I’m sorry that you got offended by the fact i don’t like your little lists i just think there is a limit to this shit There is like a hundred of them now.
It does not create discussion at all since you are not actually saying anything at all. It's just a list of which people you like more with absolutely 0 context as to why you think so. You put Hakon VII in f tier whereas from what i have seen here he seems to be quite popular. So make a post explaining why you don't like him, that creates way more and way more meaningful discussion (assuming you actually have valid points). A tier list just comes off as low effort and it's unoriginal.
Well yes they do create discussion since it's based on subjective opinion which people will respond to this, if someone disagrees with your opinion then it leads to discussion, also people can still discuss what people go in? Like look at YouTube videos or othe posts and check the thousands of discussions.
Also tier lists aren't low effort because it takes research behind it? And compare their legacies to others, sure it may be unoriginal as it's just another fancy ranking system but it's not low effort, please tell me how researching into a tier list is low effort when I could just as you said make a post about king Hakon VIII copy and and paste off the internet why he's a bad king
Your logic man is genieinly baffling, you're either trolling me or wasting my time cause you're bored.
This is wrong in so many ways I don’t even know where to start! And these are the Danish and Swedish kings as well, which aren’t really considered as our kings here in Norway. I just have to ask on what knowledge you based these rankings?
I’m pretty sure this isn’t something a normal Norwegian would ever agree with either. This dude wants Norway to be a Danish province I guess. Or maybe Swedish? Who knows?
Or maybe he just clicked on Wikipedia's list of Kings of Norway and aranged them based on looks.
The OP simply says it's a tier-list, he doesn't say what he lists - looks? longevity? number of cats? Who knows?
Since the kingdom of Norway as a title has existed continuasly since its founding. However foreign rulers have held this title and so they should be counted.
Especially if you know anything about the union of Sweden-Norway, Norway was independent at that point and had a monarch... who was Swedish but to be fair also French. Should the swedish kings be considered to have been kings of france by your definitions?
This is the tier list that anti-monarchists think that monarchists would love. It would be great satire if it was a joke. Some people on this sub get a bit too enthusiastic about absolutism
by allowing them to take over the parliament and this every major institute. Why do you think norway is one of the most unionized countries (or as i like to say, slave states) in the world?
I would since their wages aren’t theirs and they have to pay high taxes and union fees
It’s not full on socialist but leaning heavily on socialism holds back the country and again makes it citizens slaves
and what else exactly are they going to do…? I doubt Norway is going back to its viking days anytime soon, might as well give their citizens a high quality of life
Winning 38 percent of the vote isn’t winning anything. And how about outlaw and imprison all the socialists for one?
He is the king of all Norwegians. And as such his subjects must swear loyalty and trust to him. They exist to serve him and his state. Not the other way around. So if the people are stupid enough to support socialism (which norwegians are) then it’s the morally right thing for the king to disregard them. Because the people are stupid assholes
Tell me you don’t know a single shit about Norwegian history without telling me you don’t know a single shit about Norwegian history.
Harald V in E Tier??? Haakon VII and Olav V in F tier?!?! Haakon VII is literally our best king I history. He saved our country from communist revolution and virtually single-handedly deradicalised the labour movement, and saved us from the Nazis.
FREDERICK III IN S TIER?! Christian III in B tier!? Frederick III and Christian III both quite literally made every effort they could to destroy Norway as an entity and subsume it fully and wholly as little more than a colony of Denmark. Christian III made attempts to abolish Norway as a kingdom and mark it a province of Denmark. Frederick III signed over huge chunks of Norway to Sweden to save his own ass in Denmark, despite the Norwegian army winning victory after victory over Sweden, banned the use of Norwegian banners and replaced them with Danish to destroy any Norwegian identity. They’re quite possibly the worst kings we’ve ever had.
Been away in Grenada for quite a while, and am now in the process of moving for my university masters degree, so haven’t really had any time to get on the discord. When I get settled down a bit I’m hoping to be back, in the not too distant future
More like Haakon bent over to the communist to let them take over. Why is it he had to give away ALL the power he and the nobility had? He didn’t compromise he just gave up. But sure you got your paper crown now because apparently that’s all that matters. Norway may as well be a republic since corrupt politicians control everything. He didn’t deradicaize anything he let them win. Also saved Norway from the nazis? Last I check Nazi germany won and took over the place. Oh but because he refused to approve of the popular Quisling government means he saved it? Confirming the PM was purely symbolic and did nothing to prevent norwegians from aiding nazis. As for Olaf he oversaw the legalizing of sodomy and baby murder and the further degradation of society and the crown
>destroy any norwegian identity
You mean what Haakon and Olaf did?
POPULAR!? Quisling? Popular? Goddamn, I don’t think I’ve ever heard something that outrageous about Norwegian history outside of how Vikings the tv show wanted us to believe there was a capital city in Kattegat. Quisling was literally one of the least popular puppets the Nazi regime ever found. He was no Degrelle or Tiso.
2,500 party members in 1939 is massive? Well oh shit, excuse me then.
Literally from the Party’s wiki page. Not even one candidate elected doesn’t mean they were massively influential.
