Talk:Haakon VII of Norway
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on 10 dates. [show]|
The article states that 'most of the 200 members of the Storting' fled during the German occupation. But even today, there are only 169 parliamentary seats, and in 1940 there were 150... (See Storting). Could someone clarify? Asav 04:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Was this really Haakon and not Håkon? —Mulad
- I've heard that before he accepted the invitation to become King of Norway, he wanted the Norwegians to vote for it first. Is this a fact?
- Yes, there was a referendum.
- An yes, he did insist on an referendum
Basically true. The problems in one of the lines are whether Sverre was son of king Sigurd, and whether Harald Gille was son of king Magnus Barefoot. As they were alleged bastards coming from "nowhere" and won the kingdom. All other sirings are assured in normal certainty. However, as descendant of Wulfhild of Norway, who married the Billung Duke of Saxony, they are descendants of Olav II and as such, recognizedly of Harald Fairhair. That is the clearest line. 23:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A problem with medieval Norwegian kings is that their descendancy tends to be a bit obscure: their children are usually listed in sagas etc, but perhaps all existent (legitimate) grandchildren are not known to us. The further is the descent from a king, the more probable that simply information ceases - there was children of those, marriages, grandchildren, but much or all info has disappeared in mists of time. Probably half of Norway today descends from ancient kings, through unnamed ancestors.
However, there are certain well-known lines of descent from ancient Norwegian kings to princely families of Europe, which are well attested and up to today. Harald Hårdråde was the monarch who established Norway to his line of kings (he descended from Harald Fairhair through a line of minor kings). His successors were the longest medieval unbroken line of kings of Norway (up to ascnsion of Harald Gille) and their paternities were not in doubt. Thus, descent from his family tree means descent from several established Norwegian monarchs: http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00140268&tree=LEO
There is the clear line through Ragnhild, a daughter of king Magnus Barefoot, which has descendants through Swedish royal house of Eric, whom Haakon VII and his wife Maud descend from. Ragnhild's descendant Magnus II of Sweden ascended the Norwegian throne in 1319, after which all Norway's kings (except Charles VIII, Charles XIV and Oscar I of Sweden) have been her descendants.
St.Olav was the patron saint king of Norway. He descended through a minor line from Harald Fairhair, and Olav's line lost the kingdom to Harald Hardrade's line. There are two main descents from Olav: http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00104684&tree=LEO
These two lines are the earls of Orkney through his granddaughter, and the Dukes of Saxony through his only legitimate daughter Ulvhild. Haakon VII and Maud descend from those earls of Orkney at least through Matthew Stuart, Earl of Lennox, grandfather of James I of England. (Christian VII was the first Norwegian king to descend from those Orkneys.) Haakon VII and Maud descend from those early Dukes of Saxony through a number of parallel lines at least all arounf German principalities (Glucksburg, Coburg, Hesse). (Eric II and Haakon V were first of Norway to descend from Ulvhild.)
King Harald Fairhair's daughter Aalov Aarbod married Thore, earl of Möre, and their descendant Bodil became queen consort of Denmark and mother of Knud Lavard (Canute the Lord), whose descendants were kings of Denmark, dukes of Luneburg, counts of Orlamunde, kings of Sweden, etc etc. http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00079484&tree=LEO
Haakon VII and Maud descend from Knud Lavard through a number of lines. (Eric II and Haakon V descended from Aalov Aarbod)
Then there is the funny thing of at least three kings ascending by claim of being bastard of a predecessor, but actually nothing solid confirms their claim and paternity. They were, in turn, Harald IV Gille, Sverre, and Haakon IV. (Perhaps we should say that Norway has medieval traditions of kings whose paternity to earlier king is less than solid, and who were bastards.)
Each of them left the throne of Norway to their own immediate descendants, until after some generations, there came a claimant saying to be a bastard of a predecessor. However, some of them left uncontested descendants also, some of those lines continuing to today.
Harald Gille http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00091795&tree=LEO
A Sverre came later and claimed to be his grandson. However, through Birgitta (who was married to Birger Brosa) Harald Gille has attested descendants, among Scandinavian nobility. For example kings Charles VIII of Sweden and gustav I of Sweden descend from these, and therefore Haakon VII and Maud who are descendants of Gustav I and Charles VIII, descend from Harald Gille. Birgitta's alleged descendant Charles VIII of Sweden ascended the Norwegian throne in 1449 briefly. After him, Christian VII.
Haakon IVn came later and claimed to be his grandson. If Haakon IV was not his descendant, then there apparently is no line from Sverre known to continue to today.
Haakon IV, who ascended claiming to be bastard of Haakon III, founded the last native sub-branch (dynasty) of kings of Norway. They of course descend alo from his wife Margrete Skulesdottir, who descended through Norwegian nobility from some early kings of Norway. http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00049974&tree=LEO
This family reigned the independent Norway to 1319, and then their descendants, firstly Magnus II of Sweden inherited Norway. Haakon VII and Maud are descendants of them through the dukes of Mecklenburg, and through dukes of Schleswig-Holstein, as well as through Oldenburg kings of Denmark and Norway, etc. 188.8.131.52 11:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Haakon VII's last years
Did King Haakon VII, suffer a broken leg in 1955? an injury he never fully recovered from (since he was 83 at the time), and crown prince Olav (later King Olav V) served the next 2 years (Haakon died in 1957), as regent?
Mightberight/wrong User:GoodDay 13:07 (AST), 30 October 2005.
- Have not seen reference to Olav acting as regent during his father's last years. King Haakon VII fell in his bathroom at the estate at Bygdøy in July 1955. This fall, which occurred just a month before his eighty-third birthday, broke the king's thighbone and, though there were few other complications resulting from the fall, the king was left confined to a wheelchair. The once-active king was said to be depressed by his resulting helplessness and began to lose his customary involvement and interest in current events.
