King Harald Goes Full SJW

A few days ago His Majesty King Harald V of Norway gave what the mainstream media has been calling an emotional and heartfelt speech at a garden party at the Royal Palace in Oslo in which he went full blown 'Social Justice Warrior' on the assembled guests. The King managed to touch on just about every contentious issue and came down firmly on the wrong side. He decried national borders, saying "home is where the heart is" and touched all the other multicultural, diversity and tolerance chords. He called for "trust, solidarity and generosity" and said that, "Norwegians are girls who love girls, boys who love boys and boys and girls who love each other. Norwegians believe in God, Allah, everything and nothing" the last of which certainly seems true. As Mark Steyn has said, this is the attitude that 'our only value is that we have no values'. If one turns your ear slightly to the north, you might hear the faint sound of wailing as all the old Vikings in Valhalla howl in grief at what their modern-day descendants have fallen to. The King went full on 'Social Justice Warrior' and his comments fit in perfectly with them in both their content and the fact that they make absolutely no sense whatsoever and are full of contradictions.

After all, if Norwegians love God, as their forefathers certainly did (knights from Norway participated in the Crusades), they certainly would not make room for those who submit to Allah. Likewise, those who, in Norway or anywhere else, believe that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet, gays and lesbians are certainly not the sort they will be prepared to tolerate. In a single speech, the King has essentially erased Norway entirely. If Norway is not a land defined by borders, nor a particular people nor a particular idea even, then what is left for it to be? To say that the Norse believe in everything and thus believe in nothing, is to bring relativism to its ultimate, logical conclusion. It would be nice, of course, in these days of largely ceremonial monarchs, to think that the King was simply giving the speech that his political captors forced him to give, but that seems unlikely for such an occasion as this and it comes at a time when the Norwegian government has moved somewhat, ever so slightly, to the right since 2013 when the Labor Party was finally evicted from office. Opposition to immigration has been on the rise and so, it seems, at least as likely that the King was being rather defiant in his remarks.

Since this speech hit the news, I have been asked several times to respond to it and asked why I have not responded already. Well, I was unprepared for how much of a stir it caused to be honest. I was more disappointed than shocked to hear it. As I have related here in the past, this is the sort of thing that Crown Prince Haakon has been saying for years, going to the ends of the earth to give moral support to people with unnatural proclivities. Anyone remember his visit to show solidarity with the transvestites of Nepal? If not, I assure you that is not a joke, that actually happened. I would have expected such words from him and have long worried what was going to happen when he takes the throne but I had thought the King himself to be more 'normal'. I was disappointed to see this but, again, not that surprised. Royals, as with anyone, cannot be unaffected by their environment, certainly not in Europe which is one reason why I have never been happy with the trend of sending royals to school rather than having private tutors. This is what they have been taught to believe, it is how they have been taught to think, and I feel more pity for them than anything else that they have been so blinded. It also remains to be seen how far they will be willing to go with this suicidal line of thinking.

Norway is not, I assure you, a piece of blank paper. It is a country, it has borders, it has a culture, it has traditions and it has a people. It is not "intolerant" to say so, nor is it "intolerant" to say that those borders matter, that culture is a Christian culture, those traditions are Nordic traditions and those people are Norse people. Norwegians are not Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus, they are not black or brown and they are not interchangeable or replaceable! Norway is beautiful, Norway is noble and its people are the inheritors of a proud legacy. If you encourage lifestyles that prevent them reproducing themselves, if you allow alien elements in to drown them with demography, all of that will be lost. You may still have an area on the map between Sweden and Denmark that is labeled "Norway" but it will not be the land of the Norsemen any longer. All that they are will be destroyed and lost forever. No salvation can be counted on from the colonies, for the same thing is happening in the American Midwest as well. In short, I could not disagree with King Harald more.

No one has asked but I have sensed some curiosity on this point so I will say that, no, this does not mean I will be cheering on the republican traitors in Norway from now on. I think the King is wrong, I think he has been misled and is dangerously mistaken. That does not change the fact that he is the King and he does not nor should not require my consent or approval to remain so. Right now, the monarchy is, as was addressed here not long ago, largely ceremonial and so I would urge Norwegians to simply pray for the King and vote in political leadership that will keep Norway Norwegian and not Arab, Somali or Sudanese. If the King is devoted to the constitution as it stands, he will be obliged to go along with this. If, on the other hand, the Norwegians do the right thing and the King attempts to resist them, I fear he may fall but I would still hope that does not happen. I would hope that loyal people would take him aside, make him see reason or, failing that, appoint a regent to carry on in his name until a more normal state of affairs can return. Treason, after all, is never the right answer and the monarchy is an integral part of the Norwegian culture that must be preserved and defended. My loyalty to the cause of kings has certainly never been dependent on my agreeing with their every position and point of view, otherwise I should have been lost quite a long time ago. No, rather, I say that Norwegians should disregard what King Harald has said, the words of a confused and mistaken monarch, but remain steadfastly loyal to the Crown and show that loyalty by coming to the rescue of their king and royal family from this disastrous way of thinking.
Ja, vi elsker dette landet!

World War II and the Scandinavian Monarchies

Across Europe, even among those monarchies which survived World War II, none had as much influence as they did before the conflict. The war itself, however, was not always the direct cause of this but, nonetheless, it came at a time when wider events over a number of years brought about such an outcome. The fact is that the monarchs who reigned during the time of the Second World War had considerably more authority, regardless of any actual constitutional changes, than those who came to the throne after the conflict was over. This was certainly true in the Low Countries but, while perhaps less noticed, was equally true in the monarchies of Scandinavia. Even the one country which managed to avoid actually participating in the war, the Kingdom of Sweden, was not untouched by the conflict or unaffected by the wider repercussions of both the First and Second World Wars. The monarch on the throne throughout the period was His Majesty King Gustav V who is remembered as the last Swedish monarch to date to intervene in the affairs of his government.

In 1907, when he came to the throne, King Gustav V had extensive legal authority in political matters. However, in the reign of his father, parliament had more strongly asserted itself and, originally, King Gustav V went along with this new way of doing things. This changed with the coming of World War I. The King favored increasing Swedish military strength while the recently elected Liberal government did not. When a crowd of concerned citizens demonstrated in front of the palace in favor of strengthening the Swedish military in case the country were to become engulfed in the upcoming conflict, the King acted on his own to address the crowd, whose views were in accord with his own, to assure them that this would be done. The Liberal prime minister objected to this, King Gustav V responded that he was well within his rights to speak to his subjects on such a matter, as both their sovereign and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, which prompted the government to resign at which time the King appointed a more conservative administration to replace them.

That would be the last time that a Swedish monarch would directly intervene in government. The collapse of Russia, spread of communism and the economic disaster that accompanied the end of World War I, worked to pull Sweden dramatically to the left. In 1917 the King tried to appoint another conservative government but found no support, the most power being held by what amounted to democratic socialists on the one hand and less-than-democratic socialists on the other. Still, World War II played a part as well and in a way related to World War I. The Queen consort, Victoria of Baden, was a German and in the First World War the King was widely believed to be sympathetic with the German Empire and the cause of the Central Powers. Similar accusations would be made concerning the King and Nazi Germany in World War II which certainly had a more negative impact on his popular perception than any possible sympathy on his part for the Kaiser would have had. Little to nothing on that score can be proven but the allegation alone was enough to do damage.

