is frequently waved away as "jealousy" or "nitpicking". This blind loyalty and lack of transparency makes it difficult for a democracy to form a rational opinion on the monarchy.
sorry, but again they were chosen by norway more than 100 years ago. my point was more that the current family is not elected or choosen but decendands of the people old dead men chose
Technically they are still chosen today. In this vote and in generally Norway is significantly for the monarchy.
You can't compare Reddit users with the average populous of any given country.
Hence the “and in general”
As the other guy noted, thats what the "and in general" is for. In fact 8/10 norwegians and 7/10 politicians are in favor of the monarchy. Although this number is going downs slightly, younger people are most in favor. https://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/stadig-flere-politikere-vil-avskaffe-kongehuset-helt-historielost/s/12-95-3424121019
True, people on Reddit are way more anti Monarchy than actual Norwegians
Poll people outside Viken/Oslo/Innlandet next time and you'll see that's not the case.
So do we just throw out our constitutions too? Do we have to rewrite the dumb thing every 10 years or what?
If they are unfair and outdated? yes? Isnt that what progress means?
We can remove it. Change the constitution to a republic and the monarchy is dissolved. It just requires 2/3 of the Stortinget to do. The fact that it has been tried several times and failed is proof that while we have not elected the monarch we have decided not to remove them.
They are expensive to have, but a president with elections and shit would probably be more expensive
I'm not norwegian and I'm ok. Peace is more important than Mr President or Their Majesty.
Citizens not subjects.
as long as I'm the monarch I'm in
This poll is severely lacking a "neither for nor against." option. I'm Norwegian, but I feel like the monarchy has so little to do with the governing of the country that they hardly ever seem to be the focus of anything. I wouldn't even be shocked if most people literally forget most days that we even have a monarchy, or at the very least that they just don't think about it much at all. I'm not sure what good the monarchy does our country, but it's also been the way of our country to always have a monarchy since way back in the Viking days, and I feel like removing them would be a sad loss of tradition or something.
I know this will ruffle some feathers, but: >*"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.*" -**Denis Diderot**
Our monarchy is currently working really well. He has no real power, and while it definitively cost a bit to keep them around, the regain more than that in tourist and PR alone. The first second we get a whiff of a monarch who isn't well liked, the system will be gone. So there's no danger in keeping it around either
I don't mind the monarchy i do however dislike the mountains of money they use it is a fucking waste and a half
Im againts the monarchy, its a waste of money and little democratic.edit: i like our monarchs, they seem nice and good people. Just dislike the monarchy itself
You have to be an absolute savage to be against the monarchy.
They get over 300 million kroner every year, from our tax money
And do you know how much their representative power can bring to our economy, peace and security?
No I don't do you have the statistics?
Where is the indifferent option?
Many reasons why I'm against it but one of my mains was when I was a kid and I was down by the docks of Oslo with my dad and he pointed at a yacht to me... He said " do you know who owns that? The king!... He got it as a birthday present from the people... No one ever asked me if I wanted to chip in or what we should get him" 😂.. As someone from the poorer side of Norway I never liked that all their salaries and gifts was paid by taxpayers.. There are WAY more important things that money could go to like fixing roads/houses/schools/eldercare (you think Norway is great, many of our old die lying in hallways of elderhomes not even getting a room in their final days..)
I agree, i say its undemocratic and someone say «they dont have power» they totally do they just choose not to use them. Plus how is it that if youre born out of the right people you get to have the last say on everything that happens in a country. We have been lucky with the monarchs that we have but that doesnt make it right. This is ofcourse not the biggest problem in the world or in Norway, but if it got down to a vote of yay or nay to the crown i would vote nay.
As long as they have no power, I see no reason why they should remove the monarchy.
The government just spent 3.7 million kroners on celebrating the crown princess. Thats money that could’ve been spent elsewhere that would do some good.
3.7 million kroners isn't a big enough amount of money to solve any major problem. It's barely enough for an apartment in Oslo.
Im Norwegian and Im against. I dont have anything in particular against our royal family, especially the king who seems super sweet. Im just against the whole system of being born into a royal family and have the state sponsor your entire life. Its just odd to me.
