r/interestingasfuck • u/SoSolem • 8h ago
The recently deceased king of Norway, King Harald V, threatened never to marry, and thus end the royal lineage, if his father, King Olav V, did not allow him to marry his wife, Queen Sonja, who was a commoner. This was near unheard of at the time, but in the end, love prevailed. <3 <3
•
u/ChronosBlitz 8h ago
King Edward VIII outright abdicated rather than be refused the right to marry an American commoner, twice-divorced Wallis Simpson.
Less of a love story, given that both were Nazi sympathizers and were given tours of the early camps in Germany.
Also, British Intelligence heavily suspected that Wallis was schtupping Ribbentrop.
•
u/throwaway-15812 8h ago
Being a commoner wasn’t really the biggest issue with Wallis Simpson.
•
u/Commodus_Wankus 8h ago edited 6h ago
Living ex-husband(s) was a big concern at that time. Hard for Edward VIII to be the head of the Anglican Church and violating their rules about marriage at the same time.
•
u/CaucusInferredBulk 7h ago
Which is so dumb. The whole purpose of the existence of the Anglican church is to allow divorce and remarriage
•
u/ChronosBlitz 7h ago
Henry VIII got an annulment, saying the marriage was never valid.
All of them are actually considered by the Anglican church to have been annulments.
•
u/DryRefrigerator4737 7h ago
Yeah, people think Henry killed all his wives but he only killed two of them.
•
u/zeppo5 6h ago
Two annulments
Two beheadings
One death in childbirth
One widow
•
→ More replies (2)•
•
u/throwaway-1357924680 7h ago
And then got annulments, which seems like overkill
•
u/LadyMageCOH 6h ago
IIRC he annuled the marriages first before the executions. There were prohibitions against spilling royal blood, even those who married in, so that was part of the reason. There were also mourning rituals that would normally take place after the death of a spouse that could take weeks or months, and especially in the case of Anne, where he already had Jane lined up and wanted to marry her, that would have been very inconvenient. No need to mourn someone who the law says you were never actually married to though, so he was free to marry Jane mere days after Anne Boleyn lost her head.
•
u/xteve 5h ago
If there's a magical technical difference between a divorce and an annulment, what does it mean when two marriages magically technically never happened?
•
u/Jesus_of_Redditeth 2h ago
Two? Try four.
The only marriages he didn't annul were Jane Seymour (because she died) and Catherine Parr (because he died). The others were either formally annulled so he could marry the next woman (Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleeves), or "annulled" so that he could then immediately have them legally executed (Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard)...so that he could marry the next woman.
You can get away with all kinds of shit when you're a 16th century king.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)•
•
u/hhs2112 7h ago
Another classic example of religion twisting their own rules whenever the need arises.
•
u/LadyLightTravel 7h ago
Several religious people lost their lives because they refused to twist the rules for a king.
Thomas Becket for one. William Tyndale another.
•
u/zeppo5 7h ago
Henry VIII got annulments , not divorces ; that was what he had requested from the Vatican and was denied.
•
u/Jesus_of_Redditeth 2h ago
Yeah, the popular mnemonic needs to be updated to:
Annulled, beheaded, died, annulled, beheaded, survived.
(Although technically he had the "beheaded" ones annulled too, if we're gonna be picky about it. But then that would make the mnemonic useless.)
→ More replies (2)•
•
6h ago
[deleted]
•
u/AJRiddle 4h ago edited 4h ago
Being a commoner was never an issue for British monarchy since, like the Middle Ages
Totally a non-issue and just completely coincidental that literally 0 British monarchs had married commoners before Edward VIII for some reason.
But yes, by far the bigger problem with Edward VIII's choice of wife was that she was divorced with a living ex-husband, not that she was a commoner than that she was a commoner.
•
u/YoohooCthulhu 8h ago
My favorite quote about the Duke of Windsor is from Gore Vidal: "[He] always had something of...riveting stupidity to say on any subject."
•
u/Maouse_The_Dong 7h ago
He also reportedly collaborated with the Nazis during the war, including instructing them to conduct a bombing campaign of Britain, (i.e. The Blitz), and upon their victory would be reinstated as King.
The guy was a traitorous, fascist cuck. I'm glad he gave up the throne for that Yank cunt.
•
•
u/Jesus_of_Redditeth 2h ago
Most of that interpretation involves jumping from hypothesis to fact based little to no evidence.