The most serious accusation in this regard, though again, it has never been proven, revolved around the King interfering in government again. The issue was the 1941 demand from the Germans, at the time of the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union, to allow German military forces to move from Norway, through Sweden to their fellow Axis partner of Finland. According to the prime minister, King Gustav V intervened in this matter, threatening to abdicate if the government did not accede to the German demand. Anti-royal controversialists often mention this in conjunction with another allegation, accusing the King of sending congratulations to Hitler for his victories against the “Bolshevik pest” of the Soviet Union. Others have claimed that the King similarly favored allowing Allied troops to move through Swedish territory but that it was the government which refused and there is no doubt that the King also spoke up on behalf of the Jews and that he tried to arrange peace talks to end the war early on.

All of this was used to smear the character of King Gustav V after the war ended in an Allied victory. However, few people care to consider the basic fact that if the Germans wanted to move troops through Sweden they were certainly capable of doing it whether the Swedish government agreed or not. Given the depleted state of the Swedish armed forces, the Germans could have conquered the country and occupied it with as little difficulty as they did in Denmark and Norway. At a time when Sweden was literally surrounded by Germany, German allied Finland and German occupied Denmark and Norway, the British could have done nothing to help them and Hitler could have wiped out Sweden easily if they had defied him. Under the circumstances, a refusal would have been hailed as noble and courageous in the rest of the world but it could easily have resulted in invasion, occupation and the total loss of Swedish independence. If the King did intervene to urge the government to let the Germans move through, in such a situation, it would be hard for any rational person to say he did wrong.

There was, in any event, no shortage of gossip and allegations against King Gustav V, even among his fellow monarchs. There were rumors that he tried to interfere in the Norwegian succession, bypassing the King and Crown Prince for the royal grandson, today’s King Harald V and King Haakon VII of Norway reputedly referred to the King of Sweden as ‘the old scoundrel’ and believed him to be pro-German. The fact that Sweden would have been much the worse off by taking a hostile attitude toward the Germans or the fact that a great many Jews found refuge in Sweden because of its neutrality, did not amount to much in the post-war years where mere mention of the word “Nazi” and any hint of being in the least bit tainted by anything less than a zealous commitment to their extermination is sufficient to cause people to switch their brains off and become totally irrational. After Gustav V died in 1950 at age 92 he was succeeded by his son King Gustav VI Adolf and by the next decade republicanism and the total abolition of the monarchy had become mainstream. By the time of the next monarch, new constitutional changes saw the Swedish Crown stripped of absolutely all residual powers, which did tend to thwart some of the arguments of the republicans as there is no president on earth with less power than the King of Sweden.

The Kingdoms of Denmark and Norway are a different story. Both were pulled into World War II for the same reason. The short version is that Winston Churchill was so convinced the Germans would violate Norwegian neutrality that he decided to violate it first, laying mines in Norwegian territorial waters. A landing by ground forces was also planned by the whole British campaign in the far north was an utter fiasco. Germany responded with swift and overpowering force. To move against Norway, Germany had to go through the Kingdom of Denmark. After a long period of decline from the ranks of being a major power, as well as a long period of peace which many people thought would last forever (something seemingly everyone is likely to do), the Danes were practically powerless to resist the German invasion. So, they basically didn’t and the Kingdom of Denmark was occupied in less than 24 hours.

The Kingdom of Denmark was supposed to be Germany’s “model protectorate”. They assured the Danes that they were friends, not conquerors and that their independence would be respected with German occupation forces remaining only so long as was necessary for the war situation. The Danes didn’t buy it and soon began carrying out acts of sabotage. Their monarch, King Christian X, condemned such actions, as he was bound to, but also defied the Germans as far as he was able. He refused to enact anti-Semitic legislation they pushed, refused to hand over Danes to the hands of German justice who had been caught in acts of sabotage or helping Jews escape to Sweden and he famously continued his solitary horseback rides every morning through the streets of Copenhagen. The Germans wanted him to stop, particularly as these came to be occasions of outbursts of public support for the monarchy and Danish patriotism, but the King refused. When the Germans demanded he accept a German escort to act as his bodyguard on such occasions, the King famously said that every Dane was his bodyguard. King Christian X did finally have to stop though when he was thrown from his horse and injured in late 1942 (allegations that the horse had Nazi sympathies have not been corroborated).

By the end of World War II and the German occupation, the Danes and their monarch never seemed to be closer. It was a stark contrast to how the unfortunate King Leopold III of the Belgians was treated for also remaining in his country during the German occupation. King Christian X of Denmark was admired and respected by almost everyone and his prestige seemed to have never been greater. Yet, even in the oldest monarchy in Europe, which has weathered the republican storm better than most with its very deep roots, no monarch after King Christian X would ever have quite the same level of power and influence in state affairs. It is hard to see how the war played a part in this change, yet that it happened cannot be denied. The monarchy before the war was very different from the monarchy after the war, or, at least, after Christian X. Under his successor, King Frederick IX, the Kingdom of Denmark began to change, becoming, as it was known, a “democratic monarchy”.

In truth, however, the wartime prestige of the monarchy was no more than King Christian’s ‘Indian Summer’. After World War I there had been a dispute over the territory Denmark had lost to Prussia in the 1864 war. The Danish government wanted the inhabitants to vote on whether they wished to rejoin Denmark while Danish nationalists wanted the territory annexed outright. King Christian X agreed with annexation, intervened and the government fell which the King replaced with a more conservative temporary government until the next election. This was the “Easter Crisis of 1920” and it resulted in a fierce left-wing backlash against the monarchy led by the Social Democrats. Faced, for the first time in her ancient history, with the loss of the Danish monarchy, King Christian X had been forced to retreat, dismissing the government he had just appointed and accept his status as a virtually powerless monarch. The war years boosted his prestige but it did nothing to change the political situation. The monarch retains some considerable powers on paper but Danish judges have interpreted these to belong to the King’s government and not the King (or Queen in today’s case) personally.

One other point of contention for Danish monarchists, widely overlooked in foreign lands, which resulted directly from World War II was the loss of the Danish Kingdom of Iceland to republicanism. From 1918 to 1944 Iceland was an independent kingdom in personal union with the Crown of Denmark. However, in May of 1940 British troops invaded and occupied Iceland. The local government protested this violation of their neutrality but made no effort to resist. The British later handed the keys over to the United States and in 1944 a referendum was held which resulted in Iceland becoming a republic, severing all ties with the Crown of Denmark. King Christian X showed impossibly good grace by sending them his congratulations but many on the right in Denmark felt betrayed and not unjustly so. As they were under German occupation at the time, they could hardly argue their own case for maintaining their existing relationship with the island and even if there was nothing untoward about it, one cannot escape what political pundits today would call very “bad optics” to have a referendum during wartime while being occupied by a foreign army which is at war with the foreign army occupying the ‘home’ country.

Finally, any talk of Iceland, monarchy and World War II, will usually produce some mention of the so-called conspiracy for a Nazi monarchy. I mention it only because someone is bound to speak up if I do not but there really is not much to say on the subject. It was never a conspiracy, never something that was going to happen, it did not happen and so is hardly much of a story. An important, though often left-out point to make clear though, is that this suggestion of a Nazi monarchy in Iceland was made *before* the Germans had occupied Denmark (seat of the existing Icelandic monarchy) and thus also some time before the Allied occupation of Iceland. There is some variation in accounts of this episode but the usual version is that a group of pro-Nazi Icelanders approached the German government about making Prince Friedrich Christian zu Shaumburg-Lippe the King of Iceland. The Prince had been a fairly early member of the Nazi Party, joined the Brown-shirted Storm Troops (SA) and rose to be an assistant to Dr. Joseph Goebbels in the Propaganda Ministry. He was in fact, considered to be on the leftist, socialist, side of the Nazi Party. In any event, it didn’t happen. The Prince said Goebbels favored the idea but Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop did not. However, regardless of that, it is not as though Iceland was ruled by a pro-Nazi party at the time, so such an offer would have had no real meaning anyway.

