Talk:Succession to the Norwegian throne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is the S capitalized? Michael Hardy 02:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

no it doesn't[edit]

From the article: The last paragraph states that King Harald's sisters are excluded from the line of succession and that Crown Prince Haakon has precedence over his elder sister Princess Märtha Louise.

But that's not what it states. Maybe that's what the intention of that paragraph or maybe that's its practical implications — but we deserve to have it explained. Just what does ¶6 of the old constitution say to exclude the king's sisters? Doops 05:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

added birth years. Hope that helps Fornadan (t) 21:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, really. For those born before the year 1971, Article 6 of the Constitution as it was passed on 18 November 1905 shall, however, apply. For those born before the year 1990 it shall nevertheless be the case that a male shall take precedence over a female. This seems to imply that ¶6 specifies male-preference primogeniture, which would put Ranghild and Astrid (given their birthdates) behind any younger brothers in line. But why are they excluded altogether? There must be something else in ¶6. Doops | talk 07:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll try again:
  • Until the law was changed Norway had strict Salic primogeniture, so that all the princesses where excluded from the succession.
  • The law was then changed to cognatic primogeniture to be effective from Haaakon's children.
  • However the lawmakers thought it unfair that it should be impossible for Märtha Louise or her desceandants to succeed to the throne. They therefore put in an interim period of semi-salic primogeniture which for all practical purposes would be restricted to Harald's children. Thus Ragnhild and Astrid remains outside the line of succession
.Fornadan (t) 12:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It was the salic law bit which wasn't clear. I've fixed the article accordingly. Doops | talk 00:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HH[edit]

I have read somewhere that Märtha Louise has the right to use Her Highness abroad as well as her aunts. I unfortunately do not remember where. I think this will apply to Sverre Magnus as well. But I am certainly not sure. They can not use HRH anyway. But this needs to be veryfied. Inge 04:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Found a link in the history of Märtha Louise's webiste [1|here]. It is in Norwegian. If anyone can translate, that would be great. Prsgoddess187 11:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article only states that the King has revoked Märtha Louise's right to use the title Her Royal Highness. 80.202.99.136 14:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

Norwegian Law of Succession should be merged into this article. —Nightstallion (?) 17:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that article should be renamed Norwegian Law of Succession of 1163 or something similiar. There is no real connection between that law (that was never used) and modern practice Fornadan (t) 19:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foreseeably useless article[edit]

This article is useless repetition to a section at Norwegian monarchy, and presumably will remain such. There is practically nothing more to say about the current line of succession and rules behind it than already are in that section. Requested merge -> this article will be changed to a redirect. Suedois 05:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it is part of a series. Are the others facing the same problem? I don't think it would be a good idea to delete this one article when there are many more like it. Inge 17:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unborn child[edit]

Is it too soon to include Princess Märtha's unborn child in the line of succession? I agree that the child has a right, and that hypothetically if everyone before it in the line were to die before it is born (hypothetically, remember) that it would still become monarch upon birth, even if there were people further down in the line; but I don't think it's right to mark it as an heir when it is not yet considered a person by many groups (which I won't comment on, as this isn't the place for it). Also, I don't think we should mark "(b. 2008)" when the birth is still in the future. For the time being I'm removing the year of birth but I won't touch the actual placement of the child in the line without further support. Andrei Iosifovich (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the constitution the unborn child takes its place in the line upon birth so it should be included at that point.Inge (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong.
Upon CONCEPTION 46.15.114.244 (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand this article[edit]

There are some questions left unanswered by the article. Perhaps these are questions left unanswered by the law. The questions I allude to relate to one main question: What happens if the eight people listed (the King and seven successors) all die at once? For instance, does Parliament pick a new monarch? If so, is there any provision for an acting head of state while Parliament does so? Has Parliament ever considered having a wider universe of heirs to the throne? I could keeping coming these, but that probably wouldn't be helpful. -Rrius (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians are not human.
They are merely parsites leaching off the people.
No one gives a f what they say or write, 46.15.114.244 (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Line of succession to the Norwegian throne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch's religion[edit]

according to treaty of 12th Century, does the Ruler still have to be Catholic? or has there been a recent change and is no longer obligatory to be Catholic?

Hypothetically

if Ingrid got married to Prince George of Cambridge, would either one be forced to abdicate their placement? ( as spouse of the ruler ( or potential ruler ), would either George have to convert to Catholic or Ingrid to Anglican? ) and what about their first born? would he or she have to take only one title ( as one can't be both Catholic and Anglican which are probably required of the monarchy of each country ) Verdad63 (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Treaty of the 1200`s did not unclude Vatican 2 and the accompanying change in The Popes failure to
slaughter heretics and start Wars as Proper Poes should.
We are de Jure now back to Pre-Scisms Christianity.
Of course:
No "rules" or "laws" given after 1458 has any de jure effect in Norway. And hardly any de-facto either.
The whole "Constitution" is pure BullShit by some somemodernist dudes who had no Legal Right to change Original Norwegian Laws
The last de-jure King or Norway died in 1459
according to the Laws of St. Olaf the *Eternal King of Norway*
SO:
First in time, best in right.
but congratulation Verdad63:
You seem to be the only one here that understands that the concept that what was decreed in the past dictates the legal status of the present
and future.
laws decreed valid "for all future in the past", will remain valid "for ever" as one cannot change the past.
That Democracy-bullshit is a Greek Hoax they can ram up their mothers rectums.
Still congrats for undertanding that truth is eternal. 46.15.114.244 (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO WIKI-MILLENIALS.[edit]

Please delete all articles about Norway in English.

That makes it far easier to galvanize national support for breaking off all ties with your countries and galvanise national support for

the forthcoming nuclear anihilation of countries which disrespects us.


Such as yours. But keep it up, please.

It proves you have no Honour nor respect for the dead.


Thus proving the words of the leaders of the nations

whose nukes are aimed at your peoples right now

for the exact same reasdons.

Insults KILLS. 46.15.114.244 (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Succession_to_the_Norwegian_throne&oldid=1200695684"