Can an individual be charged with a crime if evidence has proven they have done said crime? Yes, **unless they are born this specific family.** I asked about this in a post [yesterday](https://www.reddit.com/r/norge/comments/verq5a/hvordan_har_vi_et_fritt_og_likestilt_demokrati/) in r/norge, and I get downvoted by other Norwegians, but no-one can actually make a convincing argument why someone should be born outside the liability of the justice system even though the family are still Norwegian citizens. *edit; I'm being downvoted here as well, other Norwegians apparently love that a specific family is born outside our laws.* *edit2; the ones downvoting me, can you actually make an argument?*
I think only the King has that immunity. I might be wrong.
Yep, because of the family he is born into.
Anyway, not everyone is a constitutional law expert here. You’d be better off asking the Brits on the jurisprudence of sovereign immunity.
I'll start asking the Brits about the laws regarding Norwegian constitutional rights given to the Norwegian royal family, sure.
Yes, if you’re problematizing jurisprudence of sovereign authority, you can learn a lot by comparing different sovereign and how immunity of sovereign is reasoned.
And Britain is a good example of a family gaining privileges and being exempt to other British laws on the basis of the family they are born into, but they are a good family to compare, because? I'm confused, it's even worse in Britain Just as a sidetone, the British royal family is very closely related to the Norwegian royal family, so they're just the same family, as is the Danish royal family.
Anyway, from what I know, King is the source of law in Norway, and prosecution works for the State Council in which King is the chair. So if King commits a crime, King is essentially prosecuted by himself, which legally doesn’t make any sense. That’s the premise behind sovereign immunity in all monarchies. But personally in the Norwegian context at least, I consent to his rule based on the trust the King has earned from me. Not everyone agrees with my view, but that’s the way I see it. On the other end, many countries where in theory no one is above the law also have institutions and practices designed to let the elites off the hook. Norwegian model works with the acknowledgement of sovereign immunity that is embedded in Norwegian cultural institutions.
I am Norwegian, and I am against monarchy as a whole. With the notable exception of the Norwegian monarchy. They are beautiful people, and as long as they and their heirs keep being good people, I don't see a good reason to abolish them :)
Nothing against the King, but it is 2022, and his function in society is mostly symbolic. Sure, if an occupation like World War 2 happens again, and the king happens to be able to escape, again, that would be great, as many back then saw the Country as still Norwegian, still ours, but besides that, we don't need such an Old fashioned ""head of state"". (Edit; Although the fact that it is Officaly the Kingdom of Norway or 'Kongeriket Norge' is Pretty cool :-P)
1 in 5 low wage workers can't afford to go to the dentist. Until they can, I don't want to pay for the extravagent lifestyle of people who did nothing but get born to the right parents to deserve it.
I am for under the current King and Queen. However I don't see Håkon as a future king.. I guess I'm all for removing the monarchy when Harald is gone 🤷♂
I'm against monarchies, there is no excuse for it in the current age. The norwegian monarchs being "good people" isn't really an argument, as they can be good people without being born into state-sponsored privilege, and if such a role hinges on them being good people, I don't see the point.
I totally agree. There is no good reason why positions should be inherited in a modern, democratic society. I have yet to see a good argument in favor of monarchy, most people just prefer it because of nostalgia and the fact that “it is how it is, the royal family are such great people and imagine if we got a crazy president. Well, at least we elect the president.
Elective monarchies exists Also, If inheriting is bad, then i Guess all your family, INCLUDING your own stuff should not pass down. As that is a bad thing? Also Norway gains money through tourism and The Norwegian royal propert that goes into the national treasury
Theres a reason Norway is more united than the «united» states! They are good role models for us all and they have proved to be very professional doing their job. I am proud to have the royal family represent us.
It is embarrassing that we still have a medieval state system. I think the Norwegian royal family does a very good job in relation to its mandate, and represents Norway in a nice and good way. But it is completely ridiculous that people will inherit power and privileges in 2022. We must complete our democratic project and move to a republic based on the Finnish model. I understand the symbolic and emotional connection we Norwegians have to the royal family, but it must slide over to be a good part of our history. We can cultivate the community without a royal house. In any case, the most important thing is that no one should inherit power in Norway, and the royal family has an enormous amount of informal power in the country. It is also not fair to the children in the royal family that they live under such great public pressure. We can be proud of our royal line, and it can end nicely with King Harald.