Last, but not least, we have the situation in the Kingdom of Norway. The Norwegians were the most recently independent of the Scandinavian monarchies, having detached themselves from a personal union with Sweden in 1905. The people voted to establish a monarchy rather than a republic and invited Prince Carl of Denmark to take the throne as King Haakon VII of Norway. He realized that there had been a sizable minority who had favored a republic and the recent democratic process which had brought about the break with Sweden was a sign of the times so he knew from the outset that his royal powers would be limited and was partly chosen for the very reason that he made no objection to such restrictions. By 1928 he was obliged, by the democratic process, to appoint a government led by the Norwegian Labor Party which advocated abolishing the monarchy (something later dropped from their program).

World War II spread to Scandinavia, as mentioned, because of events in Norway. Denmark was a mere stepping stone, invaded and occupied within a day. Norway would take somewhat longer for, as Norwegians at the time proudly said, “we are a longer country”. The British effort to establish a Scandinavian front was a total fiasco, very ill-organized and the German attack was swift, efficient and overpowering. King Haakon VII knew his country stood no chance and immediately made plans, upon the outbreak of war, to establish a government-in-exile in Britain. The Germans did their best to capture him and the Royal Family but in an arduous series of movements, they were able to elude them and ultimately take a British warship into exile. The German attack had begun on April 8 and the last major Norwegian stronghold fell on May 5 with the King and party leaving the country on June 7. The King and Crown Prince Olav, the symbols of Norwegian resistance, went to England while other family members were sent to safety in the United States. Pockets of Norwegian forces carried on fighting for much longer and, of course, Norwegian forces in exile and underground resistance movements persisted in fighting for the duration of the war.

It would be hard to overstate the significance of the King during this time of crisis for Norway. He had taken the lead in rejecting the German demands to submit peacefully to their occupation, expressing his desire to abdicate if the government chose to cooperate with the Nazis and as the King he was the living symbol of Norwegian government legitimacy in the fight and in the years of exile. Unlike Denmark, there was no room for any doubt at all that the fate of the Norwegian monarchy depended on an Allied victory. The Germans had a willing client in Vidkun Quisling standing ready and after efforts to coerce the government in Norway to depose the King, the top German official simply declared on his own that the King of Norway had forfeited the Crown and that he, nor any of the Royal Family, had any right to ever return to Norway again. King Haakon VII was the symbol of Norwegian resistance to the Germans, he was also very much the “voice” of the resistance due to his BBC radio addresses to Norway and thanks to him the Norwegians were able to contribute a great deal more to the Allied war effort than most people realize. He was extremely popular as a result of all of this and when he died in 1957 he was mourned almost as much in Britain as in Norway.

His son and successor, King Olav V, had played a major part in the Norwegian war effort, being appointed an admiral in the Norwegian navy, a general in the Norwegian army and in 1944 the Norwegian Chief of Defense. He oversaw the Norwegian contribution to the Allied armed forces and at the end of the war was in charge of dealing with the disarmament of the surrendered Germans. Nonetheless, by the time he came to the throne, things had already changed from what they had been in the war years when his father was so identified with Norwegian patriotism that “H7” became the symbol of the resistance. Although, legally, the royal powers did not change, having been limited at the outset, there was definitely a new, more republican, sentiment about the country. When King Haakon VII had come to the Norwegian throne, he had been given a proper coronation. For King Olav V there would be no coronation, only a church service after his swearing-in ceremony which was officially boycotted by the ruling Labor Party (though some members attended anyway).

Like his father, King Olav V never made any trouble for the politicians but, seeing which way the winds were blowing perhaps, he also made an effort to be seen even more as “down to earth”. The closest his father ever came to a confrontation was taking a drink of illegal alcohol after coming into a hotel, cold and soaked. King Olav V would not even go that far, even using public transportation during the energy crisis of 1973. He could also often be seen driving his own car. All of this had the intended effect on public opinion as this egalitarian style caused him to be dubbed, “the People’s King”. Again, to be sure, the current Norwegian monarchy started out a much shorter chain than their neighbors in Sweden or Denmark but, nonetheless, one cannot escape the fact that the style of the monarchy even in Norway was rather different in the first reign after the war that it had been before the conflict, whether the war actually had any impact on it or not.

What we can see is that many monarchs had an increased status during the war years due to the state of emergency that, of course, ended when the war was over. There was also an increase in national unity because of the war which, likewise, ended when it was over. This was something that some monarchs commented on as being regrettable. The status of many monarchies also saw the status of the monarch decline with the status of the country due to things like de-colonization and the polarization of the world into an American camp and a Russian camp. European monarchies also often saw leftwing parties come to power after World War I, then brought back after World War II and with a huge influx of American aid money which made unsustainable spending programs and social welfare states take root which governments have become more desperate to try to uphold. It is certainly no coincidence that the leftist parties pushing these policies have invariably been either openly anti-monarchy or at the very least possessing a very republican mentality even if not openly calling for the establishment of a republic.

What About Scandinavia?

I probably talk about predominately monarchial Scandinavia less than I think I do (wow, three I’s in the first sentence, how solipsistic of the awesome me). It is not because of any lack of respect for the Scandinavian countries, all but one of which are monarchies (unless you count Iceland) which, I assure you, is not the case. For someone who was enthralled with Viking stories as a boy and who had a very colorful aunt who was fond of telling people, “I’m not a damn Jankee, I’m a Norwegian!” I have always had a soft spot for Norway. The Kingdom of Denmark also holds a special place in my heart, as I think it should with all monarchists, as the oldest monarchy in Europe and for being so comparatively revolution-free. I’m also very fond of Queen Margrethe II, though maybe not for the best reasons. I have long admired Sweden, mostly for the great military leaders it produced in centuries past and even republican Finland earned my respect ever since first learning about the valiant defense they offered against the Red Army in the Winter War. One reason you don’t hear much about Scandinavia is because they tend to all be rather orderly countries. What problems they have tend not to be broadcast around the world, they tend to be neutral and they just don’t rock the boat so to speak.

However, I wanted to take a moment to talk about the monarchies of Scandinavia because there do seem to be some misconceptions about them. Especially in the United States, the Scandinavian countries can be quite divisive. People on the left portray them as being absolutely heaven on earth (ignoring the whole monarchy part) where rich people do not exist, everyone is taken care of, Christianity is dead and everyone embraces multiculturalism thanks to a government program encouraging people to show how un-racist they are by having sex with African immigrants (*and no, that is not a joke, they actually did that). On the other hand, people on the right in America tend to view Scandinavia as resting somewhere around the seventh circle of Hell as a region where people are taxed into state dependency, having all their creativity and ambition purged by an oppressive government and where conformity has created a population of wimps who only take pride in how quickly they are dying out and how efficiently they use the corpses of their loved ones as an environmentally friendly energy source (*and no, that is not a joke, that actually happened). So, who is right? Are the Scandinavian countries a utopia that proves socialism works or simply crowned Marxist republics that must be lying about how happy everyone there is?