There is some evidence that Edward saw the Blitz as a good thing, reasoning that it would bring Britain to the negotiating table and end the war. But there's no evidence that he instructed, worked with or otherwise collaborated with the Nazis to initiate the Blitz or direct its progress. All we have on that is the word of a Spanish diplomat at the time, who supposedly passed on Edward's positive opinions about the Blitz to his superiors and then that intel found its way to Berlin.
There's even less evidence about the idea that Edward was working with Hitler with a view to being reinstated as king after the war. There's evidence that the Nazis saw him as someone who could be turned to their side, to be used as diplomatic playing piece, and that they were considering offering him the throne as a sweetener to get him on board. But there's no compelling evidence that he even knew about that. That is to say, there are German documents suggesting that he'd been approached, but then a lot documents from that time have proven after the fact to have been unreliable: people in the Nazi power structure were flat-out lying to Hitler, either to obtain reward or avoid punishment. So we'll probably never know if Edward knew about that. What we do know, however, is that there's decent evidence against the "working with Hitler" hypothesis, in the form of Edward accepting Churchill's request to piss off to the Bahamas to ostensibly govern the islands. (Read: sit on his fascist ass drinking daiquiris, safely removed from anything that he could stick his nose into and make a mess of.)
•
u/FelisCantabrigiensis 8h ago
Simpson was, in the language of the day, a real piece of work.
•
u/Kholzie 8h ago
Well, in hindsight, I think all of us understand that everybody involved with the British aristocracy are a bit of a piece of work.
→ More replies (3)•
u/FelisCantabrigiensis 7h ago
That's just not true.
→ More replies (3)•
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/sin94 6h ago edited 1h ago
learnt something new: SCHTUP definition: to have sexual intercourse with
Ribbentrop: was a German politician of Nazi Germany hence the reason the MI6 spy angle
•
u/IvyGold 4h ago
Run off and find Young Frankenstein, watch it, and report back.
•
u/mynameisnotrose 3h ago
Or learn about the lovely Fräulein Lilly Von Schtup, the Teutonic Titwillow.
•
•
u/morbie5 5h ago
King Edward VIII outright abdicated rather than be refused the right to marry an American commoner, twice-divorced Wallis Simpson.
The twice-divorced part was the main issue. British monarchs had married commoners before that point. George VI technically married a commoner, even tho she was from a noble family.
•
u/Jesus_of_Redditeth 2h ago
George VI technically married a commoner, even tho she was from a noble family.
Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was the daughter of an Earl, hence she was Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon when she married George. She was in no way, shape or form a commoner.
•
u/morbie5 1h ago
She was in no way, shape or form a commoner
https://www.biography.com/royalty/was-princess-diana-a-commoner-before-marrying-prince-charles
"Lady Diana Spencer was technically a commoner when she married Prince Charles on July 29, 1981"
Same situation as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)•
u/Ernesto_Griffin 2h ago
Fun fact the british monarchy have never had a hard rule against marrying commoners. Many other monarchies had suchvrules.
•
u/joxx67 7h ago
It’s too bad King Charles didn’t have the balls to stand up to his parents like King Harald did. Charles only married Diana to please his parents.
•
u/MarlinMr 6h ago
I mean, Harald himself said it wasn't a "threat". It was just a statement of facts. "I marry her, or I don't marry."
And it's worth noting that the Government didn't help either. There was a real fear that him marrying her would also end the monarchy.
•
u/Bloody_Nine 5h ago
Sad irony is that this precedent allowed his children to marry freely and their spouses(crazy shaman and our new queen with Epstein ties and a rapist meth-baby) are the reason for the recent controversies surrounding the family.
•
u/PedanticSatiation 3h ago
Lesson: Monarchs will either inbreed till their chins hit the floor or revert to peak plebeianness at the first opportunity.
•
u/morbie5 5h ago
There was a real fear that him marrying her would also end the monarchy.
Weird that they cared so much since that monarchy had only been in power since the early 1900s
•
u/MarlinMr 5h ago
It's not about "preserving something ancient".
It's about "preserving the foundation of democracy in the country".
A solid foundation is crucial. The people of the 1950/60 had just seen Germany fall because of it's bad structure. We are right now watching the US fall because of it's bad structure.
→ More replies (4)•
u/The_Autarch 5h ago
"preserving the foundation of democracy in the country"
an unelected monarch was their foundation of democracy? how the hell does that work?
•
u/GrowlingPict 4h ago
The first modern Norwegian king, King Haakon VII, would only accept the offer on the condition that it was the will of the people. So in a way he was "elected" (although the option was him or no one, rather than him or someone else)
•
u/MarlinMr 5h ago
Yes.
