Norway’s crown princess has become embroiled in another scandal after newly unsealed files appeared to show her years of extensive contact with the late child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The latest tranche of Epstein files, released on Friday by the US justice department, appear to include nearly 1,000 mentions of the crown princess, Mette-Marit.
The files include scores of emails traded between the two, suggesting they were in contact from 2011 to 2014, the Norwegian daily VG reported. Mette-Marit married the future king of Norway in 2001.
The revelations come at a sensitive time for the royal family. The trial of Mette-Marit’s son, Marius Borg Høiby for rape is due to begin on Tuesday. He was born from a relationship before she married Crown Prince Haakon
Høiby is facing 38 charges, including the alleged rape of four women as well as alleged assault and drug offences. If convicted he could face up to 16 years in prison. Høiby has denied the most serious charges, including those of sexual abuse.
114 Comments
Deestan@lemmy.world · 252 pts · 229d
The movement to get rid of the parasitic monarchy in Norway got a lot of traction this week, so that is nice.
There is an actual hearing in Parliament this tuesday about abolishing the monarchy. Not caused by this but happily strengthened.
folekaule@lemmy.world · 45 pts · 229d
I've traditionally been a supporter of keeping the monarchy for its diplomatic functions and (mostly) unifying force among people, but this does feel like a sea-change. Maybe opinions in Norway are more forgiving, I don't know--I moved away many years ago. In my opinion, it's probably time to re-evaluate whether we (Norway) want to keep this going. It was decided decades ago to keep it at least until the current Crown Prince had his turn, but now that's looking like a bad idea. They need to do something, and hopefully they can still wind it down with some dignity. Maybe it's possible to make a nice, clean break when King Harald passes on. Either way, it should be up to the People.
I'm not 100% convinced having a President will be better, seeing as some Presidents like to act as if they're kings. But with all the scandals, I think if anyone still believes monarchs are immune to political influence, they should wake up now.
PS: I was wondering if you have some more information about the hearing (e.g. news article). I can't find it in the Norwegian media. (I read/speak Norwegian).
Deestan@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 229d
Yeah, power corrupts. But royalty is excempt from scrutiny way too much. The king keeps pardoning finance crime buddies and it's not even mentioned in the media like other corruption would be.
Anyway, https://stortinget.no/ has info on the hearings :)
folekaule@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 228d
Thank you, I found it here. I'm a little bit surprised it's not in the media more.
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 228d
Pretty sure because it's a routine tradition, and is always expected to end in the favor of keeping the monarchy. So it's not really too interesting unless you are a politician
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 14 pts · 228d
You can have a President without having a Presidential system - like, for example, Germany - were that post is mainly being a figurehead/top-diplomat with mainly the power of shaming parliament when they go overboard with some laws, both not actually able to block it, possible with some limited power to dissolve parliament and call new elections.
Basically it's the same thing as a modern day monarch in a Democratic nation, except that people actually get to chose who gets the post, if they turn out to be bad at it they get replaced after 4 years rather than being there for life and they don't actually own a massive chunk of wealth for historical reasons (like, for example, the British Royal Family).
I've lived under Presidential systems (Portugal) and Constitutional Monarchies (The Netherlands, Britain) and vastly prefer the former: the latter is especially fucked up in Britain were the Royals actually have real power (to block laws) - if seldom used - and are the cornerstone of a well entrenched system of patronage and class segregation which is far beyond anything I've seen elsewhere in Europe, though granted in The Netherlands The Royals were a lot closer to normal people - to the point that before becoming King the current ruler used to work as a pilot for KLM - than in Britain.
Tryenjer@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 228d
Portugal doesn't have a Presidential system, it's a Semi-Presidential one.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 228d
You're correct, similarly to Germany it has a President with limited powers which are far less than Parliament or the Govern, not a Presidential System (like the US or France) were the President actually has executive power.
Tryenjer@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 228d
The Portuguese President has more power than the German one, though.
5715@feddit.org · 1 pts · 227d
The German figurehead presidency is probably a result of the absolute failure of Hindenburg in the Weimar republic (interwar).
PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 228d
I guess ‘No Kings’ is doing something after all
RyanDownyJr@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 229d
Does the Norwegian monarchy also generate a significant amount of revenue for the government like the British one does?