The truth is really neither one. The Scandinavian countries are not as wonderful as some people think but nor are they as bad as others seem to think. It is true that they are big believers in wealth redistribution so that there is very little income inequality in the Scandinavian countries. Some think that is good, others think that is bad. Society is not so divided by class in these places but that does go with limits to individual rights because it places limitations on success. It is true that crime is very low in these countries, at least compared to some other parts of the world but it is also true that many crimes go unreported because they are concentrated amongst the immigrant community and the authorities prefer to ignore it for fear of being accused of racism if they arrest someone who is not light complexioned. It is true that the monarchies in these countries are totally or effectively ceremonial, however, it is also true that they are widely popular still and are considered by most to be an integral part of the culture and framework of the country. Their populations are, on the whole, quite conformist in that they do tend to hold the same values and opinions on most things but this is not too different from most of the rest of Europe these days and differing points of view do exist. So, let us take them one at a time:

The Kingdom of Sweden is probably the most often singled out as being a socialist success-story (as if such a thing could exist) and being the most nominal monarchy in the world (I would say at least Andorra has them beat on that front). First of all, it is true that Sweden has a tax rate that is nothing short of punitive and they are very free with the government handouts. However, they are certainly not Cuba or North Korea. Socialism does not work, as has been proven all around the world, but Sweden is not so socialist as some might think. First of all, in the old days before the 1960’s the Kingdom of Sweden was one of the most economically free countries on earth. It had very low taxes, very few but quite common-sense government regulations and it had a booming economy and was a major industrial powerhouse. However, as I have often said, one of the biggest problems with capitalism is that it makes countries rich enough to think they can afford socialism and that is basically what happened in Sweden. They got so rich that people started crying about fairness and income inequality and so they went drastically in the socialist direction and, as a result, economic growth ground to a halt, production plummeted and successful people fled the country. However, because of that, Sweden was almost forced to start moderating and moving back in the opposite direction, at least somewhat so that today, although Sweden has the reputation of being very socialistic and the United States has the reputation of being very capitalistic, the amount of regulation and wealth redistribution in Sweden is not that different from the United States.

Now, like the United States, the level of promises made to the people by the government in terms of entitlements is simply not sustainable because these types of socialistic programs depend on an ever increasing number of young workers to pay the tax burden for the sick, the old and the unemployed and the numbers just don’t exist even with Sweden opening its borders to a huge influx of foreigners. These policies cannot carry on indefinitely, the numbers just don’t add up and that will be a big problem in the future. Sweden has never had a huge population, it is simply a country that cannot support one and the native population is practically stagnant while the immigrant population is growing. It’s still not enough to save the future of the welfare state but it does not take a math genius to see that it will ultimately mean that the Swedish population is simply going to be replaced by an ethnically non-Swedish one in the not-too-distant future. It is also true that it is one of the most irreligious countries in the world. However, it is still an officially Christian country, with the Lutheran church as the official state church of Sweden and, of course, it is still a monarchy. The monarch is officially ceremonial with no role in government at all but he does chair the Council of State, opens parliament, appoints the prime minister and all the usual duties so he is at least still able to inform, be informed and give his advice on government matters. He is not totally inconsequential and the majority of the people support the monarchy.

The Kingdom of Norway, the youngest of the Scandinavian countries in terms of its current monarchy, is also a very heavily taxed and heavily regulated country with little income inequality and a generous welfare state. Though, again, it is really not that different from the supposedly hyper-capitalist United States. All of the Scandinavian countries, in fact, have a lower corporate tax rate than the United States so, in a way, they are friendlier to those “evil” big businessmen and corporations than the United States of “Greed is Good” America. What keeps the Norwegian economy in such seemingly good shape in spite of these socialistic policies is the fact that they have a great deal of mineral wealth and I mean, of course, oil. The Norwegian government makes a ton of money from oil and that money is used to fund social welfare programs and so people are going to tell the survey-takers that they are very happy when they get a big oil check from the government on a regular basis. It also helps that they have a very small population in Norway. Like many Middle Eastern countries, when one has huge oil income (in government hands) and a small population (there are far more people -as in several million more- in New York City alone than in the entire Kingdom of Norway), it is easy to have a high standard of living even when the government is wasting money extravagantly.

On the social front, Norway has a higher birth rate than many European countries, but it still is not good, it just is not quite as bad as others. Statistically, Norwegians are still going extinct but they will probably be around to see other European peoples go extinct first. Like Sweden, they are a predominately irreligious country but, again, also still an officially Christian one with the King of Norway titled as the “High Protector of the Church of Norway” which is, of course, Lutheran. However, before one thinks of blaming social ills in Norway on the King because of this, remember that it is not dissimilar from the situation with the Church of England. The King is not a cleric and many of the Lutheran bishops, like so many others in so many other churches, have at times seemed more interested in being relevant and popular than being doctrinally traditional. About 20% of the population are immigrants but their natural growth rate is much higher than that of the native population so, again, it is not difficult to see what those numbers mean for the future of Norway, long-term. Conformity is high but not total and what seems like a population united in shared liberal values can be misleading. The refusal to give a legitimate voice to dissenting views leads to frustration and then violence such as was seen in the mass-shooting of 2011. Many other festering problems are simply being ignored because it would be “politically incorrect” to address them. However, in Norway the King does play a part in government, not being purely ceremonial but more like Britain for example, and Norway has a much greater “independent” streak than many realize. Norway, for example, is a member of the European Economic Area but did not and has not become a member of the European Union and is not a part of the Eurozone which is very much to their credit. So, problems exist, but compared to others, Norway is in a better position to reject bad policies and get back on the right track.

Finally, we have the Kingdom of Denmark, most venerable of the monarchies of the Old World. Here again, I think many people have many misconceptions about Denmark simply because these countries are often lumped together as being part of a uniform, leftist, socialistic, egalitarian Scandinavia which is an over-simplification. The Kingdom of Denmark, for example, is a member of the European Union but is not a member of the Eurozone and still uses the Danish krone as its official currency. It is a typical tax and spend country but it may surprise a great many people to know that on two of the major indexes for measuring economic freedom, the Kingdom of Denmark was ranked higher than that supposed champion of free market capitalism the United States of America. Who would have guessed that? It certainly is not the reputation Denmark has and yet, it is true; Denmark is basically a more economically free country than America. This is due almost entirely to the level of government regulation of the economy. Compared to America, Denmark has a very low level of government regulations while it does have a punitive tax rate and a very generous welfare state. So, the basic difference is that it is actually easier to go out and make money in Denmark than in the United States but, on the other hand, the government will take more of it away from you to give to your unemployed neighbor. As in the other Scandinavian countries, this government generosity with other people’s money attracts many immigrants and while some of that can be regulated, immigration among EU-member states of course cannot so there is a demographic problem similar to that in Norway and Sweden. What is being paid out or is promised to be paid out, compared to what can possibly be taken in by the state just cannot be sustained long-term in Denmark or any of these other countries as things stand.

As elsewhere, the level of irreligion in Denmark is quite high but it is an officially Christian country, no separation of church and state but with freedom of religion. Like the others, it is very egalitarian but I think many would be surprised by how traditional the Danish monarchy remains. Until the middle of the Twentieth Century it had probably the most old fashioned and strict court protocol of any monarchy in Europe and even today, traditional ceremony and protocol are maintained by the Danish court to a degree probably present nowhere else in Europe. The Queen is enthusiastically supported by the people with a roughly 90% approval rating and she retains considerable authority. She presides at meetings and her views are taken seriously. She can even issue laws on her own in an emergency according to clause 23 of the Danish constitution. Some may be surprised that the Danish monarch has a much more free hand than many of her fellow sovereigns. The Queen writes her own speeches and her public messages are much less regulated by the government than in, for example, Great Britain. She is not mere window-dressing and while she certainly shares the overall values of most of her people, she does not bend to fashionable trends either. When people criticized her smoking habit, she told them to butt out; when activists condemned her for wearing fur, she told them to go climb a tree and when multiculturalism led to violence over Danish cartoons the Queen was the only head of state to single out the culprits by name and say that they had to be confronted even if it meant to, “run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance”. If I haven’t said so lately, I think the Queen of Denmark is awesome.