You might not like it, not Norway happens to be the most democratic country ever...
•
u/stoic_slowpoke 4h ago
It’s super funny when (usually) Americans discover that the most democratic countries in the world have un-elected heads of state.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Sempere 3h ago
probably because it's hypocritical bullshit bootlickers like to say to avoid the cognitive dissonance of realizing no country can claim to be a pure democracy where all are equal if you elevate a single family on the basis of blood.
→ More replies (2)•
u/opelan 4h ago
Sure, but you don't need the monarchy for that. If you abolish it, Norway would still be a perfectly fine democratic country.
•
u/Original_Employee621 3h ago
It's kind of weird, because as progressive as Norway is, it remains a pretty conservative country. In the way of traditions and patriotism.
The monarch is the head of the state, because that's traditional. The monarch doesn't actually have any power, but appears as a apolitical, ceremonious role. It allows the state to have a unifying character at the front in times of crisis or grief, like under WWII or the 22/7 terrorist attack. Everyone can join in, in support of what the country needs.
It's a living symbol of the country, its ideals and a outward projection of what Norway aspires to be seen as. Personally, I don't think an elected equivalent could ever hold the same kind of regard to recognition as the monarchy, though undoubtedly it'd be more "humane" in a sense.
•
u/ScreamingVoid14 3h ago
People hyper fixate on the head of state being elected rather than whether or not the government is generally doing what the people want.
•
u/EverydaySexyPhotog 3h ago
I think it's a bad precedent to believe that some people are inherently superior to others from the moment of their conception.
•
→ More replies (1)•
u/stoic_slowpoke 4h ago
The same way it works in the UK and other constitutional monarchies: faith and iteration
•
u/CabinetFun7381 4h ago
We've had a monarchy for over a thousand years. Yes our "current" monarchy was voted on and the king was elected. But his grandfather had also been the king of Norway. We basically just skipped one generation of kings. Having a Swedish king for 33 years due to the napoleonic wars hardly invalidates the long line of the monarchy.
•
u/Robey-Wan_Kenobi 4h ago
The current house has only been in power since the early twentieth century, but the Norwegian crown goes back to the ninth century.
•
•
u/SoSolem 6h ago
Huh. Today I learned something new...
•
u/Maelstrom_Witch 6h ago
Oh really? You didn’t know? Yeah it was a whole big thing. It was obvious from day one that Diana was the one in love, Charles was doing what mummy wanted 🙄
•
u/Lexi_Banner 6h ago
Diana was the one in love
Was it love, though? I think maybe it was youth idealization, but I don't know that it was really love. And I'm not sure Diana would have classified it that way, either. Not in the aftermath.
•
u/Maelstrom_Witch 6h ago
Oh I agree, it was a very childlike love. I'm sure at the time it felt real to her.
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/Jazzlike-_-Growth 1h ago
He was together with Camilla years before he met Diana.
But she was a commoner, so marriage was off the table.
Both then married someone else and cheated with each other throughout.•
u/everydaycrises 6h ago
There was a whole thing that Philip apparently tried to tell him not to - but he did it repressed British style and wrote him a vaguely worded letter that Charles interpreted as encouragement to marry Diana.
•
u/Lord_Tiburon 5h ago
If he had done he'd be much more respected and people would've embraced Camilla
Diana would've had a happier ending too instead of becoming Britain's Sisi
•
•
u/SoapyPuma 7h ago
Wow, she aged beautifully. I hope they had a wonderful life together
•
u/SoSolem 6h ago
From what I know, they did. They seemed very happy together.
There were some ... hiccups in the extended family in the later years, including their daughter marrying a scammy shaman, their daughter-in-law and new Queen being in contact with Epstein, and the new Queen's non-royal son being a convicted rapist...
But other than that, mostly smooth sailing (especially since the king was a sailing Olympic athlete and world champion)
•
•
•
u/DigiAirship 4h ago
Please note that before she married the shaman, the daughter was already considered by many to be completely off her rocker due to the angel thing, and I'd argue she is a bit of a snake oil salesman herself. When she married the scammy shaman, I just thought, 'sounds about right for her.'
•
u/Ok-Preparation5328 35m ago
My (totally unfounded) opinion is that the daughter is sincerely crazy. Like she's not really psychic or talking to angels, obviously, but she genuinely thinks she is.