Kraiden@piefed.social · 24 pts · 229d
I asked this when the final season of The Crown came out. What EXACTLY does the monarch do? There was so much talk of "the work we do for this country" but no explanation of it? In the same vein, how exactly do they generate revenue?
TheRealKuni@piefed.social · 14 pts · 229d
Here is the argument, IIRC.
And here is a response.
Kraiden@piefed.social · 11 pts · 229d
Thanks, that was interesting, and pretty neatly sums up the revenue side of things (and why I think it's a bs argument for their continued existence)
I'm still curious about the "work" that The Crown (show) kept going on about. As mentioned in the rebuttal video, all of that revenue essentially comes about through just existing (and there's no reason it couldn't continue even if the monarchy were officially abolished)
From the outside, (and going by the events in the show) it seems to be just cutting ribbons, and hosting/attending parties. Oh, and a speech once a year. Is that the extent of their work, or do they actually serve some political function that couldn't be done by a regular old diplomat?
VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 228d
Officially, the British monarch can reject any bills that Parliament sends them, effectively vetoing it, but no king or queen has exercised that power since 1708.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 228d
They've used threats instead, as well as the power of shaming and the influence they have in many places including the Press (for example, pretty much the whole Board of the BBC has a royal title, be it a Peerage or higher, and this is similar in quite a number of other places, both in the public and the private sector).
Look up the "black spider memos" from the time the current King was still a Prince.
Zagorath@aussie.zone · 5 pts · 228d
Without clicking I already know what both of those videos will be.
CGP Grey is a liberal hack. He's very skilled at explaining things in an entertaining and easy-to-understand way, but he's really bad at making it clear when what he's "explaining" is his (or someone else's) opinion and not an actual fact. And when it is his opinion, far too often it's a bad one, tainted by some of the laziest liberal status quo bs.
This is one such example, and Shaun's response is justifiably scathing.
I also found it particularly telling when he did his "guns, germs, and steel" explainer (a book that is widely criticised by historians for its vastly oversimplified explanations), and he responded to criticism by laughing it off, and saying there was no problem. But when he later did a video and made a minor mistake by using the name of a submarine-based missile for what was actually a ground-based missile (or something along those lines), he made a huge deal about how important his integrity is and how he could not possibly live with himself if he allowed that misinformation to go uncorrected.
Suffice it to say, I was not particularly surprised when I later learnt the reason Grey pulled out of Nebula was that he (and Veritasium, IIRC?) wanted a business model/corporate structure which would allow him and other early members to profit off of the work of later-added members. An opinion that put him at odds with the other early founders like Wendover and Real Engineering, who preferred the more equitable model.
TheRealKuni@piefed.social · 3 pts · 228d
Really? I never did find any info about why he and Kurzgesagt (not Veritasium) left. Where did you hear this? (I’m not doubting you I’m just curious.)
Zagorath@aussie.zone · 5 pts · 228d
Ah it was Kurzgesagt? Yeah that...really checks out. That dude is sketchy af.
I've just gone down a rabbit hole of old Reddit threads. This comment by Brian of Real Engineering is the source for that claim. At the very least, it shows they weren't interested in putting in effort to grow the platform into the fantastic place it has become since their departure. At worst, Brian's speculation as to their motives paints them in a very unflattering light.
But it seems it was my mistaken recollection that it was specifically about discussions relating to the "creator-owned" business structure.
You can read further down in that thread for a comment of my own summarising why exactly I described Kurzgesagt as "sketchy af" above. Or for more detail, here's another thread on the subject where I go back and forth with someone staunchly intent on defending Kurzgesagt despite the overwhelming evidence against him.
I'm pretty sure this is the thread that got me silently banned from all CGP Grey–related subreddits, too. Not a proper ban, but all my comments are silently auto-removed, presumably by Grey's bot account that mods all his subreddits. I went months cheerfully commenting in Hello Internet (RIP) threads and getting no engagement before I realised I had been banned. Back then I was actually a huge fan of Grey's in spite of my growing frustrations with some of his content, so that really stung.
Oh and just for fun, here's another thread I came across with some other people detailing some of the grift-like penny-pinching behaviour from Grey, wherein he treats his audience not as a community but as a resource to be extracted...until it's no longer useful: https://old.reddit.com/r/JetLagTheGame/comments/1iom4n4/whats_bens_beef_with_cgp_grey/
borkborkbork@piefed.social · 19 pts · 229d
pfft. that was some fantastic propaganda. royalty in no way generates revenue, they're fucking parasites.
folekaule@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 229d
I honestly don't keep up with them much, so I can't say what the current status is. I didn't even realize until today that Mette-Marit had been connected with Epstein already back in 2019.