And that, is the overall situation in the monarchies of Scandinavia. Honestly, they are not all that different from the supposedly so much more capitalistic United States when it comes to taxation and wealth redistribution. In truth, most First World countries have adopted fairly similar models of a mixture of socialism and capitalism with governments simply arguing over the degree to which they allow people to keep what they earn. Sweden used to be very economically free, went far to the left, living off the wealth accumulated in the past and since that well ran dry has been moving ever so slightly more to the right in economic terms. Norway is doing pretty good thanks to few people, lots of oil and telling the EU, “no thanks” and Denmark has low regulations, a rather grand monarchy and recently put out a sign saying “Seek asylum elsewhere”. They all have problems to be sure and the basic economic model used by all three (and so many more) is simply not possible to continue in the long-term. However, they still have the tools to correct and rebuild and the monarchies in these countries provide something important, socially and economically even in the cases where they are reduced to only a ceremonial status and that is a sense of unity and stability. Monarchists say that a lot and republicans tend to dismiss it but anyone who follows the stock markets of the world can tell you that the simple perception of stability by people can make a huge difference. Even communist Chinese state-run CCTV once made this point, asking an expert why Japan, with its rapid turnover of governments, does not scare away investment like many other countries do with similar political instability. The expert replied that a big part of it was His Majesty the Emperor who, even while having no part in politics, provides a sense of stability just by being there. Even symbols can be very important and if you don’t believe me, try burning the Stars & Stripes in middle America or wearing a t-shirt with the Dalai Lama on it in downtown Peking. The Scandinavian countries have their problems and they have their positive aspects and their monarchies are definitely positives.

Today in Nordic Royal History

On this day in 1814 the Kingdom of Norway adopted a constitution and elected Danish Crown Prince Christian Frederick to be the King of Norway. This did not sit well with the neighboring Kingdom of Sweden which had lost Finland to Russia and was promised Norway in compensation, also something favored by the Allies who wanted to punish Denmark for a past alliance with Napoleonic France by separating Denmark and Norway. So, the Swedes attacked (led by a former Napoleonic marshal) and the Norwegians were defeated, securing the union with Sweden that lasted until the 20th Century. Prince Christian Frederick was not King of Norway for long but he was able to go on to become King Christian VIII of Denmark.

Royal News Roundup

In the English-speaking world last week, the Prince of Wales spoke to a meeting of Holocaust survivors, the Queen and Prince Philip visited Essex and later gave a special thanks to the work of the Journalists’ Charity. The Duchess of Cornwall opened an armed forces medical training base and the Countess of Wessex paid a visit to her regiment, the 5th Rifles, before they deployed to Afghanistan. The Prince of Wales also became patron of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust so, all in all, a fairly routine week. In Scandinavia, little Prince Henrik posed for some new photos marking his 5th birthday last Sunday but the most news in northern Europe was made in Norway. It was announced that Princess Martha Louise and her family will be moving home from London sometime this summer. Crown Prince Haakon and Crown Princess Mette-Marit helped clean up a beach but the most controversial news was when Progressive Party deputy Per Sandberg said that the Crown Prince and Princess are leftists and make people, like himself, become republicans. He was interviewed, along with republican Monica Maeland for a recently published book called “The Republic of Norway”. He pointed to the royal couple taking leftist political stances on issues such as the environment, climate change, immigration and others and said that they are acting like politicians and it strengthens his position as a republican, adding that, “It will lead to more and more people being republicans”.

The Palace would not comment on the subject, but of course I will: Certainly there are not many political issues in which I would agree with the Crown Princely couple but that does not effect my loyalty to the idea of monarchy at all and I would hope most Norwegians would feel the same, though I am just as sure that most Norwegians agree with their royals and disagree with me on such issues. However, it is worth noting that in this day and age when royals are supposed to be above parties, impartial and totally non-political that so many can embrace caused like those mentioned and not be accused of being partisan (until now anyway). It only seems to matter when it concerns taking a right-wing position. I suspect this will only become harder in the future as governments these days think it is their business to play a part in every aspect of our lives so that ultimately, there will be no issue that isn’t a political one. It should be known that the Progress Party is considered a right-of-center party in Norway which supports smaller government, lower taxes, restrictions on immigration and greater capitalism. None of which would any European government tolerate a royal voicing any support for whatever. It has often seemed to me that royals want to do something, anything and it is no surprise to me that they gravitate toward the causes that they do. Talk about lowering taxes and they will be accused of not wanting to pay “their fair share”, talk about immigration and they will be accused of being racists but feel free to talk about inclusion and climate change all you like -you’ll be “making a difference”. It does not make me feel like becoming a republican, it simply makes me feel sorry for the royal remnant in Europe these days.

Further down on the continent, King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima of the Netherlands attended the National Remembrance ceremony in Amsterdam last Sunday to commemorate all the Dutch men and women, civilian and military, who have died in wars or peace-keeping missions since the Second World War. Later in the week the royal couple attended a “Freedom Concert” and the King attended a play about Anne Frank. Meanwhile, royal sister-in-law Princess Laurentien paid a ‘low key’ visit to Sidney, Australia to attend the Fauna & Flora International. In neighboring Belgium, King Philip held a working meeting with the president and board members of the European Central Bank on Wednesday. On the Spanish front, HRH the Prince of the Asturias was in the Costa Rica this week where he met with out-going President Laura Chinchilla and attended the inauguration of President Luis Guillermo Solis. And, in African royal news, Prince Seeiso of Lesotho teamed up with Britain’s Prince Harry for a summer party in London to benefit their mutual charity “Sentebale” which assists those suffering from AIDS in the small African country.

In Asia the biggest news this week was certainly the implementation of sharia law in the tiny Sultanate of Brunei. Why so many should consider it so outrageous that a country which is overwhelming Muslim and surrounded by other Muslim countries should adopt the Islamic legal code continues to baffle me. Celebrities and movie stars in Hollywood protested in front of an elite hotel owned by the Sultan of Brunei and demanded that he sell it. It was a firestorm of protest! Personally, I cannot muster up very strong feelings on the subject, not living in Brunei and not being a Muslim, I cannot bring myself to care a great deal. If you are a Muslim it would seem only natural to me that Islamic teaching would have some influence over how your justice system (what is deemed ‘right’ and ‘wrong’) works just as it does, oh -I’m sorry- I mean *did* in the Christian countries of the west, once upon a time. Ask an ancient Druid what he thinks about the law of Moses being enacted in ancient Jerusalem and his answer would probably be similar to my own. However, I do have to point out a few curiosities about this and ask why so many seem to be picking on the little Sultanate of Brunei in this case.

