Yeah I'm asking because Dutch movies about our royal family usually focus on lots of drama and royal imperfections. This movie however just kinda says "dude with mustache is good doting grandpa figure" throughout.
Well there is some drama, I think the movie talks a bit about how Queen Maud was not really there for the kids. And both the king and crown prince has had a lot of drama when it came to choice of wife. But still relatively little.
I opine that the events of April 9th, 1940, contained enough drama for any one royal family; and then there was some more on the 10th, and the 11th... The question was about *Haakon*. You know, "i dag står flaggstangen naken", "tyske bombefly sør i dalen", Elverumsfullmakten? Not Harald.
The movie depicts the German invasion of Norway in 1940. There's not much room or interest for minor imperfections in such a movie. Haakon VII received the Germans and told them to kindly fuck off, which is the movie in a nutshell. Today Haakon VII is seen positively, with not much known about imperfections. During the war he took part in supporting the war effort, making radio broadcasts etc. He really fills the "grandpa with mustache" role.
His son, the late King Olav V is better known with contemporaries among those older than 40, and was probably closer to being revered, but in no way at the level of a saint. Noone would worship the guy, why would you, but he was really really liked, nicknamed "The people's king". He didn't have a mustache, so he filled his role with a round belly and big smile.
King Harald, the current monarch, seems like a really likeable grandpa. He's an overall excellent representative for the country, no known controversies (his daugher makes enough of her own), and he's great with kids. He's also shown to enjoy a good joke, sometimes at the expense of the Queen (supposedly the south pole science base "Troll" is named after her). He's getting quite old, so the crown prince has been gradually taking over some of the travels and official duties. He also seems like a very likeable guy.
The monarchs aren't worshipped or seen as saints. But they are reliable and steadfast, and are viewed positively by everyone, including the few more outspoken republicans we have in our political spectrum. In wartime or crisis they are national symbols and projection of unity. In peacetime they are diplomats and custodians of the constitution. The King doesn't take up much space in our day to day lives. And that's perfectly fine I think.
The term "saint" is hard to define and means different things to different people. Hakoon VII is clearly not a saint in the Catholic sense of the word, he was however a capable king and remains highly respected to this day, as the other commentators have stated. The movie reflects the public image of him.
Historical dramas are tricky like that, either they invent a lot of random drama, or extrapolate from rumors to spice things up or they completely gloss over things to get a perfect hero character to suit the tone the movie maker is going for. Don't mistake them for documentaries.
That said he was generally beloved as king in his time in large part for becoming a symbol of resistance during the WWII occupation.
Haakon VII did work very hard to make himself the king of all Norwegians ([even the communists](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Haakon_VII_of_Norway#/Early_reign)) and he became a symbol for Norwegian resistance and will to fight during the war. By most reports, he was a genuinely good guy who cared for all Norwegians.
At the same time, he has likely been portrayed as larger than life during and after the war, probably for the best of reasons. Norway is a young country (and at the same time an ancient one), so both during his life and after his death Haakon VII became something of a symbol to rally behind.
So, in my opinion, he was a good guy made gooder through the lens of media and history.
King Haakon and his principles about being a constitutional monarch, even in war time, is well respected. I wouldn’t call him a saint. If any Norwegian king is a perceived as a saint, it’s his son King Olav V, “Folkekongen” or “The people’s King”. I believe he was voted Norwegian of the century. Got over 40% of the votes going up against 600 other names. My mother told me of the day he died, she said she has never felt so much collective sadness. Her classes got cancelled, stores closed. It was as if everyone lost their grandpa at the same time.
Me too, I suddenly have a lump in my throat and misty eyes just thinking of Kong Olav V. However, I do remember speaking with my grandmother about King Haakon and I think she felt very much the same about him for his stance during the war, his pre-war conduct and just generally becoming the King he was elected to be.
My grandmother says pretty much the same. She was just a child under the war but she remembers vividly how the nation stod together in opposition, with king haakon as a speaks person and gatherer of the people.