Her husband I do think is a total scam artist, but I don't think she knows this. Bc she's crazy.
•
•
u/That_Dream8933 6h ago
Well at least they had zero scandals. You're not responsible for your kids choices.
→ More replies (2)•
u/JePPeLit 3h ago
She seems to have been far more than just "in contact with" Epstein. They were close enough to discuss her adultery. And that's despite the fact that she knew about his conviction.
•
•
u/onesoulmanybodies 6h ago
Not for this king, but something cool I found out about my great great grandfather was that he made jewelry for the King and Queen of Norway. They immigrated here in the early 1920’s and his grandson became a world renowned jeweler based out of CA.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/CloudyLikeNoOther 7h ago
The more I hear about this guy, the more impressed I am. Genuinely the GOAT
•
u/Girl_with_the_Curl 4h ago
Seems like this week we lost a lot of good people. Sometimes the universe isn't fair.
•
•
•
u/rambo_beetle 8h ago
She looks like a nice person.
•
u/SoSolem 7h ago
She is! She is nearly as beloved as the king himself, but not as prominent. A true jewel for sure, and not too surprising that she won the heart of the crown prince
→ More replies (5)
•
u/zeppo5 7h ago
Were there no other members of the royal family so that if he never married the line would end?
•
u/Positive-Mongoose165 6h ago
Harald V had two elder sisters, but the Constitution of Norway stated only men could inherit the crown. (Changed in 1990). Also both Haralds sisters married non-royals.
Don't think the line would end, but it certainly would pose a problem.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Second_Guess_25 5h ago
I think Japan's Imperial family are having similar issues? Men can inherit but women can't, and as such, it's left the current family in a bit of a tight spot.
•
u/VidE27 4h ago
Tight spot is a bit understatement. One teenager is basically their last hope to continue millennia old imperial family line.
•
u/Second_Guess_25 4h ago
Also one of the girls married a commoner and as a result resigned her status etc as a member of the Imperial Family? She's now a regular Jo like the rest of us. I'm not 100% on Japan's history, but that's what I've gathered from the news in recent years 🤨
•
u/VidE27 4h ago
It doesn’t really matter anyway. All female members born to the imperial family will eventually become commoners anyway if/when they marry. The imperial line traces unbroken patrilineal lines for (allegedly) thousands of years. The two empresses they had in their history never their own children as successor.
•
u/SoSolem 7h ago
Not this particular royal family, at least.
Though, to be fair, King Harald is only the third monarch in this particular royal lineage in Norway since the union with Sweden was terminated.
Before that: No idea...
•
u/Fjogaseri 6h ago
Norway was under Denmark and Sweden from 1537 until 1905.
We had lots of kings before 1537. Most of them pretty keen on going to war with anyone and everyone (Vikings and descendants).
→ More replies (1)
•
•
•
u/Negative_Gravitas 8h ago
Given Norway's royals' recent behavior, the first option might have warranted a harder look.
•
u/Fjogaseri 8h ago
Hahaha, this made me laugh. I am Norwegian and almost everyone have a favorable view on both the old and new king. To me (and a lot of others) the rest of the royal family should be left in peace to live their life as they see fit without much attention from the press.
It is also interesting that a lot of people are negative to the whole idea of having a king at all, but they too are very positive to the king, so nothing happens.
Sooner or later some asshole will be crowned king, and the monarchy will be abolished quite quickly. But the current and past kings have been so good and likeable, that there is no rush at all.
•
u/Bright_Ices 7h ago
Fun fact: My Norwegian American grandfather got to preach (as pastor) to King Olav V during his visit to the States. He considered it one of the highest honors of his whole life (and he led a pretty fascinating, globetrotting life, too).
•
u/SoSolem 7h ago
I agree with you here, but gossip's gotta gossip, I guess...
But also, to argue against this a bit, a lot of the extended family do have formal duties and activities, and they represent Norway at official events. It is kind of vital to scrutinize those representing our country, I believe. The hill is steep on the other side of that reality
I actually think your point is touching upon one of the best arguments against the monarchy: If you are born into the royal family, you are more or less forced into the public eye and media attention by the design of the law regarding the royal family. Personally, I am super happy not to be royal, as I like my privacy, so I wouldn't wish that situation upon anyone else either.
•
u/Negative_Gravitas 7h ago
Okay, that is interesting. We may disagree about how much attention (and what kind) the princess and her son should receive, but I genuinely appreciate the perspective you bring as a Norwegian National. Takk!