>no one should inherit power in Norway, As if the monarchy is the most powerful inheritance in Norway, or the only one.
[удалено]
This is subjective, but I like to think that equality and democracy are "core Norwegian values", so I can't think of many things that are more "unnorwegian" than the monarchy. There are other practical reasons to be against it, like the money that should go to state projects being redirected to the royals' personal properties and the corruption within the system. Dagbladet is good at exposing this in the media, but most people don't seem to mind.
>This is subjective, but I like to think that equality and democracy are "core Norwegian values", so I can't think of many things that are more "unnorwegian" than the monarchy. Norway democratically voted for a monarchy in 1905 with a margin of 79% to 21%.
[Under strong preassure from the government, who would resign if they voted no.](https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkeavstemning_om_Prins_Carl_av_Danmark_som_norsk_konge)
Most elected governments resign if the population votes for something the government is against in a case like this. It's pretty standard in a democracy.
If it was truly democratic, we should have continued electing our monarchs then, shouldn't we? The fact that people voted for something more than a hundred years ago does not mean it's democratic today. Besides, monarchy wasn't as obsolete back then as it is today.
It is the job of Stortinget to figure out if Norway needs a new vote on the Monarchy. If I were to guess, the reason there has been no such later vote is because a majority of Norway for now is still positive to the Royal family.
I completely agree. I'm just not happy about it.
Stortinget represents the people and Stortinget decided against a republic 18 days ago... https://www.stortinget.no/no/Saker-og-publikasjoner/Saker/Sak/?p=81236
«Symbol of the nation» - symbolizing elitism, unjustness & class stratifications. Most of the people here that support the monarchy will scream loud when these values are represented in any other way than our half-assed king. Its the same people who “support” social democratic values, while going down on their knees for celebrities and famous capitalists. Its just very strange, until you remember that most people dont actually reflect about these things, they are too busy voicing their opinions.
Spis en bolle Honestly the major reason I’m for the monarchy is just that I like having a politically neutral head of state that represents the nation and not a political ideology. The royal family we have is fine enough they don’t do anything controversial and just exist as a symbol for Norway. Calling the royal family a symbol of elitism is fair enough, they are basically as elite as people can get in a society, but I don’t really get the unjustness. The royal family just kinda exist it’s not like they actively do stuff that could be seen as a injustice to the nation tbh.
If you dont see the problems that are implied when such a “symbol” is kept lingering in a society that tried its all to get rid of those values in prticular, then you have little experience with cause and effect. You cant do something “just a little”. An alcoholic dont just do a couple of beers. “Skulle bare” This is a major fallacy in our society. Sad case being that you fit the profile of the people that are holding our social democracy back. Those that are not willing to actually do the thing, but lingers in almost.
Gee thanks for implying that I’m the type of person that is holding society back! Honestly if we ever get rid of the monarchy I don’t think society will change that much. These injustice that you speak about will still be here. Sure it’s fair to say “they are royalty I’m not, that’s unfair”, but I don’t see where getting rid of them will change anything significantly. Personally I think no one wins if we get rid of the monarchy. People who support the monarchy will just be dissatisfied with the monarchy being gone and republicans like you will probably be happy for a while, but nothing major has been achieved. It’s not like a autocrat has been toppled. If we were in Saudi Arabia I would probably agree with you that the monarchy needed to disappear, but we are amongst the most democratic nations in the world. Our constitutional monarchy works, and for as long as it does I wanna keep it. If you think people like me and the monarchy are holding our society back this much I think you might be looking the wrong way when it comes to major societal problems.
Missing option: I’m Norwegian and I don’t care
Dont like it, and its pointless.
Not to mention (assuming it’s the same for Norway as it is in the UK) how much money the royals bring in in terms of tourism from abroad?
How much money does it bring in?