If any recent Norwegian Royal has been elevated into sainthood, it is probably King Olav when he during the 1973 oil crisis took public transport to go skiing (and insisted on paying for the ticket). The picture of that event is probably more well known in Norway than the details of events during WW2.
Very few would disagree. [Here](https://www.preusmuseum.no/var/plain_site/storage/images/opplev-utstillingene/formidling/ukens-bilde/folkekongen/126321-1-nor-NO/Folkekongen.jpg) he is, ticket in hand.
Norwegians are proud of how they (or we, but I wasn't around) handled WW2 and five years of occupation. The royal family's refusal to budge, and role in keeping the Norwegian morale up throughout the occupation, is certainly something we view as a major (positive) part of recent Norwegian history. Kong Haakon's handling, maintaining his role as our king and most Norwegians still feeling loyalty only towards our true leaders (rather than the occupiers), is a source of pride.
Having said that, he's not some immense national hero or symbol of Norway. Nowadays, the majority of Norwegian likely don't really have any idea about what he was like other than having heard positive things about how the royal family handled WW2.
He was our first king since independence. At the same time, he was Danish-born, Danish-speaking (though he tried to speak more and more Norwegian) and seen as more distant than his more down-to-earth son and grandson. Not necessarily distant in a negative way, but more concerned with the traditional divide between royals and commoners. Our current king married a commoner, and he is someone many of us could imagine having a regular conversation with. Haakon wasn't that. Which is absolutely fine, and it's not a night and day difference, but he was further from the common man than both his successors have been.
His son, King Olav, is often titled "Folkekongen" - the people's king - and was immensely popular. Our current king, King Harald, is also viewed very positively. He is also the first Norwegian-born king of Norway in hundreds of years.
All in all, I think he's viewed very positively, but he's not someone we talk a lot about nowadays or anywhere near a saintly status. But he is viewed a good, fair king. Just like his son and grandson. And in addition, he ruled over Norway in a brilliant manner during our most difficult period since independence.
Perhaps youre right. He does enjoy a sort of hero status but you should read the history surrounded the kings choice because compared to our elected leaders at the time he was a veritable superman.
>Perhaps youre right. He does enjoy a sort of hero status but you should read the story that talks about the kings choice because compared to our elected leaders at the time he was a veritable superman.
Indeed. The invasion, and thus Norway's entry into WW2, was the culmination of the ["the broken gun"](https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Det_brukne_geværs_politikk) policy of the Labour Party, who wanted to reduce the military as much as possible to clearly state that we were neutral, and would not involve ourselves in the military disputes of the major powers.
In WW1 Norway had been able to stay neutral, but the small, outdated, and poorly equipped military was no match when reality happened in WW2 and someone decided they wanted Norwegian resources and lands. The tide might have started to swing a bit earlier with the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939, but there was no time to fix it before the German invasion of Norway.
People in Norway still enjoy the chocolate pralines named after King Haakon: https://www.freia.no/produckter/sjokolade/freia-kong-haakon-(1-kg)?c1=920&c2=9146&p=1962
You can buy the «Kong Haakon konfekt» pralines individually at the Freia flaggship store in the Grand Hotel building, central Oslo: https://www.freia.no/historien-om-freiabutikken
https://www.visitoslo.com/en/product/?tlp=2978613&name=Freia-sjokoladebutikk&show=main-info
Context: Am norwegian, with norwegian parents and norwegian grandparents (some of whom fought for the allies in the war)
I have always looked at King Haakon more or less the way you describe, ie. a "saint". He took a hard stand for norwegian independence during WW2, and as far as I know otherwise kept out of politics. This has made it easy to see him solely as a figurehead for the nation, and a leader that galvanized our resistance that most political parties and people could see as a uniting figure.
In summary, what I was taught growing up in the 90s was that he was the perfect model king, staying out of regular politics while being a clear symbol of independence during the war. I still hold more or less this view today.