Where were all of these people when the Shah of Iran was overthrown and replaced by the Ayatollah who, you guessed it, implemented sharia law in his country? They were all supporting President Carter who abandoned the Shah and allowed the Ayatollah to take over. In Brunei, they are protesting against the cruelties of a legal code that was only just started, which had not had time to be cruel or unjust to anyone, yet they were not doing this about Iran which has been stoning women for adultery and hanging homosexuals for years. Where have the Hollywood elites been all this time? For one thing, they were supporting President Obama who wants to make nice with the mullahs in Tehran. Could it be that Brunei is a safer country to protest against, being a tiny, little oil state that could never be a threat to anyone -unlike Iran? Why do these same people call people in America or European countries racist when they object to sharia law being practiced in the west only to stage a protest when Islamic law is enacted in an Islamic country? It certainly seems strange to this observer.

And another thing [Underage readers and people in Kansas stop reading now], I have seen several articles, some of them regurgitated from years ago, by women detailing how they were used and abused by the sexually depraved Sultan and his family. The ones about one royal brother in particular are fairly common and his depravity is no big secret but as for the Sultan himself this seems to be convenient timing to hold him up as a hypocrite. And, that he may well be, I don’t know and I don’t want to know. However, go ahead and hate me if you like, I have no sympathy for these women and am not impressed by the tone they take in their articles, jumping on the current, fashionable bandwagon. One points out that in the sharia law code punishments are harsh for homosexuality, adultery, theft and abortion and says, “There’s also capital punishment for rape and sodomy. I am no expert in international human rights. My only qualification in commenting on this issue is that one drunken evening in the early 90’s, the sultan and I committed at least two of the aforementioned offenses…” Well, gee you modest woman, I wonder which two it was? This is what you call, “Talking About Something by *Not* Talking About Something”. In every case, they claim some trickery was used to get them where they are but I am not so sure I buy that, at least totally. Because, they also talk about living in palaces and penthouses, lavish parties, fabulously expensive gifts and so on. In my book, keeping in mind I have a rather Roman view of justice, once you accept some form of payment, you stop being a victim and start being a paid prostitute. Also keep in mind that these women with all these stories all date from before sharia went into effect in Brunei so, again, why now?

If anyone was actually kidnapped, held prisoner and raped, I have nothing but the greatest sympathy for them and would favor seeing the guilty party, no matter how high born, suffer the most slow and painful punishment possible. However, I have never heard any actually say that, though some have come close. Usually it is a case of, I was technically an adult but young and stupid and made a mistake. Well, I’m sorry, but that’s life and that is not a shocking turn of events when one is starting out looking to cash-in on your ‘physical attributes’ in one form or another in the first place. I cannot have much sympathy for people who are crying about having to pay the stupid tax. That being said, I don’t like hypocrisy either, no matter who does it. But that leads to another question about these salacious stories. They are so heavy on condemning the Sultan or his family for being hypocrites (and I’ve heard similar stories about Arab princes on holiday and how fast they run through the European prostitutes) but it makes me wonder (and I mean this sincerely) if they are upset that the prince or Sultan is doing this or that everyone else is not allowed to do it? I’m really confused on that one. They don’t seem to have a problem with other elites who use women up and throw them away on a daily basis in countries all over the world. Some even get to be President of the United States and are endorsed by the National Organization for Women. So, that’s all I really have to say about the outrage over sharia in Brunei. I’m not for it but I’m not a Muslim so that should rather go without saying and the law wouldn’t apply to me even if I lived in Brunei which I do not. I’d just like to know, as far as the outrage goes; why them and why now?

Royal Friends of Texas: Norway

Texas and the Kingdom of Norway have had a relationship that began more recently than some others but which is also quite strong and has grown significantly stronger lately. Norway had little to do with Texas during the colonial period or independence but that changed after Texas joined the United States. Almost immediately at that point, in 1845, the first Norwegian colony in Texas was established when Ole Reiersen bought 1,476 acres of land in Henderson County. Along with his son Johan he recruited fifty families from Norway to come and settle on his land in Texas. At the time, the Kingdom of Norway was in personal union with the Kingdom of Sweden and the colony the Norwegians established was originally known as Normandy, just like the coastal area of France many are familiar with and for the same reason. Normandy (the one in France) was so named because it was settled by Vikings or Northmen, hence the name Normans and their land being known as Normandy. What is less clear is why, after some time, the Norwegian colony in Texas stopped being called Normandy and became known as Brownsboro.

Unfortunately, this original Norwegian colony did not thrive as the Norwegians had a harm time adapting to the harsh Texas climate. They were used to the harsh climate of Norway with its extreme cold but were not prepared for the extreme heat of Texas. Reiersen also claimed to have warned the Norwegian pioneers about where they should and should not settle but that they did not take his advice and settled “in very unhealthy places…in the bottom lands”. Whether this was true or just an effort by Reiersen to explain away the failure of his colonial venture without attaching blame to himself we will never know but the fact is that things were fine until the full force of the Texas summertime heat began to be felt and suddenly everyone got sick. Everyone. The most common ailment was malaria though the Reiersen family was unaffected, living on a hill that put them high above the malarial lowlands. Still, those Norwegians fortunate enough to survive were heartier for it and moved further west, settling in the Four Mile Prairie near Dallas in 1848.

One of the most famous Norwegian-Texans to settle there was Elise Amalie Tvede. She was already a well known journalist and advocate for women in the Kingdom of Norway when, at the age of 32, she came to Texas in 1847. At the Four Mile Prairie Norwegian colony in Van Zandt County she settled down and married Wilhelm Waerenskjold. She became a prolific writer, first simply as a way to help people deal with the loneliness of her fellow Norwegian-Texans. She wrote letters to everyone telling them about the latest news in the community and, being a natural talent, she also began to write articles about life in Texas for publications back in Norway. She would often visit her neighbors who, it was said, treated her “like a bishop” because of her refined, dignified manner as well as her fame because of her literary ability. Long after her death in 1895 her name has lived on for the colorful accounts she left behind about her first-hand experience as one of the early Norwegian pioneers in Texas. Despite the rough start, the Norwegian presence in the Lone Star State was set to grow and expand in the years to come.

There were 105 Norwegian Texans according to the census of 1850 and their presence was expanding. Cleng Peerson came to Texas after exchanging letters with the first known Norwegian settler to Texas, Johannes Nordboe (who settled near Dallas in 1841) and he brought two other men with him named Ole Canuteson and Carl Engebretson Quaestad. They scouted the area around the Bosque River and when Bosque County was established in 1854 they were among the first settlers. More Norwegians came and soon a thriving settlement called Norse was established there. Immigrants from Norway continued to come to Norse until 1872 and Norwegian customs remained the rule rather than the exception into the early years of the Twentieth Century.

In 1909 a land developer in Chicago named Anders L. Mordt sold land in the northernmost reaches of the Texas panhandle in Hansford County to a group of Norwegian immigrants living in the Midwest. That was where most Norwegians had settled in the United States but not all were that impressed with it and were inclined to move to the more wide, open spaces of northern Texas. A new settlement was started that became known as “Oslo on the Plains”. Anders Mordt went to considerable expense to get this new settlement going; building a school to attract families with children and donating land for a church. He also started publishing a local newspaper in the Norwegian language. It became quite a busy, little community for a few years but, unfortunately, did not last long as the settlement was wiped out in a drought in 1912 which caused most families to move away. Still, the Oslo on the Prairie has never been completely forgotten.