It's not just about money, though. When I still lived there ('90s), the common sentiment seemed to be that though they have no political power (even less so than the British), they were good, wholesome ambassadors for Norway and served as a sort of cultural focal point that "everyone" shared pride in. (Obviously not a 100% true, but if you're Norwegian you know what I mean.)
Importantly, one point of pride was that they weren't as embroiled in scandals as other royals. They were "of the people", with one example often cited that King Olav during the oil crisis took his skis on the bus instead of driving. That kind of thing.
The current line of Norwegian royals is even pretty new, so to speak. King Haakon VII was chosen by committee in 1905 after the dissolution of the union. At the time, they passed on becoming a republic. So, it felt more like they had been selected by us rather than they just inherited everything.
But: the whole Epstein business, greed, political influence and all that flies directly in the face of all that pride. That's why I think that case is probably lost now. The trust is gone, the monarchy is tarnished. It's become a liability and expense rather than a point of pride.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 228d
That actually makes a lot of sense. Coming from a country heavily influenced by Thomas Paine especially on the topic of nobility it's always been weird to me when such egalitarian countries as most of Scandinavia and the Netherlands maintain monarchies.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 228d
The buildings and overboard "state folklore" are what generate revenue, not the Royals - the probability of ever seeing a Royal in person, either as a tourist or a local, is basically zero.
Meanwhile the Royals are a cornerstone of a massive system of patronage and class segregation, not to mention being one of the wealthiest families in Britain. Oh, and the king also has the power to block laws, though he seldom uses it and apparently will instead in the background use the threat of it and of shaming governments (look up the "black spider memos", which date back to his time as prince).
They're pretty much the most anti-Democratic Royals in Europe by a long margin, IMHO.
Miaou@jlai.lu · 5 pts · 228d
Strange typo, you wrote "generate" instead of "cost"
Frostbeard@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 227d
voted today https://www.nrk.no/nyheter/kongefamilien-1.11661059 141 voted to keep current constitutional monarchy, 26 for a republic.
Also 76% of people asked in a poll trust the crown princess less after the recent Epstein information.
In ages 19–29 and 30–39 its 81 %
Also 44 % this she is unfit to rule
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 32 pts · 228d
You can bet that once the inevitable population-wide vote happens on whether to keep the monarchy, I will vote no. I already didn't like having a monarchy from before, now doubly so.
Evotech@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 228d
A: she's married in. Not actual you know. Heritage
Deestan@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 228d
Are you mansplaining my own fucking country of 45 years to me?
_Nico198X_@europe.pub · 9 pts · 228d
*monarchsplaining
Evotech@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 228d
I'm Norwegian...
Damorte@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 228d
queermunist@lemmy.ml · 130 pts · 229d
I was told that royal families are all ceremonial and that they don't have any real power, but we keep finding them embroiled with people who have real power.
Really makes you think.
Anarki_@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 57 pts · 229d
Money==power. Monarchs roll in money.
motogo@feddit.dk · 0 pts · 228d
No times 2. Monarchs don't really roll in money, and to elaborate let's dive into your first statement, and why it's off. Money is only really power if you have the freedom to buy with it as you want. Monarchs have very little freedom of any in that regard. Often you'll find that the vast majority of the so-called appanage comes with a note of exactly what they should pay for. Like, paying for renovations of buildings you don't appreciate living in and stills being told to live in it. Agreed, they do live a rather decent lifestyle, and there's no reason to feel sorry for monarchs' financial setup, but it comes at a hefty price of a lifetime commitment to no freedom in some regards. Personally I really appreciate the royal family in Denmark. The Danish king is a wise, highly trained military man, who also is a father driving his kids to school in a flatbed bicycle. It's just good PR for a country to have a king (and queen) like that.
cuboc@lemmy.world · 51 pts · 229d
In theory, yes. In our country, our royal family has an undisclosed amount of money, get an undisclosed amount of money from the taxpayer and has a number of other sources of income as well. One of the nephews of the king has a huge real estate business built upon his family money.