- As for Crown Prince Olav, the heir to the Norwegian throne who has attained the age of 18 is entitled to a seat on the Statsraadet (Council of State — the Cabinet) under Article 35 of the Norwegian constitution. Having had this responsibility since 1921, Olav had been thus involved in the affairs of state for some 34 years before his King Haakon's fall led to the monarch's fall and confinement to a wheelchair. No doubt during King Haakon's final illness — and especially after the King's condition further deteriorated in the summer of 1957 as he approached his eighty-fifth birthday, Crown Prince Olav had already begun to act on behalf of the monarch in ceremonial occasions and had begun to involve himself more in state affairs.
- There had been some speculation that the king would abdicate on his eighty-fifth birthday, August 3, 1957, but this did not come about. Haakon died some seven weeks later, on September 21, at which time Olav of course assumed the Norwegian throne. I do not believe that he had served as regent during his father's final illness. -- JonRoma 19:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- King Haakon did fall and broke his thighbone in 1955. Following this Crownprince Olav was regent until the death of his father. There are however a line I react on: "The once-active king was said to be depressed by his resulting helplessness and began to lose his customary involvement and interest in current events." He was indeed depressed, and he did also discuss to abdicate with the Norwegian prime minister Gerhardsen. However to say that he lost his interest and involvement in current events are completely wrong. He did discuss state matters with both his son and the prime minister. The King speculated in that the Norwegian public might think that he was too sick to be king, and he wondered what was the right thing to do in this situation. He felt that no one would discuss this matter with him. Prime minister Gerhardsen assured him however that he had a formidable support with the Norwegian people, and that Norwegian kings sit on the throne untill they die. A funny story happened when the secretary of the cabinet(?) called the prime minister on the night of King Haakons death. The prime minister had a feeling that he might recive this call that night. The secratery said that Crownprince Olav wished to speak with him. After a while a voice spoke in the phone. "This is King Olav."
Prince of Denmark?
I tried to find the information in the article and other sources, but no one has a clear answer. Did Haakon renounce his claims to the Danish Throne and the title Prince of Denmark when he took the Norweigan Throne? Prsgoddess187 14:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't read about him doing so, but the living members of the Norwegian royal family are not in the Danish order of succession according to Danish law and the Norwegian constitution states:
- "Article 11
- The King shall reside in the Realm and may not, without the consent of the Storting, remain outside the Realm for more than six months at a time, otherwise he shall have forfeited, for his person, the right to the Crown.
- The King may not accept any other crown or government without the consent of the Storting, for which two thirds of the votes are required."
- So in effect King Haakon could not succeed to the Danish throne after accepting the Norwegian one.Inge 14:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- The Norwegian Royal Family is technically a branch of the Danish Royal Family (much like the Greek Royal Family is). There were no renunciations of Danish titles and styles, they simply just are not used anymore. Some say that this is the reason why the "style-less" Norwegian royals (Märtha Louise, her aunts, etc) are styled HH outside of Norway. Charles 11:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm also the communists' king
This is stated out of context in the aricle. I added a reference to the web pages of Norwegian Royal House, but I could not find a reference in English.
It was said after the 1928 election, where the labour party (Det Norske Arbeiderparti), that at the time still were revolutionary, got more seats in the parliament than any other party.According to the constitution, the king appoints the government, but he is expected to always appoint a prime minister from the majority party or coallition. Since the other parties had not been able to form a majority coallition, he appointed the candidate from the labour party. Even though he followed the customs, this was a very controversial decision at the time, since the labour party was still revolutionary at the time, and the king said the above quote when defending his position. The labour party did not have a majority of the seats in the parliament however, so the new government was unable to archieve anything and resigned less than three weeks later. This has been used later as an example of the kings true democratic mindset.
- He simply named himself after the last King Haakon of Norway, Haakon VI of Norway. I assume it was a goodwill gesture, to the Norwegians. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've no citations for it; but I agree, it should be added. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Found one, written up as part of the summary for Haakon getting a Blue Plaque in London. The wording isn't exactly my best quality, but that can be fixed up. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good man, Kaiser matias. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, that seems to be the reasoning behind it. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Boycotting the Nobel Prize ceremony
184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Greetings, I came across this article from the Nobel peace prize winner Carl von Ossietzky's article. That article propounds that the king boycotted the award ceremony for the famous German dissident who was held captive by the Nazi regime. A part of the article goes like this; "King Haakon VII of Norway, who had been present at all other award ceremonies, boycotted the ceremony." Do anyone know the reason for it ? When I wandered to this article I thought that he ought to be a right-wing, or a pro-Nazi monarch but it doesn't look that at all, so I am a little bit confused. Does anyone got an idea on this issue ? Thanks in advance.
- It makes perfect sense. Haakon VII was never pro-Nazi; he favored democratic government and opposed both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, although he wanted to maintain friendly relations with all nations. But he was also a man who deeply believed that one does not betray his country. He refused to surrender to the Germans--and risked his life for it--because he knew Nazi Germany and the traitor Quisling would not act in the best interests of Norway. Now, think about what Ossietzky did. He may have had the greater good in mind, but he compromised his own country. In 1935, Hitler was perceived by everyone as nothing more than a strong German nationalist; no one knew he was a nutcase who intended to start another world war. Haakon would have strongly disapproved of a man who betrayed his country just because he didn't like the leader's politics. Jsc1973 (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I have never heard of this person, so I Googled. The name is used by an American helicopter reporter, but perhaps he took the name from some famous person. There is an article about Kai Simonsen in the Norwegien Wiki, but of course I cannot read that. Is it possible this line is a hoax? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)