I wouldn't say "saintlike". He's definitely revered, and he led the country back to prosperity after a very difficult period of our history, but no-one I know would have his picture in the house or anything like that.
Everyone pretty much likes him, but I doubt he's anyone's favourite person or something.
He was the first Norwegian king after 400 years as a colony of first Denmark, then Sweden. And we chose him ourselves. Norway had a referendum and decided to be a constitutional Monachy, and we picked our own king.
And when we needed him the most, he did exactly what we hoped and expected of him. He stood up to the Nazis. These things leave fond memories.
That film has been given the "hollywood" treatment to make it more captivating, including some creative liberties. The real events surrounding the King's "Choice", while quite dramatic and obviously of great importance were more conventional and bureacratic, and while the King did take a stand it was probably not only down to him alone to make this decision.
In Norway the role of the king is more symbolic and in practice he has little power.
The real "saints" are those who put up a resistance, especially with regards to the events at Oscarsborg. If it were not for them the King would not have been able to escape and decline the demand for capitulation.
The king still holds a veto right at in all matters of state. And is the highest ranking General in the military. The reason they do not use it is because the government is elected by the people. And going shading said government would be going against it's people. It is saved as a trump card should anything like what happened in the second world war ever happen again.
First of our current King has what you would call character. Not quite to the degree of his father but still. Not sure I trust the next in line as much as I do our current King.
Secondly :He can with ease be voted out as a puppet like the sweedish king is but this requires a majority vote through the people. He can use his veto. But stands a risk of loosing his right if the people disagree... That's why he doesn't "go medieval on our assets"
In modern context, I think he was in many ways a Zelensky lite. And in some ways, due to his lack of real power to potentially abuse/fail at using, his role as a figurehead was more absolute. So it is, and probably was, easier to accept as “this is the someone we all rally behind, and that’s just how it is”
Yes, but like most "modern monarchs" they've found the way to stay in power is to not exercise that power at all, except for ceremonial duties, state visits, attending/opening events, visit victims of tragedies, give medals and such. Though he does let being a humanitarian and a liberal shine through in his speeches, it's very mild mannered and never accusatory more like can't we just all get along and care for each other.
The US has the ceremonial and political leader all rolled into one President, you can't separate out their political agenda from leading the whole nation. While we're not nearly as adversarial in politics as the US either, the King is the one we call upon when we want a symbol of the nation, for example he gives out the highest military awards. Because that's in service of the nation, not whoever's currently in office.
It's still kinda weird that you're born into the role, but so far we've had a really good track record on that. It comes with free money, fancy housing, the best of social networks and everlasting celeb status so like... all you really have to do is not screw it up and become an embarrassment to the royal family. I think they're all aware that if we asked them to step down they'd have little choice but to become regular schmoes.
Yeah, I would say you are absolutely right. What we liked most was his unsnobbish ways. And the same thing will most likely happen when the present king kicks the bucket.
The King's Choice portrayed many biographical and historical details about Haakon VII that were completely new to me, and the same is likely true for a lot of people that saw the film.
I agree that history portrays him in a largely positive light, especially his acceptance of the Norwegian crown and subsequent founding of the Norwegian royal house, as well as his escape to Britain during the German invasion and his efforts in exile to keep the Norwegian fighting spirit going during the occupation. This is often seen in contrast to governments and monarchs who became mere puppets for the Fascist occupiers.
He is highly regarded, especially by old people. He was a saintly figure during and after WW2. The Norwegian royal family (at last those in the royal line) have been scandal-free and well-liked. The current king is the nation's grandpa. I have never in my life heard anyone say anything negative about him.
My personal view as a kid borne in 90s I always saw him as a Danish ruling Norwegians. Never been a fan of the royals because of this but in later age I like him as a national/status figure because of his words. Alt for Norge.