Fucking parasites.
drmoose@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 228d
Any social influencers of this level obviously have indirect power and anyone who claims otherwise is delusional.
That being said, I do think it's possible that ceremonial representation can be beneficial. I'd love states start electing purely ceremonial roles more as it's a really powerful social tool for uniting people and can be done right.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 228d
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 80 pts · 229d
Her son is a rapist https://www.cbsnews.com/news/norway-crown-princess-son-rape-trial-marius-borg-hoiby/
CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works · 27 pts · 228d
Sounds like the apple didn't fall far from the tree.
FauxLiving@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 228d
A lifetime of living without consequence where your every whim is met creates dangerously broken people
mudstickmcgee@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 228d
What happened here is actually worse somehow. Mette marit was a "commoner" known on her circles as a fun party/rave girl. The usual drugs included. She had a son (Marius) with someone from that walk of life. He had the chance to turn 8 or 9 i think before having the title of "royalty" thrust uppon him at the same time his single mother got swept away on all sorts of royal adventures.
Not hard at all to see how that can fuck you up royally.
Edit: just remembered she had a sextape from the good old days, and since it was only of interest to us Norwegians and the internett wasn't as big as it is now they've managed to scrub it. Or that might just have been rumors, but I'm like 80% sure i saw it at one of the early 2000's LAN parties.
ComradePenguin@lemmy.ml · 50 pts · 228d
He was first sentenced in 2008..
Evotech@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 228d
Looks bad until you realise how afraid of confrontations Norwegians are
midas22@lemmy.wtf · 3 pts · 227d
That part is the most insane to me. She actually looked up Epstein's past after he had just signed that plea deal for child prostitution in 2011 and then replied with a smiley... And then called him "soft hearted", "sweetheart" and "very charming" and used him as a mentor for how to raise her son. That is beyond poor judgment.
kalistia@sh.itjust.works · 35 pts · 228d
Parasites.
rabber@lemmy.ca · 34 pts · 229d
The dominos start to fall
cuboc@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 229d
Not a Norwegian, but I would hope so.
OddMinus1@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 228d
As a Norwegian, I would be perfectly fine with seeing the monarchy abolished whenever the passing of our current monarcs occur.
neidu3@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 229d
neidu3@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 229d
Scrollone@feddit.it · 18 pts · 227d
I've heard that this is so bad that it might be the end of the royal family in Norway.
Damn, I wish! I'm against all kinds of kings.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · -3 pts · 227d
Why?
They have decorational value, nothing else.
Royy@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 227d
Imagine you have some decorational vases on your mantle. They cost you an extraordinary amount of money each year, but you like them and they're family heirlooms. But then one vase starts spewing the most insane conspiracy theories that make everyone uncomfortable, one shills dangerous health advice for money (despite you paying its salary), one is facing multiple accusations of sexual assault, and has been indicted for rape, and one it turns out is heavily in the Epstein files. Would you reconsider if those vases were worth paying a ton of money every year that could be used to better yourself or others?
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · -3 pts · 227d
I mean, yeah, these specific vases have to go, but I wouldn't reconsider the idea of having vases based off of that.
Royy@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 227d
No? You're saying you wouldn't even consider spending the exorbitant amount of money it cost to maintain those purely decorational vases on something else? Like saving for your retirement or your kid's retirement, setting up community gardens, beefing up your home security, funding medical research, etc?
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 0 pts · 227d
Well, I like vases. People like vases. Some vases being shitty doesn't make ALL vases shitty.
And let's not pretend like the "royal whatnot" upkeep is a major amount of money on a country's scale. Sure, looking at it itself it seems like a lot, but removing, for example, the UK royal family in its entirety wouldn't even be noticeable in the overall budget. They cost UK taxpayers around £510 million, whereas the 2025 budget spending was £1,244.9 billion. You'd lower it to £1,244.4 billion. That's peanuts.
The issue - on that scale - isn't the funding itself, it's that the overall spending of taxpayer money is extremely inefficient.
Royy@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 227d
Thank you for partaking in this conversation in good faith. This is a good conversation.
That being said, I absolutely hate that attitude. When you look at it as a percentage of annual spending you are right. When you look at it per capita you're right, for the UK it's only £7 per person if my math is right.
That perspective is an extremely privileged one. How many lives could be saved every year with that money? How much good could be done?
