Norway’s crown princess has become embroiled in another scandal after newly unsealed files appeared to show her years of extensive contact with the late child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The latest tranche of Epstein files, released on Friday by the US justice department, appear to include nearly 1,000 mentions of the crown princess, Mette-Marit.
The files include scores of emails traded between the two, suggesting they were in contact from 2011 to 2014, the Norwegian daily VG reported. Mette-Marit married the future king of Norway in 2001.
The revelations come at a sensitive time for the royal family. The trial of Mette-Marit’s son, Marius Borg Høiby for rape is due to begin on Tuesday. He was born from a relationship before she married Crown Prince Haakon
Høiby is facing 38 charges, including the alleged rape of four women as well as alleged assault and drug offences. If convicted he could face up to 16 years in prison. Høiby has denied the most serious charges, including those of sexual abuse.
Does the Norwegian monarchy also generate a significant amount of revenue for the government like the British one does?
The buildings and overboard “state folklore” are what generate revenue, not the Royals - the probability of ever seeing a Royal in person, either as a tourist or a local, is basically zero.
Meanwhile the Royals are a cornerstone of a massive system of patronage and class segregation, not to mention being one of the wealthiest families in Britain. Oh, and the king also has the power to block laws, though he seldom uses it and apparently will instead in the background use the threat of it and of shaming governments (look up the “black spider memos”, which date back to his time as prince).
They’re pretty much the most anti-Democratic Royals in Europe by a long margin, IMHO.
I asked this when the final season of The Crown came out. What EXACTLY does the monarch do? There was so much talk of “the work we do for this country” but no explanation of it? In the same vein, how exactly do they generate revenue?
Here is the argument, IIRC.
And here is a response.
Thanks, that was interesting, and pretty neatly sums up the revenue side of things (and why I think it’s a bs argument for their continued existence)
I’m still curious about the “work” that The Crown (show) kept going on about. As mentioned in the rebuttal video, all of that revenue essentially comes about through just existing (and there’s no reason it couldn’t continue even if the monarchy were officially abolished)
From the outside, (and going by the events in the show) it seems to be just cutting ribbons, and hosting/attending parties. Oh, and a speech once a year. Is that the extent of their work, or do they actually serve some political function that couldn’t be done by a regular old diplomat?
Officially, the British monarch can reject any bills that Parliament sends them, effectively vetoing it, but no king or queen has exercised that power since 1708.
They’ve used threats instead, as well as the power of shaming and the influence they have in many places including the Press (for example, pretty much the whole Board of the BBC has a royal title, be it a Peerage or higher, and this is similar in quite a number of other places, both in the public and the private sector).
Look up the “black spider memos” from the time the current King was still a Prince.
pfft. that was some fantastic propaganda. royalty in no way generates revenue, they’re fucking parasites.
I honestly don’t keep up with them much, so I can’t say what the current status is. I didn’t even realize until today that Mette-Marit had been connected with Epstein already back in 2019.
It’s not just about money, though. When I still lived there ('90s), the common sentiment seemed to be that though they have no political power (even less so than the British), they were good, wholesome ambassadors for Norway and served as a sort of cultural focal point that “everyone” shared pride in. (Obviously not a 100% true, but if you’re Norwegian you know what I mean.)
Importantly, one point of pride was that they weren’t as embroiled in scandals as other royals. They were “of the people”, with one example often cited that King Olav during the oil crisis took his skis on the bus instead of driving. That kind of thing.
The current line of Norwegian royals is even pretty new, so to speak. King Haakon VII was chosen by committee in 1905 after the dissolution of the union. At the time, they passed on becoming a republic. So, it felt more like they had been selected by us rather than they just inherited everything.
But: the whole Epstein business, greed, political influence and all that flies directly in the face of all that pride. That’s why I think that case is probably lost now. The trust is gone, the monarchy is tarnished. It’s become a liability and expense rather than a point of pride.
That actually makes a lot of sense. Coming from a country heavily influenced by Thomas Paine especially on the topic of nobility it’s always been weird to me when such egalitarian countries as most of Scandinavia and the Netherlands maintain monarchies.