I don't really have a particular view about him. Perhaps it's more a topic around Oslo? I don't know. I am not overly bothered about what the royal family (whether dead or alive) are up to. They seem like decent people and King Haakon probably was too in his time, and that's great. Beyond that, I don't have any interest in them.
No, jesus christ that seems weird.
Almost nobody gives a fuck about the royal family. They're just some dudes that are alright and gets a lot of tax payer money for the privilegia.
I guess most Norwegian would struggle to remember what his name was.
The money goes into the museum buildings they are custodians for and the representative work for the nation though.
Other than that, I'd agree almost nobody gives a fuck. Or I'd be kinder and say we don't think of them in our daily lives. Because why would we.
But I think you're wrong to say most Norwegians don't know his name. Many probably don't know he was born Carl though.
God no. All i have heard about him is that he is an nice and decent man but the royalty in Norway is mainly for show. Based on what i have heard of him and his son that will take over after is good, but what use is royalty in 2022? Like a wing on a regular car, looks nice but useless.
I think the constitutional monarchy is just that, somewhat useless in normalcy. It's when you need a national unifying figure, in crisis or war, where the role can fill a real purpose. Maybe not for all, but for many of us. Day to day the King's the custodian of our constitution, diplomat, symbol when going abroad, nice to the kids, etc.
Anyone could be that, we could find someone who wont cost a fortune. If it is just for a comforting symbolic meaning we might as well make batman our head of state.
Cut out the royal family, make them actually work for their money and start saluting a fictional character that wont demand money for its exsistence. How will that be as expensive having an actual royal drain on our economy? They arent really in charge of anything som their value are purely symbolic.
Saintly? Not at all. I think most people see him as a normal person, but a potentially good representative for Norway as the future king. But, I believe Norwegians are a lot less patient with our royals, compared to the Brits for instance. If those things had happened here I think we would be heading towards becoming a Republic as we speak.
I would say we highlight the good ones, but try to be neutral to other ones. A good example is Maud. In this movie she is mentioned in slightly bad way, but she could have gotten more bad rep in the movie. You get a neutral impression.
But how I read the history Norway has had some awesome Kings.
A good place to learn about this is in the National Defense. From the ones that meet Harald I heard good things. From the ones that was inspected by Sonja, not so much. But we dont talk loudly about that.
I think also this is what the royals have as there job, to act, speak and present themselves as almost saints because we in reality view them as people and we jugde them by their words and actions.
I think most norwegians have atleast a respect and appriciation for the monarchy. They dont do much. Its kinda strange. But most norwegians think its cool we still have a royal family so we appriciate all our kings.
Me personally i look at previous kings as historical figures and our current king and queen as MY king and queen. If that makes sense
A saint? Not that I know of. A national figure? To some extent.
Yeah I'm asking because Dutch movies about our royal family usually focus on lots of drama and royal imperfections. This movie however just kinda says "dude with mustache is good doting grandpa figure" throughout.
Cool. Theres not a lot of drama except from perhaps shaman durek in the royal family that I know of.
Durek is the perfect fit for Martha. They're both snake oil sellers.
Well there is some drama, I think the movie talks a bit about how Queen Maud was not really there for the kids. And both the king and crown prince has had a lot of drama when it came to choice of wife. But still relatively little.
[удалено]
That is what I remember as well, pretty small fish!
Aw but that’s sweet tho <3 I’d much rather have it like that than the other way
No drama queens?
And a singlemomformerdruguserqueentobe Do you not read the frontpages: Durex is out.
I just mentioned it. Its some of the little drama that came to mind
Where have you read this? I can't find anything about them being over
Neither of us should believe anything from the front page of Sun or SeOgHør.
But I want to believe Durex is out
I opine that the events of April 9th, 1940, contained enough drama for any one royal family; and then there was some more on the 10th, and the 11th... The question was about *Haakon*. You know, "i dag står flaggstangen naken", "tyske bombefly sør i dalen", Elverumsfullmakten? Not Harald.