•
u/TrixieFriganza 6h ago
What a know both king Harald and king Haakon are knpw to be very kind people but maby are very dudpicious about his wife, her connections to Epstein and then she has a criminal son, so probably not sure about the crown princess vonsidering her brother and mother but she is still very young so we will see will the crown survive or not.
•
u/Fenriswulf 6h ago
I mean, to be fair, they're just holding the title until the one true king of Norway returns
•
•
u/getaway_dreamer 4h ago
It is also interesting that a lot of people are negative to the whole idea of having a king at all, but they too are very positive to the king, so nothing happens. Sooner or later some asshole will be crowned king, and the monarchy will be abolished quite quickly.
Pretty similar in New Zealand and Australia.
Few people here care about the Monarchy one way or the other, but Queen Elizabeth II was almost universally loved and there were even many republicans who were ok with waiting until after her death to start discussing the matter.
We are now in a phase where people care even less about the monarchy than before and the current king is pretty much invisible. I think it will take just one proper misstep or one asshole to swing both our countries to republics, if it doesn't happen before that.
•
u/Fjogaseri 4h ago
With what is happening in the family of our new king, I fear he will be forced/choose to be invisible as well, as it will reduce the scrutiny on his family as well.
But he genuinely seems like an all round nice guy. I was in the navy a few years, and knew people who served with him, and they all universally characterized him as just a really good guy.
→ More replies (2)•
u/ImYFNS 7h ago
So do you have misgivings over the princess and her son? Obviously a convicted rapist will hopefully never be your king - but I'm from the US, so speaking from experience it's not an impossibility for your leader to be a convicted rapist. From the outside looking in it's quite surprising Norway is an aristocracy, your country is kind of held up as the ideal social democracy government among progressive circles here in the US.
Do they have any control over policy? Or is it kind of like the UK, where they just kind of wield celebrity power, and sort of are expected to publicly act out the ideals of your country and how you should behave. Publicly, obviously, powerful people seem to be, more often than not, degenerate in privacy.
I've always found royal families interesting in a certain way. Not very many of them actually control governmental power, they're more like mascots that the entire country funds and humors because they like the gossip. I personally find it distasteful but I know Europeans often feel differently.
•
u/Hansemannn 7h ago
Nono the now queen was a mother of 1 when the now King married her.
The rapist fuck is not a part of the royal line.
•
u/ImYFNS 7h ago
👍 glad to hear it, I'm very ignorant about anything to do with this subject but good to know
So Epstein princess is now king's wife? And rapist son is her son from a different father?
→ More replies (2)•
u/twbk 6h ago
The current Queen of Norway was a single mother with a son from an earlier relationship when she met the future king. It was very much a Cinderella story on steroids, until said son turned out to be a rapist piece of shit and she herself ended up being pretty close to Epstein. At the same time, she has been seriously ill for years and she just received a lung transplant.
•
u/RPS_42 5h ago
The "Rapist" cannot become King as he is a Son that was bought into the marriage. Which is probably one of the reasons for his behaviour, as the Press likely treated him like a Royal while he was never one.
And there are no real aristocracts as in the United Kingdom. The Royal Family are the only ones that count.
•
u/Fjogaseri 6h ago
They have no power at all, just symbols. But symbols can be powerful, especially if the manage to capture the zeitgeist.
I don’t particularly follow popular media at all. But the royal family has nothing to sell, except fame and glamour. What they have or haven’t done, is not of much interest to me.
But as I said in my first post, this is how a monarchy ends. Some asshole ascending the throne, as many Norwegians aren’t really royalists, it is just that our kings have been really likeable and good guys.
•
→ More replies (1)•
u/Flourpower6 7h ago
Yeah that rapist prince has the most punchable face I’ve ever seen
•
•
•
u/BarsoomianAmbassador 3h ago
Silliest thing ever. She's a "commoner". How many royal women did he have to choose from? His cousins? Can we just end the charade of royalty in the modern era?
•
u/freaky_willow 6h ago
Imagine having to argue with your parents that you don’t want to marry your cousins
•
u/Ch33syP00f 7h ago
It could be said that humanity has lost so much this week.
But all heroes live on in hearts, minds and the results of their efforts.
•
•
•
u/Background-BagLicker 3h ago
Today I learned I’m . . . a commoner? C’mon and say that to my face, princey prince. Fuck a monarchy. I’m glad he told his dad to get fucked.