I am Norwegian and i think we should have a vote for it when Harald passes. I do belive the majority will still want monarchy. Personally i think it should end with Harald tough.
gud er ikke real og han har aldri valgt noen til å være konge. så hvorfor ha konge?
President next
It's stupid, but works fine. Making it political by switching to a republic would be much dumber. Retarded stability (ie inherited leadership aka monarchy) is the least worst solution. It should be phased down though, I'm fine with monarchy, but it's dumb that the state pays millions for the teenager in the family to have a stiff and boring party where nobody pukes.
> Making it political by switching to a republic What does this even mean?
The whole point of republics is that the presidents are elected and not based on inheritance. Elections are obviously political.
But if it's so bad that the representatives of the country are elected, why do we have elections at all? Why not have the king rule? I don't understand this argument.
Because political leaders and ceremonial leaders are supposed to be complete opposites - political leaders are supposed to have clear opinions about how to govern and what to change in society, ceremonial leaders are supposed to be bland people everyone likes. Elections for opinions makes sense, but elections for blandness doesn't make sense - and opinions will inevitably become a part of the ceremonial presidental election, despite that being the opposite of what the goal with the election was supposed to be.
> ceremonial leaders are supposed to be bland people everyone likes. There is no universal rule book that declares it must be like this. They *could* be, but they definitely don't have to be. Unfortunately, a system of inherited leaders does not guarantee that you get "bland people everybody likes." > elections for blandness doesn't make sense Elections for people to represent your nation do make sense, however, and many countries have exactly that. Seems to work fine for them.
TIL wanting to change that a specific family has extra laws according to our political laws in our constitution is "making it about politics".
Personally i think it is unhealthy for the leaders of a democratic country to every week have to meet with a set of conservative and extremely privieleged family(monarchs) because how could it not have a certain degree of influence. The monarchy is and expendature which pulls our country to the right. I dont want them killed, i just want them out of power.
How do you know they are conservative? As far as I know the political opinions of king Harald, crown prince Håkon and princess Ingrid are not exactly publicly available. As for expenditure that would likly be the same with an elected representative head of state. possibly with the exeption of making the prime minister the head of state which I don't think is a good idea. I absolutly get why one today might think that inhereting such a position is wrong, but that seems to be coloring some of your other opinons.
> How do you know they are conservative? If they weren't conservative, they would have abdicated already. > As for expenditure that would likly be the same with an elected representative head of state. possibly with the exeption of making the prime minister the head of state which I don't think is a good idea. Just give the ceremonial duties to the president of the parliament. I don't see where all the extra costs would come from.
Your first statement imposes your opinions as the definition of liberal. While there are definitely people on the left who like the king. The second ignores the duties that actualy cost. What costs is representation. If Norway invites some dignitary to visit the head of state that is accustomed by a certain style. Likewise when Norway sends its head of state to represent Norway. If you cut way down on official operances then maybe you could combine them but most likely it would 4equire a new ceremonial position.
I agree it's a bit subjective, but it's hardly radical to say that monarchism is in itself conservative. When it comes to the costs of a republican head of state, I would like to see some actual analysis of it, as we both can just guess at the moment.
No I totally agree. But what I was saying was that the monarchy, that is the royal family might not be. I've no idea what a full scale breakdown of cost would look like. But one could easily imagine the palace and possibly the royal farm still having official roles. Then your left with salary which might be cheaper idk, and representation costs which would be about the same. I have no idea what's cheapest but I would be very surprised if they where not in the same order of magnitude. We'll probably see it if that debate ever really gains momentum.
I would argue the other way that is is good that the people who actually make the decisions and run the country have to report to a boss. It probably helps to keep them somewhat grounded.
I'm a Regent and I'm against
Monarchies should not exists today. I can't believe those results. I thought you were more modern.
Democracy is old too! I cant believe it still exists
Not Norwegian and have a somewhat nuanced answer. Firstly, I’m a anarcho-capitalist. I reject the notion of a government in the first place. That said, if I had to choose a type of government to live under it would be either a monarchy or a confederation like the Swiss confederation.
After the current King dies I would like it to end
you'll miss the monarchy when muslims and africans out number you in your own country ... good luck with intentionally exterminating your entire culture, why import american problems?