We agree that the overall spending and allocation of taxpayer money is inefficient. The difference that I see in this conversation is that you're throwing up your hands and saying "the problem is too big, welp better not do anything about it", while I'm saying "This is a great step in the right direction that can help people now".
Can you give me some reasons to keep the royal family, rather than reasons not to get rid of it?
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 226d
OK, let's assume we do it your way - eliminate the entirety of the Royal Family funding, because they're "useless".
Let's say the NHS is able to save 34 more lives per year (NHS 2025 budget is £204.7 billion, UK's population is 69 million, the extra £510 million equates to just about enough money for 34 extra people - maths super simplified, ofc, but I think it's good enough to show the scales we're talking about).
Now - there's a bunch of jobs some of the Royals do (representative, mostly) that now need to be done by others on a regular employment contract, but let's ignore all that.
We get 34 extra lives saved after eliminating what is essentially a large piece of history and culture, large part of which is available to the public.
So... why stop there? Why not eliminate all museums? Bah, kill the entire DCMS - their budget was a whopping £2.29 billion for the 2025/26 financial year! That's around 140 extra saved lives if that budget was pushed to NHS!
You see what I'm getting at?
Royal families in democratic monarchies often serve similar purposes as the president in countries like Germany or Poland. It's the Chancellor/Prime Minister who has any actual power, but there's still a mostly representative President. The president, other than being an extension of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, also often has the power of veto (in the case of Poland: they can send a proposed to be analysed by the Constitutional Tribunal to verify legality), as part of the three-way checks and balances, and has the right of legislative initiative.
To my knowledge, all of this is also true about the UK King. Sure, they're not electable, but clearly the people of UK don't have a problem with that (approval rates in the 60s with only around 30% being strongly against).
The idea to "save lives" by eliminating a large chunk of culture and history, as well introducing the need to heavily reform how governance in the UK works (which usually means immense costs to implement) would be easier (and cheaper) to achieve by just reforming the NHS.
It's the same case as in the US - it's not the lack of money that's the problem here. People always complain that US prefers financing their war industry than healthcare, but that's just completely not true - their military gets around 4% of the federal budget while their healthcare gets 16%. Throwing more money at that bonfire won't help save people - you need to start by putting the fire out and then cleaning up!
Cheers!
Ardyssian@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 227d
How can one man be so infuriatingly involved in so much corruption globally? I just want to live in peace, urgh
possumparty@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 227d
Mossad wants dirt on everyone
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 227d
But not russians?
The only russians to pop up in the files are informants or business partners, nothing else.
There is, however, quite a bit of dirt on various Israelites.
SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 227d
They've released less than 1% of the files. Still plenty of things we have yet to see.
lmagitem@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 227d
That is good for your goal to live in peace if we take it seriously though. Catching so many corrupt and vile people at the same time is a great thing.
Ardyssian@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 227d
Fair point, but I have my doubts we'll take it seriously, considering our collective response so far to world altering events such as Climate Change, Panama Papers, etc.
duelistsage@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 227d
The world really is run by a cabal of pedophiles.
Who knew
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 16 pts · 228d
all the NONCE kings and princes had ties with epsteins MS kung fu master.
Avicenna@programming.dev · 12 pts · 227d
He sure lived up to their expectations. Well cheer up guys, at least he can use your tax money to hire himself the best lawyer available.
neidu3@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 229d
Norwegian here, and I don't think it's gonna change a whole lot. Well, not for her, at least.
Personally I don't care enough about them, and I don't get the impression anyone under 60 care that much either, neither positive or negative. Her husband is genuinely a nice person, so is her father in law (yes, I've met them both). Her son is a scumbag, though. (And he almost ran into me on a bicycle when he was 5 or so!)
So if anyone wants to litigate against her, I'm not gonna stand in the way, but for now this looks mostly like a case of "Should've known better", something several government officials have publicly stated.
Just to clarify my stance on monarchy: Conflicted. In theory it does make sense to have someone who can veto everything on behalf of the state if the government goes weapons grade guano. However, the apolitical nature of a monarch pretty much stand in the way of this. And on the other hand, I'm not a big fan of inherited power.
But all in all, I don't really care that much. Larger portions of my taxes go to stupider things.