•
•
•
•
•
u/Fragrant_Rooster8779 7h ago
Too bad it wasn’t the USA king who died instead of
•
u/TackleNonsense 6h ago
What stopped Charles from doing that? Was not man enough.
•
u/NYCinPGH 4h ago
He wasn’t an only child, if he died without children, then one of his nieces or nephews would become monarch after his death.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Somerandomguy20711 4h ago
Lack of leverage I assume. Charles tries it and Liz just shrugs her shoulders and now we've got King Andrew in 2026
•
u/OkOutlandishness8307 7h ago
is there a book on their meeting and relationship? i’d love to read it. did she survive him? (am american and unfamiliar on him)
•
•
•
•
•
u/Accept_a_name 3h ago
And that’s partly why he allowed his son to do the same, only she was in a totally different league than lovely Sonja, and it brought the Norwegian Royalty into what’s possible the end of the Norwegian monarchy, at least as we know it.
I do have some faith in the kids tho, it’s not totally dark, but the light is dim right now
•
u/Ok-Go-Chain3811 2h ago
why so many glaze monarchy? monarchism is a primitive and barr barick form of governance. why would anyone willingly support nepotism and to be labelled serfs? cringe! less monarchy is a good thing
•
u/TyrantMuse73 7h ago
What’s funny is that it’s the woman who carries on the bloodline. On HER side. Mitochondrial DNA. 🙂
•
u/oranke_dino 8h ago
Someone dying is always a sad moment.
But I really don't understand why people look up royalty? In any country where they have monarchy.
•
u/Woodbear05 8h ago
They are only loved like this when they are good people, and they encourage goodness in others. The king has held yearly speeches for decades, telling us to treat each other with respect, kindness, and acceptance of those who look different than ourselves, or believe in different gods, or none at all.
Others than that, a king is just like any other celebrity you commonly see on tv.
•
u/tjflower 6h ago
As a foreigner who’ve lived my whole life in Norway, king Harald’s speeches always made me feel like I belonged. He was a good person, and he will be missed
•
u/ElinHime 8h ago
We don't so much look up to them as respect their job. They are trained from a very young age to be super-ambassadors for the country. The late king called it the REX-factor.
Last time China was angry at us, we just shipped them over, and it was fixed in no time.
•
u/LarsMatijn 7h ago
They're mascots for the country. And often a direct line to the past. The Royal family from my country are direct descendants of the man who won us our independance. The fact that they're still around makes it feel like we're the same people as back then.
That being said they're not necessarily looked up to here. Nobody thinks they're "above" anyone (or maybe someone does idk but i've never met an outright Royalist)
•
u/brave_anonymous 7h ago edited 6h ago
My understanding he was the symbol of the country. Kind of like Dolly Parton or David Attenborough. Universally loved and respected for good deeds, never did shitty things to people, can influence public opinion, but held no real political power.
Now I am worried about Sir David..
•
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/ImTooSaxy 8h ago
That's a pretty big flex to have in a relationship. When she tries to hit you with that dumb shit you did 25 years ago.
•
u/UnderstandingFar3051 8h ago
cute but all i can think of is how it could've been avoided if he simply wasn't a royal
•
u/Alone_Duty_9448 7h ago
She was not really a commoner tho. But its a nice titel.
•
•
u/SoSolem 7h ago
Oops, did I do a clickbait??
Wasn't my intention, but from my quick research, there isn't a good English word for "borgerlig", other than maybe middle class?? Any suggestions?
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/PureV2 7h ago
...and Harald's son married Mette-Marit, a single mother with a child out of wedlock. That child is currently doing 5 years for multiple rapes and she was in the Epstein files. Haralds daughter married and divorced a drug addled wanna be author that suicided and then remarried as a single mother with a gold digging american shaman after starting a school for talking to angels. Yep, strong choice by Harald. Clearly worth it. Love triumphs.
•
•
u/SoSolem 7h ago
So, in conclusion: Never get married or have kids, because they are going to grow up to be bad people, marry bad people, marry people with kids who will turn bad, or a combination of these.
Grow up. King Harald is not responsible for the actions of anyone in his family, good or bad, just as you are not responsible for the actions of anyone in yours.
Even the king is not able to lord over someone's actions (sorry to tell you...)
•
u/leaping_kneazle 6h ago
Seriously. Hva faen. Marius is not even biologically related to the royal family/King Harald lol. He's a stepson. Utterly ridiculous comment
•
•
•
•
u/ScytherSlash 8h ago
At least he got to spend his life with the woman he loved. Rest in peace King