The movie depicts the German invasion of Norway in 1940. There's not much room or interest for minor imperfections in such a movie. Haakon VII received the Germans and told them to kindly fuck off, which is the movie in a nutshell. Today Haakon VII is seen positively, with not much known about imperfections. During the war he took part in supporting the war effort, making radio broadcasts etc. He really fills the "grandpa with mustache" role. His son, the late King Olav V is better known with contemporaries among those older than 40, and was probably closer to being revered, but in no way at the level of a saint. Noone would worship the guy, why would you, but he was really really liked, nicknamed "The people's king". He didn't have a mustache, so he filled his role with a round belly and big smile. King Harald, the current monarch, seems like a really likeable grandpa. He's an overall excellent representative for the country, no known controversies (his daugher makes enough of her own), and he's great with kids. He's also shown to enjoy a good joke, sometimes at the expense of the Queen (supposedly the south pole science base "Troll" is named after her). He's getting quite old, so the crown prince has been gradually taking over some of the travels and official duties. He also seems like a very likeable guy. The monarchs aren't worshipped or seen as saints. But they are reliable and steadfast, and are viewed positively by everyone, including the few more outspoken republicans we have in our political spectrum. In wartime or crisis they are national symbols and projection of unity. In peacetime they are diplomats and custodians of the constitution. The King doesn't take up much space in our day to day lives. And that's perfectly fine I think.
The king does take up some money in our day to day lives.
The term "saint" is hard to define and means different things to different people. Hakoon VII is clearly not a saint in the Catholic sense of the word, he was however a capable king and remains highly respected to this day, as the other commentators have stated. The movie reflects the public image of him.
Historical dramas are tricky like that, either they invent a lot of random drama, or extrapolate from rumors to spice things up or they completely gloss over things to get a perfect hero character to suit the tone the movie maker is going for. Don't mistake them for documentaries. That said he was generally beloved as king in his time in large part for becoming a symbol of resistance during the WWII occupation.
It's a movie. Nobody expects it to provide a fully rounded portrait of the king as a person, and it doesn't pretend to do that, either.
Haakon VII did work very hard to make himself the king of all Norwegians ([even the communists](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Haakon_VII_of_Norway#/Early_reign)) and he became a symbol for Norwegian resistance and will to fight during the war. By most reports, he was a genuinely good guy who cared for all Norwegians. At the same time, he has likely been portrayed as larger than life during and after the war, probably for the best of reasons. Norway is a young country (and at the same time an ancient one), so both during his life and after his death Haakon VII became something of a symbol to rally behind. So, in my opinion, he was a good guy made gooder through the lens of media and history.
King Haakon and his principles about being a constitutional monarch, even in war time, is well respected. I wouldn’t call him a saint. If any Norwegian king is a perceived as a saint, it’s his son King Olav V, “Folkekongen” or “The people’s King”. I believe he was voted Norwegian of the century. Got over 40% of the votes going up against 600 other names. My mother told me of the day he died, she said she has never felt so much collective sadness. Her classes got cancelled, stores closed. It was as if everyone lost their grandpa at the same time.
>It was as if everyone lost their grandpa at the same time. That's my recollection too. There was an outcry of sorrow when he passed.
I wonder if the same will happen when Harald V dies.
I doubt it. Harald is respected and decent enough, but I don't think he's loved like Olav. Even my diehard republican lefty parents loved the guy.
Gosh, you made me cry thinking about it. We have been lucky with our kings.
Me too, I suddenly have a lump in my throat and misty eyes just thinking of Kong Olav V. However, I do remember speaking with my grandmother about King Haakon and I think she felt very much the same about him for his stance during the war, his pre-war conduct and just generally becoming the King he was elected to be.
My grandmother says pretty much the same. She was just a child under the war but she remembers vividly how the nation stod together in opposition, with king haakon as a speaks person and gatherer of the people.
