Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
alt.talk.royalty
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Norway: "Princess [Martha Louise] claims clairvoyant powers, aims to share them"
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Dag T. Hoelseth  
View profile  
 More options Aug 14 2007, 5:20 am
Newsgroups: alt.talk.royalty
From: "Dag T. Hoelseth" <dag...@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:20:58 -0700
Local: Tues, Aug 14 2007 5:20 am
Subject: Re: Norway: "Princess [Martha Louise] claims clairvoyant powers, aims to share them"
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Aug 13, 4:28 pm, Jan Böhme <jan.bo...@sh.se> wrote:

> On 13 Aug, 13:41, "Dag T. Hoelseth" <dag...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > "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."

> The way I see it, there is a conflict of propriety in three different
> ways.

> 1) While members of a Royal Family might well be engaged in various
> professional ventures, they should not come close to try to earn money
> _in their capacity of_ Princes or Princesses.

> 2) Princes or Princesses should always try to abstain from activities
> which might draw critisism or ridicule upon the RF as such. In
> particular, they should _absolutely_ desist from all kinds of money-
> making schemes which might possibly draw criticism or ridicule upon
> the RF.

> 3) Wherever there is an Established Church, Princes or Princesses in
> line of succession must not appear openly to en endorse views which
> are clearly and obviously at variance with the teachings of said
> Established Church.

I think you sums it up quite well.

> While I wouldn't think that angels as such are anathema to the
> teachings of the Church of Norway - they are not to the Church of
> Sweden, anyway - it is quite clear that the angels that Princess
> Märtha Louise is trying to make money out of, are not ordinary
> Christian angels, but more some kind of New Age mumbo-jumbo.

> And I'm actually more concerned with the blatant promotion of mumbo-
> jumbo for money, than with the un-Christian aspect of the thing. The
> un-Christian part could, as you write, be defused by removing her from
> the succession line (only where would that leave little Maud Angelica
> and Leah Isadora?).

How could their position in the line of succession come into
discussion? Anyway, the way the Constitution Art. 6 is worded,
Princess Märtha Louise's and her children's place in the line of
succession is very theoretical (when Princess Ingrid Alexandra
succeeds the Märtha Louise line will be wiped out).

> But she would still remain her parent's daughter,
> and be percieved as such by the public. And having a daughter - or,
> potentially, sister - of the King making money out of pure
> superstition does permanently damage the credibility of the monarchy,
> irrespective of what actual constitutional role, if any, that has been
> designed for this person.

> So I don't think that she should give up her Royal position. That
> won't solve the entire problem. Instead, I think that she should cease
> all involvement with this School of Talking with Angels mumbo-jumbo
> presently, and come out with some kind of unequivocal apology in the
> line of "I'm very sorry for not having had a clue, but I understand
> now that such a venture is wholly incompatible with my position".

Yes, that would be one solution, but it doesn't solve the entire
problem. The business venture was problematic also before "the angel
school" became known, and might continue to cause trouble for the
royal house, and Princess Märtha Louise's religious beliefs will not
go away... Again, because of her theoretical place in the line of
succession it would strictly speaking not become a real issue until
the unlikely situation that she succeeded to the throne. Well, as I
said earlier, the Palace should at least state that the princess would
not have any engagement connected to the state church. So far the
Palace is rather silent...

One aspect of the controverse which the media (almost) never mentions
is that the relevant law (lov om Enhetsregisteret, I think) says that
the owner's name has to be included in the name of the
enkeltpersonsforetak (sole proprietorship, one-man firm/business, sole
trader's business, i.e, owned and controlled by one person). The
Norwegian royals (except for the king's sisters) don't have a surname
and the title is regarded as part of the name. That is why the title
is included in the name of the one-person firm. It might be better if
one-man firm was converted into a limited company. but I guess that
wouldn't solve everything either. Of course she could give up the
business and become a normal employee instead (she is after all
educated as a physioterapist), but that doesn't seem to be on the
agenda at present. And the Palace information director Astrid Versto
said yesterday that the question of renouncing succesion rights and
title was not an issue at the Palace... And where is the king in all
of this? Of course he should be careful not to have anything to do
with his daughter's firm, but one could have hoped that he made use of
his authority for once (what is left of it) and stop things before
they get out of hand... Oh, it really is a mess.

> Because there's this other thing, too. She's got these exemptions from
> local development ordnances not once, but twice in the last years, on
> the grounds that she has special needs as a royal. If she were to be
> formally excluded from the RF, the debate about this would be re-
> opened - if it was ever completely closed.

Twice? What was the second? Well, I guess you are thinking about the
summer place at Bloksbjerg as well? Those cases are closed and cannot
be re-opened. But the security problem will of course not go away.

Dag T. Hoelseth
--
http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/royalty.html


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google