MM and her relationshiop with her son Marius...

[periwinkle]

What a contrast between Felipe and Haakon right now. One marching straight into the fire and the other bouncing away from any heat. Otherwise I know their situations (flooding vs. the stepson) aren't comparable but how we handle things and take responsibility is the sign of character. Or a lack thereof. It reminds me of what I read about JD Vance: he is someone who never transcended his trauma but leaned into it. Life is choices. Make good ones.

[Oh_Caroline]

Constitutional questions are being raised - can the police question the crown princess.

I would think so.  According to wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/...Sovereign_immunity#Norway)...

Article 5 of the Constitution of Norway states: "The King's person is sacred; he cannot be censured or accused. The responsibility rests with his Council." Accordingly, the monarch cannot be prosecuted or sued in his or her personal capacity, but this immunity does not extend to the state as such. Neither does immunity extend to the monarch in his capacity as an owner or stakeholder in real property, or as an employer, provided that the suit does not allege personal responsibility for the monarch.

I know not the best source but it's something.

As MM is not the Sovereign then she should be fair game.  But then I'm not a constitutional expert.

[Lady Liebe]

Constitutional questions are being raised - can the police question the crown princess.

I would think so.  According to wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/...Sovereign_immunity#Norway)...

Article 5 of the Constitution of Norway states: "The King's person is sacred; he cannot be censured or accused. The responsibility rests with his Council." Accordingly, the monarch cannot be prosecuted or sued in his or her personal capacity, but this immunity does not extend to the state as such. Neither does immunity extend to the monarch in his capacity as an owner or stakeholder in real property, or as an employer, provided that the suit does not allege personal responsibility for the monarch.

I know not the best source but it's something.

As MM is not the Sovereign then she should be fair game.  But then I'm not a constitutional expert.

That would seem to exclude MM, however:

Article 37 states: The Royal Princes and Princesses shall not personally be answerable to anyone other than the King, or whomever he decrees to sit in judgment on them.

This means that the Princes and Princesses also have immunity on the discretion of the king. He could decide to let them be judged by the regular courts or he could decide to judge them himself. This has never been tested in practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Norway

It could be open to interpretation on whether that means blood royalty only or extends to a married in Crown Princess.

As I am no Constitutional expert either, who knows?

[Oh_Caroline]

Well damn.  That's unfortunate.  And will only magnify the fallout for the NRF.  Immunity for the sovereign people can begrudgingly accept but immunity for all Prince(ss) at the sovereign's discretion is a far harder pill to swallow.  Does Harold throw MM to the wolves or does he fall on his sword to protect her?  And what if someone decides that Haakon should also be questioned?

[anneboleyn]

What a dangerous way to live where you don't have to answer to anyone.

[Maria]

What a dangerous way to live where you don't have to answer to anyone.

MM and Marius seem a horribly good example of that.

[periwinkle]

And in my opinion that is what Harald's sister (how do you pronounce that name Ragnhild?) must have been saying. It was of course taken as a classist remark from a member of the older generation when she was likely flagging the very mindset and behavior of people who never faced many or any consequences for their actions. Not necessarily the actions themselves.

[Larzen]

She does not need constitutional protection, she is his mother and no mother has to testefy against their children in Norway. If she wants to she can do it, if she does not, she can say no just like any other parent, no need to be a constitutional scollar.

I guess most royals would handle visiting disaster areas better than family crisis…Felipe never has to answer any questions, not about his corrupt sister, super corrupt philandering father and ex brother in law who served time in jail, has he ever given any interview in the ten years he was King? The press was after Frederik for his silence after 6 months that included his book….if Frederik or Victoria had corrupt parents, sister and inlaws that served time in jail, they would have to answer to press all the time, that is a major difference between the scandinavian monarchies (and the dutch to some extent) and Spain and Belgium. For better or worse.

[Celia]

She does not need constitutional protection, she is his mother and no mother has to testefy against their children in Norway. If she wants to she can do it, if she does not, she can say no just like any other parent

Wow, parent-child privilege?  Not just spousal?  She's got a strong wall around her.

[Hester]

The King should order her to talk to the police.

[Paulina]

If she agrees to be interviewed, she will show she puts the crown and IA ahead of herself and her firstborn.

But she is not a noble person, nor has she shown any scruples all along. As was said upthread, she’s continued to make poor choices since becoming CPss. Conniving she seems, and arrogant.

She must have Haakon by the balls. He seems spineless. Poor choice of spouse.

[anneboleyn]

She must have him by the balls? Or maybe he’s just a shitty person!!! Why do men always get excused and women take all the responsibility? Haakon and MM both raised Marius. They both clearly enabled him. They both failed him.

[Maria]

She must have him by the balls? Or maybe he’s just a shitty person!!! Why do men always get excused and women take all the responsibility? Haakon and MM both raised Marius. They both clearly enabled him. They both failed him.

There’s a history with them that definitely suggests she makes poor decisions and he does nothing about it. I doubt he makes her do the things she does or doesn’t do personally. He is also the one raised with his extreme privilege which he does not seem to respect very much - that’s my issue with him. He put marrying MM over the throne. That says something about him. It was a fairly quick marriage too - unlike his parents of course, but also unlike Victoria and Daniel or even Fred and Mary. That suggests to me there might be an unhealthy balance between the two of them.

There was a while where there were strong rumours in Norway that she was cheating on him. Anyone else remember that? It was very strange, the NRF did just about nothing. After that she got ill and everything died down. It was a very strange dynamic.

Haakon and MM have really been sold as a modern fairy tale love story but there’s plenty to suggest there’s something off and whether we like it or not, they are not an equal couple. He has responsibilities that he’s not living up to. She gets away with it. That’s sort of the problem.

[getafix]

Constitutional questions are being raised - can the police question the crown princess.

I would think so.  According to wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/...Sovereign_immunity#Norway)...

Article 5 of the Constitution of Norway states: "The King's person is sacred; he cannot be censured or accused. The responsibility rests with his Council." Accordingly, the monarch cannot be prosecuted or sued in his or her personal capacity, but this immunity does not extend to the state as such. Neither does immunity extend to the monarch in his capacity as an owner or stakeholder in real property, or as an employer, provided that the suit does not allege personal responsibility for the monarch.

I know not the best source but it's something.

As MM is not the Sovereign then she should be fair game.  But then I'm not a constitutional expert.

if the King's person is sacred, does that mean the CP and CPss are equally sacred? does King mean the crown family? or is it mean King alone. and by implication, the queen and then CP and CPss?

so by this deduction, the CPss is not immune and not above the law, as she is not a reigning monarch, nor KIng as such.

therefore, she can be called to be questioned.

Now I want to know if the Constitutional law over-rides another4 contsitutional law: King (in this case CPss) above the law as per above, overriding police laws.

so if she can be questioned by the police she can say no as a mother.

wonder if she has a choice on that too?

hmmmm....lots of questions.

where is Curtains. she loves this sort of stuff...

G

[leatherface]

So, if I understand correctly, there is a law that grants parents/mothers of suspects/criminals privilege from testifying and/or police questioning against their children?

If this law is in play, then MM is within her rights to decline to answer questions/testify as Marius's mother. On the face of it, there are no constitutional questions to be had unless (i) prosecutors wish to circumvent this law by applying the constitutional provision which permits the King to compel royal princes(sses) to testify/answer questions to any authority at his discretion; or (ii) possibly prosecutors intend to charge MM herself in this matter.

If I were an ambitious prosecutor determined to convict Marius, I would apply the constitutional provision that allows the King to compel MM to testify as constitutional law trumps legislation as the resulting pressure on the NRF could result in MM volunteering to answer questions.