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 228d
While I agree that having an independent body from the main political organ makes sense, I feel like a monarchy isn't a great symbol to have in the first place
And what's going to stop future scandals from happening? Or consequences for them? If a future king does something bad, we can't exactly fire them and replace them with someone else, as that's not how a monarchy works. We only got one tool, and it's to abolish the monarchy. It doesn't feel like great checks and balances
Generally I am against inherent power. And a monarchy is the peak of that, as you simply are in a position of power by having a lucky birth. It is true that lucky births happen constantly and are everywhere, especially if you get born in norway, but it feels wrong to actively support it.
It just doesn't really feel like a system that has a place today. Though I do also realize that there's problems with having a president or the like as well. But generally I support more democracy, not less.
And also as a final note like, if this went hidden for so long until the files got released, I wonder what other stuff got hidden as well? I mean, we got pretty much directly lied to here back in 2019
I'm just uncomfortable with systems that enforce a hierarchy. I think we could do with less of that
SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 228d
They can definitely replace the monarch. Remember it’s a constitutional monarchy where the monarch has only ceremonial power. The throne has been given to the current royal family by the people. The people can take the crown away if they want to. Parliament just needs to amend the constitution. Also the monarch can be encouraged to step down if they are embroiled in a scandal.
Also monarchs are just humans their heads can be chopped off like any of us. They should never forget what happened to their cousin during the French Revolution.
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 228d
Who would replace the monarch though?
At that point it's literally just an appointed minister by another name. And I'd rather have the position taken by someone who doesn't live in a literal castle
And yes, I know it's a constitutional monarchy, I live here :)
SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 228d
Yeah at that point it will just turn into a republic. But nothing is stopping Norwegians to go into that direction except tRAdiShyUn and decades of brainwashing.
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 228d
But that's literally what I'm arguing for though..?
Avicenna@programming.dev · 1 pts · 227d
The problem is this voting power is held by someone just because he/she is the child of someone, not because they can actually wield it responsibly. This is the whole reason monarchy was abolished.
Kraiden@piefed.social · -4 pts · 229d
Thoughts on the monarchy aside, I think it's a little unfair to judge someone based on how they acted as a really young child
neidu3@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 229d
My assessment was not based on that one incident from when he was five.
Kraiden@piefed.social · 5 pts · 229d
Yup, I see that now. I agree, he's a scumbag
TachyonTele@piefed.social · -3 pts · 228d
And that's why you shouldn't white-knight random people you don't know
Kraiden@piefed.social · 1 pts · 228d
Oh go fuck yourself. From the way it's written it's not unreasonable to think they're talking about the kid running them over at 5 years old. Turning out to be a douchebag later doesn't make it OK to judge a 5 year old.
TachyonTele@piefed.social · -4 pts · 228d
No one is judging anyone except you.
Kraiden@piefed.social · -1 pts · 228d
False. I'm judging you to be a moron.
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 229d
God forbid we’re unfair to this guy https://www.cbsnews.com/news/norway-crown-princess-son-rape-trial-marius-borg-hoiby/
Kraiden@piefed.social · 1 pts · 229d
Ok, fair. I didn't know about that
5715@feddit.org · 9 pts · 227d
How can "the most democratic country" have a monarchy?
bluesheep@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 227d
Probably for the same reason we still have one in the Netherlands, where a large part of the country can't comprehend abolishing the monarchy because "it's tradition" or "because they do important diplomatic work" (ie brown-nosing other politicians for an idioticly high salary)
raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 227d
Ik vondt de enige gechillte Nederlander ;) Groeten vanuit Duitsland! (Grapje, ik weet dat niet iedereen Rutte of Wilders in het achterste wil neuken)
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 227d
The US doesn't have a monarchy, but we ended up with a king anyway.
5715@feddit.org · 2 pts · 227d
What has the US to do with this?
Viceversa@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 227d
Epstein.
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 227d
To point out that having a democracy and not having a monarchy doesn't mean much, practically speaking.
5715@feddit.org · 2 pts · 227d
Yeah, it's the respect to the right constitution that makes or breaks it
Blackmist@feddit.uk · 6 pts · 227d
I'm guessing it's like the UK where they have a monarchy but they don't actually have any real power.
Well, aside from the usual rich person power of being able to commit all sorts of crimes and get away with it.
5715@feddit.org · 4 pts · 227d
Powerful or not, inherited leadership is undemocratic.