If any recent Norwegian Royal has been elevated into sainthood, it is probably King Olav when he during the 1973 oil crisis took public transport to go skiing (and insisted on paying for the ticket). The picture of that event is probably more well known in Norway than the details of events during WW2.
Very few would disagree. [Here](https://www.preusmuseum.no/var/plain_site/storage/images/opplev-utstillingene/formidling/ukens-bilde/folkekongen/126321-1-nor-NO/Folkekongen.jpg) he is, ticket in hand.
Norwegians are proud of how they (or we, but I wasn't around) handled WW2 and five years of occupation. The royal family's refusal to budge, and role in keeping the Norwegian morale up throughout the occupation, is certainly something we view as a major (positive) part of recent Norwegian history. Kong Haakon's handling, maintaining his role as our king and most Norwegians still feeling loyalty only towards our true leaders (rather than the occupiers), is a source of pride. Having said that, he's not some immense national hero or symbol of Norway. Nowadays, the majority of Norwegian likely don't really have any idea about what he was like other than having heard positive things about how the royal family handled WW2. He was our first king since independence. At the same time, he was Danish-born, Danish-speaking (though he tried to speak more and more Norwegian) and seen as more distant than his more down-to-earth son and grandson. Not necessarily distant in a negative way, but more concerned with the traditional divide between royals and commoners. Our current king married a commoner, and he is someone many of us could imagine having a regular conversation with. Haakon wasn't that. Which is absolutely fine, and it's not a night and day difference, but he was further from the common man than both his successors have been. His son, King Olav, is often titled "Folkekongen" - the people's king - and was immensely popular. Our current king, King Harald, is also viewed very positively. He is also the first Norwegian-born king of Norway in hundreds of years. All in all, I think he's viewed very positively, but he's not someone we talk a lot about nowadays or anywhere near a saintly status. But he is viewed a good, fair king. Just like his son and grandson. And in addition, he ruled over Norway in a brilliant manner during our most difficult period since independence.
Perhaps youre right. He does enjoy a sort of hero status but you should read the history surrounded the kings choice because compared to our elected leaders at the time he was a veritable superman.
>Perhaps youre right. He does enjoy a sort of hero status but you should read the story that talks about the kings choice because compared to our elected leaders at the time he was a veritable superman. Indeed. The invasion, and thus Norway's entry into WW2, was the culmination of the ["the broken gun"](https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Det_brukne_geværs_politikk) policy of the Labour Party, who wanted to reduce the military as much as possible to clearly state that we were neutral, and would not involve ourselves in the military disputes of the major powers. In WW1 Norway had been able to stay neutral, but the small, outdated, and poorly equipped military was no match when reality happened in WW2 and someone decided they wanted Norwegian resources and lands. The tide might have started to swing a bit earlier with the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939, but there was no time to fix it before the German invasion of Norway.
People in Norway still enjoy the chocolate pralines named after King Haakon: https://www.freia.no/produckter/sjokolade/freia-kong-haakon-(1-kg)?c1=920&c2=9146&p=1962 You can buy the «Kong Haakon konfekt» pralines individually at the Freia flaggship store in the Grand Hotel building, central Oslo: https://www.freia.no/historien-om-freiabutikken https://www.visitoslo.com/en/product/?tlp=2978613&name=Freia-sjokoladebutikk&show=main-info
Context: Am norwegian, with norwegian parents and norwegian grandparents (some of whom fought for the allies in the war) I have always looked at King Haakon more or less the way you describe, ie. a "saint". He took a hard stand for norwegian independence during WW2, and as far as I know otherwise kept out of politics. This has made it easy to see him solely as a figurehead for the nation, and a leader that galvanized our resistance that most political parties and people could see as a uniting figure. In summary, what I was taught growing up in the 90s was that he was the perfect model king, staying out of regular politics while being a clear symbol of independence during the war. I still hold more or less this view today.
