Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "Dag T. Hoelseth" Newsgroups: alt.talk.royalty Subject: Re: Norway: "Princess [Martha Louise] claims clairvoyant powers, aims to share them" Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 04:41:13 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 138 Message-ID: <1187005273.018977.162400@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> References: <1186127515.311162.268750@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.156.24.30 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1187005273 9395 127.0.0.1 (13 Aug 2007 11:41:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:41:13 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1186127515.311162.268750@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.2; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 web.lovdata.no:8080 (squid/2.6.STABLE6) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=193.156.24.30; posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0 On 3 Aug, 09:51, "Dag T. Hoelseth" wrote: > On Jul 29, 2:32 pm, "Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell" > > wrote: > > Trying to return to ON topic discussions -- > > > I would be interested in hearing from some of the Norwegian and other > > Scandinavian posters their thoughts on the recent business with Martha > > Louise and the spirit world. > > I have intended to write more in detail about my views on the subject, > but so far haven't had the time. The news of the "angel school" was > released when I was travelling in Italy, and after I returned last > Sunday (29th) I have been too busy both on and off work. Maybe some > time next week. > > In the meantime, as no-one has bothered to post links to articles > which give the ATR readers an idea of what the thread is about (is it > so difficult to post links when initiating a thread?), please see the > following Aftenposten articles: > > *Princess claims clairvoyant powers, aims to share them* > > http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1901846.ece > > (Aftenposten, English section, 24 July 2007) > > *Princess M=E4rtha Louise known for making waves* > > http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1902258.ece > > (Aftenposten, English section 24 July 2007) > > (A very tabloid headline and article aimed to make the princess' > earlier life activites more controversial than they really were, at > least in my opinion) > > *Princess draws more flak* > > http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1904559.ece > > (Aftenposten, English section 25 July 2007) > > *Princess' 'warm hands' treated sister-in-law Mette-Marit* > > http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1907943.ece > > (Aftenposten, English section 27 July 2007) > > *Princess "ill" after criticism* > > http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1913287.ece > > (Aftenposten, English section 31 July 2007). > > (Subject title of this thread changed, as "Norwegian princess" is > rather inaccurate, considering there are four princesses.) The debate continues: *Pressure grows on Norway's psychic princess* http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1934523.ece "Calls were spreading on Monday for Princess Martha Louise to give up her royal title, to eliminate what's considered an inappropriate mix of her privileged position with her new controversial psychic venture." This is what I wrote at the SRMB yesterday (with a couple of additions) concerning the TV interview on Saturday: "Princess M=E4rtha Louise made a very bad impression of herself in the TV interview yesterday. She is a naive and selfish woman who doesn't understand her role and position and what is expected of her. Princess M=E4rtha Louise has made many engagements on behalf of the royal house and has for the most part done an excellent job. She is very charming and communicates well with people she meets. And generally I don't have a problem with her business, although part of her job was very close to what she was doing before she started her business, so it is some times difficult to see the difference between where her official role ends and where her private business starts. She, and the court, has done nothing to sort out the confusion. It really is a mess. She just don't understand that with her official role she not only has privileges, but first of all many duties. She cannot have all advantages as a princess and as a business woman without paying anything back. Norway has freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but those freedoms are limited for members of the royal house/family. We still have a state church with the king as (symbolic) head. In order to inherit the throne you have to be a member of the state church and follow the Evangelic-Lutheran faith. (Theoretically those in line of succession has more freedom until they succeeed, but at that time there cannot be a confusion about what he or she belives in.) The princess claims that she regards herself as a Christian, but she has many beliefs that has nothing to do with christianity (I don't want a religion debate here and just refer to what top theologicans have siad during the last few weeks, like for instance Dr.theol. Inge L=F8nning). It makes her official role quite problematic, especially as she has had so many engagements connected to church visits etc. The very least that she has to give up is church engagements. It will cause too much damage to the royal house and to the church if she continues to make such engagements. As long as she has made things so difficult for the royal house and for herself, it would also be better if she restricted her engagements in general to a very minimum. She also has make up her mind and decide herself her relationship to the church and her (very theoretical) succession rights." *** There has been discussions on her private businss earlier, but they have never reached such a level. Personally I feel that her religious direction is more problematic (in connection with her succession rights) with her than her private business (although "the angel school" is part of the latter). Now, I doubt that the princess will give up her rights and title, but should it happen it will be interesting to see how the situation will be solved, constitutionally speaking. The constitution does not say anything explicitly about abdiation or renunciation, but I can see two alternatives. 1. In form of a law; 2. In form of a written declaration to the Storting which is added to its protocol (the formal expression according to the unofficial translation of the Constitution is "entered in the record of its proceedings"). Both King Christian Frederik's and King Oscar II's abdication declaration were added to the protocol (concerning the latter one can of course say that he was "sacked" by the Norwegian Storting on 7 June 1905, but nevertheless his abdication letter of 26 October 1905 was added to the Protocol). Dag T. Hoelseth -- http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/royalty.html