Crown Prince Haakon & Governor Rick Perry

By 1900 there were over a thousand Norwegian-Texans but by 1940 the number shrank slightly and, by that time, Norwegian had ceased to be spoken by most people. However, traces of Norwegian architecture and Norwegian names can still be found in the old settlements and an annual smorgasbord is still held at Our Savior’s Lutheran Church near the old town of Norse. In 1975 the Norwegian Society of Texas was established to preserve the cultural heritage of Texans of Norwegian ancestry and by 1990 94,096 Texans described themselves as of Norwegian descent. One of the strongest ties that still bind Texas and the Kingdom of Norway is the Norwegian Church Abroad or the Norwegian Seamen’s Church which was founded in 1864 and has spread all over the world, including, of course, to Texas. These are social and cultural centers as well as religious ones and provide a little taste of ‘home away from home’ for Norwegians with Norwegian food, drink, newspapers and television.

King Harald & Queen Sonja in Houston

A Seamen’s Church was established in Pasadena, near Houston, Texas as well as The Seamen’s Church Institute. HM King Harald V of Norway first visited Texas in 1984 and planted a magnolia tree at the church. In March of 2005 Texas was treated to a follow-up royal visit when Their Majesties King Harald V of Norway and Queen Sonja visited the Seamen’s Church. They were greeted by children in bunads and cowboy outfits and a special recital by the church children’s choir. Hundreds crowded outside to catch a glimpse of the royal couple and the King watered the same magnolia tree he had planted on his earlier visit. Describing the reception, the King said, “Our impression is that it is good to be Norwegian in Texas. Thank you for the warm and impressive welcome”. In 2013 Their Royal Highnesses Crown Prince Haakon and Crown Prince Mette-Marit also visited Texas and again, Houston was on the itinerary as well as Fort Worth. The main purpose of the visit was for the Crown Prince to attend a conference on offshore oil drilling, something which is a major industry in Texas and Norway. The Crown Prince said he could learn a lot from the many years of experience Texas has in the oil business. The visit to Fort Worth was to inspect the facilities of Lockheed Martin from whom Norway had purchased 52 new F35 fighter jets. So, in terms of settlement, royal visits, shared business enterprises and trade, the bonds of friendship between Texas and the Kingdom of Norway go back quite far and have only grown stronger and closer over the years.

Monarch Profile: King Olav V of Norway

HRH Prince Alexander Edward Christian Frederik of Denmark was born on July 2, 1903 in Flitcham, England to Prince Carl of Denmark (younger son of King Frederick VIII of Denmark) and Princess Maud (daughter of the British King Edward VII). So, a Danish prince who would become King of Norway was born in England. Only a few years later his father was elected King of Norway, taking the name of Haakon VII. The Kingdom of Norway had previously been in a personal union with the Kingdom of Sweden and when total independence became the popular trend the Norwegian people were given a choice between a republic or a constitutional monarchy. They wisely opted for a monarchy and the choice of monarch fell on Prince Carl of Denmark; Norway having had a long history of close ties with Denmark prior to the union with Sweden. King Haakon VII, while taking the name of past Norwegian monarchs, gave his son the Norwegian name of Crown Prince Olav. Queen Maud, on the other hand, was British through and through and would always remain so but she certainly cared for her new country and saw to it that her son was raised to be totally Norwegian. That he certainly was as, coming to the country at such a young age, Norway was the only homeland he ever knew.

As he grew up, Crown Prince Olav decided not to follow in the footsteps of his very naval father and instead opted for the army as his national service. It proved to be a good choice as he was soon shown to be an exceptional soldier. After finishing school he attended the Norwegian Military Academy and graduated fourth in his class in 1924 after which he went on to study law and economics in Britain in preparation for his future role as monarch. He did not, however, neglect the navy and was an accomplished sailor as well, winning a gold medal in sailing at the 1928 Olympics in Amsterdam. He trained as a naval cadet and was also an avid skier, his mother encouraging him in the pursuit of that very Norwegian pastime. Crown Prince Olav advanced in rank in both the army and navy, participated in many athletic competitions and became very popular both for his achievements and his winning personality. When it came time to think about marriage he had little trouble there. In 1929, in a ceremony in Oslo he married his cousin Princess Martha of Sweden, a very striking young lady who quickly won over the Norwegian people.

Crown Prince Olav and Crown Princess Martha had a very happy and devoted marriage. The couple were alike in many ways; friendly, humble, approachable and compassionate. The pair were very down-to-earth with the Crown Princess making clothes for her children by hand. Those children were Princess Ragnhild, born in 1930; Princess Astrid, born in 1932 and finally the future King Harald V born in 1937. For Crown Prince Olav these were years of great happiness and contentment. Yet, there was also growing concern about the increasing belligerency of Germany to the south. By then a colonel in the Norwegian army, Crown Prince Olav was well aware of how unprepared Norway was for any military conflict. Despite the best efforts of the King, working behind the scenes, to increase Norwegian military preparedness, the political leaders of the country put their faith in neutrality as the only protection for the Kingdom of Norway. Because of the ties between the Royal Families, Norway was most adamant about not coming into conflict with Great Britain. However, as World War II spread, it became clear that Norwegian neutrality would be violated by either Britain or Germany. The only question was who would make the first move.

Crown Prince Olav was in a uniquely strong position for the coming crisis. Probably no one in the government was as well aware of Norwegian military capabilities as he was, having participated in military exercises as well as being well trained in the land and sea armed forces. The Crown Prince had also visited the United States and had already formed a friendship with American President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1939 he was promoted to the rank of general in the army and admiral in the navy. Things came to a head in 1940 when the British began putting into effect a plan for the invasion of Norway as a means of cutting off supplies from Scandinavia going to the Germans. However, after mining Norwegian waters, the British put off their invasion and Hitler seized the opportunity to launch his own attack, first on Denmark and then on Norway. The Danes were powerless to resist and, for the most part, didn’t and Denmark was occupied in one day. The conquest of Norway would take longer, one Norwegian remarking, “We are a longer country”.

When the Germans invaded, Crown Prince Olav stood firmly beside his father the King in a firm resolve to resist the attack as long as possible. He advised both civilian and military officials in reacting to the crisis and the Norwegian troops offered fierce resistance to the German attackers. The Germans hoped that the Norwegian Royal Family could be captured but the Norwegian royal guards offered heroic resistance to prevent this, earning the grudging respect of the Germans who nicknamed them the “black devils” because of their dark uniforms. Norway was conquered and occupied but the government and Royal Family were able to escape to Great Britain. Crown Prince Olav wanted to stay in Norway with his people but the government would not allow this and he went into exile as well. Still, the war was not over and the Crown Prince continued to assist the government-in-exile and the Norwegian troops who had been evacuated and the new Norwegian forces recruited in exile. He visited Norwegian forces in the UK, US and Canada during the war and earned the respect of the British and American military leadership for his talent and grasp of the situation. In 1944 he was made Chief of Defense for Norway and helped to coordinate with the Allies on any issue involving Norway or Norwegian forces. When victory came and Norway was liberated it was the Crown Prince who oversaw the disarmament of the German occupation army.