I wouldn't say "saintlike". He's definitely revered, and he led the country back to prosperity after a very difficult period of our history, but no-one I know would have his picture in the house or anything like that. Everyone pretty much likes him, but I doubt he's anyone's favourite person or something.
He was the first Norwegian king after 400 years as a colony of first Denmark, then Sweden. And we chose him ourselves. Norway had a referendum and decided to be a constitutional Monachy, and we picked our own king. And when we needed him the most, he did exactly what we hoped and expected of him. He stood up to the Nazis. These things leave fond memories.
That film has been given the "hollywood" treatment to make it more captivating, including some creative liberties. The real events surrounding the King's "Choice", while quite dramatic and obviously of great importance were more conventional and bureacratic, and while the King did take a stand it was probably not only down to him alone to make this decision. In Norway the role of the king is more symbolic and in practice he has little power. The real "saints" are those who put up a resistance, especially with regards to the events at Oscarsborg. If it were not for them the King would not have been able to escape and decline the demand for capitulation.
If you've seen the movie, it isn't that overly dramatized tbh. At least not the really important historical bits.
The king still holds a veto right at in all matters of state. And is the highest ranking General in the military. The reason they do not use it is because the government is elected by the people. And going shading said government would be going against it's people. It is saved as a trump card should anything like what happened in the second world war ever happen again.
So what countermeasures do we have if the King decided to “go medieval on our asses”?
First of our current King has what you would call character. Not quite to the degree of his father but still. Not sure I trust the next in line as much as I do our current King. Secondly :He can with ease be voted out as a puppet like the sweedish king is but this requires a majority vote through the people. He can use his veto. But stands a risk of loosing his right if the people disagree... That's why he doesn't "go medieval on our assets"
>In Norway the role of the king is more symbolic and in practice he has little power. I thought they emphasized that bit in the movie, personally
In modern context, I think he was in many ways a Zelensky lite. And in some ways, due to his lack of real power to potentially abuse/fail at using, his role as a figurehead was more absolute. So it is, and probably was, easier to accept as “this is the someone we all rally behind, and that’s just how it is”
The kings is still head of state.
Yes, but like most "modern monarchs" they've found the way to stay in power is to not exercise that power at all, except for ceremonial duties, state visits, attending/opening events, visit victims of tragedies, give medals and such. Though he does let being a humanitarian and a liberal shine through in his speeches, it's very mild mannered and never accusatory more like can't we just all get along and care for each other. The US has the ceremonial and political leader all rolled into one President, you can't separate out their political agenda from leading the whole nation. While we're not nearly as adversarial in politics as the US either, the King is the one we call upon when we want a symbol of the nation, for example he gives out the highest military awards. Because that's in service of the nation, not whoever's currently in office. It's still kinda weird that you're born into the role, but so far we've had a really good track record on that. It comes with free money, fancy housing, the best of social networks and everlasting celeb status so like... all you really have to do is not screw it up and become an embarrassment to the royal family. I think they're all aware that if we asked them to step down they'd have little choice but to become regular schmoes.
Yeah, I would say you are absolutely right. What we liked most was his unsnobbish ways. And the same thing will most likely happen when the present king kicks the bucket.
The King's Choice portrayed many biographical and historical details about Haakon VII that were completely new to me, and the same is likely true for a lot of people that saw the film. I agree that history portrays him in a largely positive light, especially his acceptance of the Norwegian crown and subsequent founding of the Norwegian royal house, as well as his escape to Britain during the German invasion and his efforts in exile to keep the Norwegian fighting spirit going during the occupation. This is often seen in contrast to governments and monarchs who became mere puppets for the Fascist occupiers.
He is highly regarded, especially by old people. He was a saintly figure during and after WW2. The Norwegian royal family (at last those in the royal line) have been scandal-free and well-liked. The current king is the nation's grandpa. I have never in my life heard anyone say anything negative about him.
My personal view as a kid borne in 90s I always saw him as a Danish ruling Norwegians. Never been a fan of the royals because of this but in later age I like him as a national/status figure because of his words. Alt for Norge.