Blackmist@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 227d
Wait until you find out about hereditary peers...
MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 227d
Not even just the hereditary peers - there are also the 26 Anglican bishops, and the politically appointed lords, eg Mandelson. Senators for life, basically.
FatVegan@leminal.space · 4 pts · 227d
Tradition is a hell of a thing
Lootboblin@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 224d
Mette-Marit and a scandal. I’ve heard that before.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · -2 pts · 228d
Good thing my queen is a decent women with nice, well educated kids. I has to suck to have parasites like this live at your expense.
BlackDragon@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 227d
All monarchs are parasitic scum.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 2 pts · 227d
I was kidding but in all seriousness, I have a dual Polish-Spanish citizenship. The last Polish president (2 terms, 10 years in office) was an useless, partisan idiot who help destroy the justice system and blocked everything the government tried to pass. He was recently hired by the Heritage Foundation and is now spewing pro-Trump propaganda in Polish media. The newly elected president is a ex football hooligan idiot who, again, is blocking any progress to help his opposition party. The office or president in Poland is abused and is harmful to the democracy. Most of Polish presidents elected since the office was created were either drunks, idiots or hacks and embarrassed the office and country they are supposed to represent on countless occasions.
In the meantime, the Spanish king is not aligned with any party and is limiting his work to purely representative functions and occasionally mediating between the parties. He's well educated, speaks foreign languages and knows all the protocols. He's nothing but professional. His daughter, the princess, from the youngest age is getting all the education she will need to represent the country with honor and dignity. (Yes, the old king was an old drunk and pervert but he had enough common sense to resign when the scandals started surfacing).
The office of the Spanish King costs the taxpayers like 10% of what the president costs the Poles.
I know there's a good middle ground where people elect smart, professional people to represent them and you have the best of two worlds but if I had to choose I'm taking well educated King over drunk President every time.
BlackDragon@slrpnk.net · 0 pts · 227d
Guillotine the educated king and the drunk president as far as I'm concerned. If the king's really so smart he'll renounce his title when the guillotine comes out and the bloodshed can be avoided, so it's a win all around.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 2 pts · 227d
I'm sure there are great solution that work in fantasyland. Here, in the real world, we have to work with what we have and in my experience, a King with little actual power works better than politically nominated president.
BlackDragon@slrpnk.net · -1 pts · 227d
Today's liberals are so deep in the "end of history" bullshit that they actually believe the very concept of a revolution is "fantasyland"
I couldn't have satirized your position better if I'd tried.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 4 pts · 227d
It's not the concept of revolution that's "fantasyland". It's the idea that in Europe we will guillotine democratically elected presidents and constitutionally established monarchs. If that's you plan for changing the system: good luck! Here in reality we simply realize that this is not going to happen and if it did, it woult not result in a system that's better for anyone.
ayyy@sh.itjust.works · -3 pts · 228d
Norway’s Crown what? Are they from the past or something?
originaltnavn@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 228d
The constitutional monarchy is from 1814, but our real political power is democratically elected every 4 years. There is a significant minority who wants a republic instead, but most of us like having an unpolitical symbolic head of state to do the speaches, diplomacy and ribbon cutting that we can (mostly) all get behind. It's the same system as in Sweden and Denmark.
ptu@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 228d
We almost had a king instated in 1917 in Finland. The right wing party Kokoomus was desperate for a boot to lick.
Railcar8095@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 228d
It don't want to should sound disrespectful to the finish language, but kokoomus sounds like the villain of a Mario spinoff.
dubyakay@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 227d
Sounds like Kokusnuss, so coconut in German.
murvel@feddit.nu · 5 pts · 228d
Are you truly so ignorant?
AvocadoSandwich@eviltoast.org · 4 pts · 228d
Just as a good few other European countries, yes. Most definitely yes.
Typotyper@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 228d
And America now.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 228d
A lot of Europe has monarchs. Yes, the french and American mind struggles to comprehend this, but they just don't ger rid of them
gaymer@aussie.zone · -3 pts · 227d
raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 227d
Possibly, but that excuse doesn't fly for contacts following his first conviction in 2008:
That was well before the above mentioned email contacts.
gaymer@aussie.zone · -3 pts · 227d
raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 227d
You are so close.
gaymer@aussie.zone · -2 pts · 227d