In the aftermath of World War II, Norway rebuilt and established closer ties with her Scandinavian neighbors partly due to increased concern over the Soviet Union. In 1957 there was immense public sadness when King Haakon VII passed away. He was the first independent King of Norway in modern times and was the one who led his people through their greatest crisis in memory, yet, his son was popular and respected enough to ensure that there was a smooth and confident transition. It was an extremely difficult and heartbreaking time for the new monarch. Not only had he lost his father but only a few years before his beloved wife, Crown Princess Martha, had died of cancer in 1954. An extremely talented and accomplished woman, she would be the greatest queen Norway never had. However, putting his own paid aside and putting duty first, the former Crown Prince became King Olav V and his was to be a more approachable style of monarchy. In no time at all Olav V became known as the “people’s king” because of his friendly and open attitude as well as his humility. He would drive his own car, in the public lanes along with everyone else, and go out without an escort. When questioned about this the King famously replied that the four million people of Norway were all his bodyguards. He carried out all of his constitutional duties meticulously and his winning personality gave Norway an advantage when it came to diplomatic relations with other countries. Everyone knew and respect King Olav. In the decades after his reign, Norway experienced an economic revival and increased prosperity, especially after the discovery and exploitation of the extensive oil resources of the country. Of course, measures were taken to protect the environment as well as King Olav V never lost his athletic nature or love of the outdoors.

As an example of that, in 1968 he won the Holmenkollen Medal, the highest Norwegian award for skiing skill. The King loved to ski and this led to another incident which showed both his love for the sport and his down-to-earth style. During the 1973 energy crisis travel was banned on certain weekends. The King did not want to miss a good ski weekend and, though as the King he certainly could have made himself an exception, to set a good example for the rest of his people he traveled on the train with everyone else. Throughout his reign he continued to support winter sports, sailing, scouting, international relations (he was the first Norwegian monarch to travel abroad extensively) and he kept up his interest in the military, never taking national security for granted. He always kept himself well informed on national issues and policy while strictly respecting the constitutional limits to his position. Olav V was, in every way, a model constitutional monarch, attentive to his duties and combining a deep sense of history with a great sense of humor. Admired by people of Norwegian descent around the world the King also supported charitable ethnic organizations of Norwegians living abroad.

The first signs of possible health problems for King Olav V began to be noticed in 1989 and 1990. Because of his nature, however, he had long been seen as robust and invulnerable but time was taking a toll on the man who was, at the time, the oldest monarch in Europe. Late on January 17, 1991 King Olav V suffered a myocardial infarction and passed away, leaving the throne to his son King Harald V. The Kingdom of Norway mourned as it probably never had before for a King who was as loved as he was respected. With his military background, strength and grasp of world affairs, Olav V was a man to admire. Yet, at the same time, his winning personality made him more than just a father figure to his country but rather more like the friend of every Norwegian in the world.

Royal News Roundup

The big royal news this week was, of course, the inauguration of HM King Willem-Alexander of The Netherlands. It was a grand royal affair, in the perspective of the more low-key Dutch monarchy, with royals representing Belgium, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom and Commonwealth, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Morocco, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Jordan, the UAE, Thailand and Japan. The whole country turned orange as the Dutch people celebrated their new monarch and bid a happy retirement to their former queen. A meeting of Dutch republicans held at the same time attracted more reporters than members with only 9 attending the pathetic event. However, they were over-represented in the inauguration with 12 of the 142 MP’s present refusing to take the oath of allegiance and 4 declining the invitation to attend at all (why they are still allowed to hold office at all is beyond me). King Willem-Alexander has indicated his desire to be a less traditional sort of monarch, coming out against the laws protecting the Royal Family from insult, supporting the removal of the power of the monarch to appoint interim government leaders but, on the other hand, he has stated that he will, like his mother, continue to meet with the prime minister every week. He has also stated though that if the Dutch government voted to make the monarchy purely ceremonial he would support their decision. Happily, there seems little desire to do so.

In other royal news, Crown Prince Haakon of Norway has attracted some controversy over an upcoming visit to the United States by the Crown Prince and Princess, spending most of their time in Texas and California. They will attend an oil conference in Houston and then visit Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth before flying out to San Francisco. The “controversy” arises from the fact that Lockheed Martin produces the cluster bombs that have been condemned by the group “Norwegian People’s Aid” which the Crown Prince served as royal patron. Critics have said it is a violation of royal neutrality for the Crown Prince to visit such a company with one outspoken critic saying he was going to “lend legitimacy” to a business that sells “instruments of death”. The reason for the visit, of course, has nothing to do with cluster bombs but with the decision (long agonized over) by Norway to buy 52 new F35 fighter jets to replace their current fleet of F16’s. To this observer, the whole fuss over the cluster bombs make no sense; any weapon of war can be used to harm civilians and no manufacturer can be held responsible for how their products are used. It is also noteworthy that most of those criticizing the Norwegian crown prince are from the oh-so vocal republican minority. The foreign ministry has said the royal couple should not be blamed for government decisions and Lockheed Martin has denied ever making cluster bombs at all but only manufacturing a part of the ignition for such devices but that even that will be stopped within the next two years.

In Serbia, HRH Crown Prince Alexander oversaw the return to Serbian soil of his late grandmother Queen Maria of Romania. The transfer was arranged with the cooperation of HM Queen Elizabeth II of the UK, the Dean of Windsor, Anglican Church and the Serbian ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs. A special service was held for the late Queen at the Serbian Orthodox Church of St Sava in London with the Serbian Royal Family in attendance as well as the Serbian Ambassador to the UK and many others before being flown to Belgrade. The Royal Family met the casket there along with representatives of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The remains of the Queen were returned to Dedinje and another memorial service was held, officiated by His Holiness Patriarch Irinej of Serbia. Queen Marie was a great patron of charitable causes, which was often commented upon in the tributes to her and she set a fine example in her life as the model of a Christian wife, mother and queen. May she continue to rest in peace.

Another past queen consort was also remembered in southern Europe on Friday. In Rome, HH Pope Francis approved a miracle attributed to the intercession of Queen Maria Cristina of Savoy, queen consort to King Ferdinand II of the Two-Sicilies, mother of King Francis II of the Two-Sicilies, daughter of King Victor Emmanuel I of Piedmont-Sardinia, sister of Duchess Maria Beatrice of Modena and Empress Maria Anna (consort to Ferdinand I of Austria). Queen Maria Cristina died when she was only 23-years old, a few days after giving birth to the last King of the Two Sicilies but who already had a reputation for great faith and piety. In 1859 her cause for canonization was opened and 13 years later she was declared venerable. With the recognition of this miracle by the Pope the late queen is on the way to being beatified, the final step before sainthood. Religious devotion is nothing new for the House of Savoy, especially among the female members, and Queen Maria Cristina is in good company with Princess Maria Clotilde of Savoy (daughter of King Victor Emmanuel II of Italy), wife of Napoleon Joseph Charles Paul Bonaparte, who has been declared a ‘Servant of God’ and also has a cause for canonization open. Princess Maria Felicita of Savoy (daughter of King Charles Emmanuel III) had such a reputation for faith that if she has no cause open she probably should have, Queen Elena of Montenegro (wife of King Victor Emmanuel III) has a cause being considered and among the male members of the family there have been cases such as Blessed Amadeus IX and Blessed Umberto III to point to and, I would say, the case of King Charles Emmanuel IV would be worth investigating.

Finally we also have some news of the romantic variety. There is to be another American princess in the world when last Thursday it was announced by HH Aga Khan IV that his eldest son Prince Rahim Aga Khan is set to marry American model Kendra Spears who is expected to convert to Islam prior to the wedding ceremony. This is something of a family tradition as the first wife of the current Aga Khan was a British model and his father Prince Aly Khan was at one time married to the American model and actress Rita Hayworth. The family does not, it seems to me, receive the attention that it used to but, for those unaware, the Aga Khan is the hereditary Imam of the Ismaili Islamic sect, recognized as princes and princesses by their descent from the Qajar dynasty of Persia (the family which ruled prior to the Pahlavi coming to power). We wish the prince and his bride to be all the best of happiness in their life together.