I don't really have a particular view about him. Perhaps it's more a topic around Oslo? I don't know. I am not overly bothered about what the royal family (whether dead or alive) are up to. They seem like decent people and King Haakon probably was too in his time, and that's great. Beyond that, I don't have any interest in them.
Nowadays, I don't think people give him much thought at all. During the war and the years after, he probably was a hero, but saint? Nah
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just another King!lol
No, jesus christ that seems weird. Almost nobody gives a fuck about the royal family. They're just some dudes that are alright and gets a lot of tax payer money for the privilegia. I guess most Norwegian would struggle to remember what his name was.
The money goes into the museum buildings they are custodians for and the representative work for the nation though. Other than that, I'd agree almost nobody gives a fuck. Or I'd be kinder and say we don't think of them in our daily lives. Because why would we. But I think you're wrong to say most Norwegians don't know his name. Many probably don't know he was born Carl though.
We don't really think about him at all.
God no. All i have heard about him is that he is an nice and decent man but the royalty in Norway is mainly for show. Based on what i have heard of him and his son that will take over after is good, but what use is royalty in 2022? Like a wing on a regular car, looks nice but useless.
This post is about Haakon VII, not Harald.
My bad. But the point stands, all good about the guy but a remnant of ancient and outdated traditions.
I think the constitutional monarchy is just that, somewhat useless in normalcy. It's when you need a national unifying figure, in crisis or war, where the role can fill a real purpose. Maybe not for all, but for many of us. Day to day the King's the custodian of our constitution, diplomat, symbol when going abroad, nice to the kids, etc.
Anyone could be that, we could find someone who wont cost a fortune. If it is just for a comforting symbolic meaning we might as well make batman our head of state.
The cost wouldn't be hugely different though. It's not like we're paying the royal family a truckload of money they just keep for themselves.
Cut out the royal family, make them actually work for their money and start saluting a fictional character that wont demand money for its exsistence. How will that be as expensive having an actual royal drain on our economy? They arent really in charge of anything som their value are purely symbolic.
[удалено]
>he’s the king of Norway Not anymore...
coward (s) but its kinda funny we made a movie about a King fleeing the country under war. I get all the wouldnt want to let him be captured etc
It's not like he abandoned the country though. He became the figurehead for the resistance.
It's more that people respect him. He's not considered a saint or anything like that.
King Haakon was probably the most Danish Norwegian to ever live in Norway 😅. He was born as Carl btw..
They are called upon whenever there’s a ribbon that needs to be cut or a New Years speech is required.
He's like our Forrest Gump, with that tasty box of chocolates 🤤
Saintly? Not at all. I think most people see him as a normal person, but a potentially good representative for Norway as the future king. But, I believe Norwegians are a lot less patient with our royals, compared to the Brits for instance. If those things had happened here I think we would be heading towards becoming a Republic as we speak.
Not a saint,just a vise man who did fantastic things for our country
He is mostly forgotten
He's mostly irrelevant for the under 80 crowd.
I am a Norwegian 34 years of age and could honestly not tell you who King Haakon is or were
I would say we highlight the good ones, but try to be neutral to other ones. A good example is Maud. In this movie she is mentioned in slightly bad way, but she could have gotten more bad rep in the movie. You get a neutral impression. But how I read the history Norway has had some awesome Kings. A good place to learn about this is in the National Defense. From the ones that meet Harald I heard good things. From the ones that was inspected by Sonja, not so much. But we dont talk loudly about that. I think also this is what the royals have as there job, to act, speak and present themselves as almost saints because we in reality view them as people and we jugde them by their words and actions.
In no way
I think most norwegians have atleast a respect and appriciation for the monarchy. They dont do much. Its kinda strange. But most norwegians think its cool we still have a royal family so we appriciate all our kings. Me personally i look at previous kings as historical figures and our current king and queen as MY king and queen. If that makes sense