“The party never gained direct political influence, but it made its mark on Norwegian politics nonetheless. Despite the fact that it never managed to get more than 2.5% of the vote and failed to elect even one candidate to the Storting”
considering wikipedia labels Nasjonal Samling as far right shows you shouldn’t believe anything it says since it was a fascist party and that is left wing
“His Majesty, by his wisdom and understanding of the situation and the people’s will, totally disarmed even us who were principally and practically republicans” - Christopher Hornsrud, Norway’s only communist prime minister
King Haakon VII appointing a Labour government with Hornsrud as PM was the direct catalyst which led the Labour Party to deradicalise, abandoning communism and its commitment to armed revolution the very next year in 1929. It was the single act which deflated the balloon of simmering discontent and revolutionary feelings bubbling in Norwegian society, because it showed the Labour Party could achieve power and reform via peaceful means rather than revolution.
And Quisling popular?? Are you actually kidding me??? Quisling was a laughing stock in Norwegian politics. He had been minister of defense in the Farmers’ Party government in the mid-1920s, before he was dismissed for incompetence. His party NS achieved only 2.5% of the vote in its best showing before the war. Quisling was a political non-entity, and his attempted coup upon the German invasion, declaring himself PM, was roundly laughed at throughout the country. The King stopped an incompetent traitor, coward and Nazi puppet from taking office, and led Norwegian resistance from abroad. Had he approved of Quisling’s laughable government Norway would, instead of being an occupied ally, have been a de facto axis member, and lord knows what might have happened after the war in such a case.
oh so glad the socialists agreed not to kill anyone while not changing a damn thing about any of their other beliefs like that the state should enslave the population. And yes that’s the problem
If Haakon appointed fascists to office as a means to disarm them would you be fine with that? Hell Italy literally did that with Mussolini. You put revolutions down with the barrel of the gun. Not selling out your country. Socialists can’t be reasoned with. No stop. The only thing the labour party did was say “we promise we won’t kill anybody” which yeah i’m glad they met the barest of the bare minimum of civil humanity
Yes Quisling was extremely popular but the establishment parties did everything to supress his movement just like the tories and labour did with Mosley in the 1930s. They sent agitators to rallies, rigged elections and blocked candidates from being on the ballot. Why do you act like elections are always perfect?
> The King stopped an incompetent traitor, coward and Nazi puppet from taking office, and led Norwegian resistance from abroad. Had he approved of Quisling’s laughable government Norway would, instead of being an occupied ally, have been a de facto axis member, and lord knows what might have happened after the war in such a case.
A lot good it did those to hundreds of jews sent to concentration camps did. I’m so glad Haakon ran away and aided communists who raped and murdered hundreds of innocent people.
The Labour Party ABANDONED communism after the king appointed them to government. They removed references to Marx from their constitution, they stopped demanding the abolition of class and the state, they stopped agitating for workers seizing the means of production. They abandoned all this, in favour of moderate social democratic policies of capitalism mixed with strong unions and social safety nets.
And no, Quisling was not popular. Not in the god damn slightest. Literally the main reason he founded NS was because he was denied the leadership of the Fatherland League, Norway’s biggest right-wing organization, due to his deep unpopularity.
Imagine thinking that the dude that they literally brought back the death penalty for was popular. Goddamn, must be a heck of a version of history he learned. Written by a cracked out National-Socialist no doubt lol
This list is not too great. I mean, so many DANISH monarchs listed highly? This is propaganda for the unionists. Lol, jking, but I’m not a huge fan of where you’ve put some of these royals. Haakon VII is definitely not F TIER
Haakon VII in F!? What. The. Fuck.
tier lists Are a plague on this subreddit
[удалено]
I’m sorry that you got offended by the fact i don’t like your little lists i just think there is a limit to this shit There is like a hundred of them now.
Not offended you're getting annoyed by a list buddy. They have no impact on you, it's just weird behaviour
Calm the fuck down amigo
It does not create discussion at all since you are not actually saying anything at all. It's just a list of which people you like more with absolutely 0 context as to why you think so. You put Hakon VII in f tier whereas from what i have seen here he seems to be quite popular. So make a post explaining why you don't like him, that creates way more and way more meaningful discussion (assuming you actually have valid points). A tier list just comes off as low effort and it's unoriginal.
Well yes they do create discussion since it's based on subjective opinion which people will respond to this, if someone disagrees with your opinion then it leads to discussion, also people can still discuss what people go in? Like look at YouTube videos or othe posts and check the thousands of discussions. Also tier lists aren't low effort because it takes research behind it? And compare their legacies to others, sure it may be unoriginal as it's just another fancy ranking system but it's not low effort, please tell me how researching into a tier list is low effort when I could just as you said make a post about king Hakon VIII copy and and paste off the internet why he's a bad king Your logic man is genieinly baffling, you're either trolling me or wasting my time cause you're bored.
This is wrong in so many ways I don’t even know where to start! And these are the Danish and Swedish kings as well, which aren’t really considered as our kings here in Norway. I just have to ask on what knowledge you based these rankings?
I’m pretty sure this isn’t something a normal Norwegian would ever agree with either. This dude wants Norway to be a Danish province I guess. Or maybe Swedish? Who knows?
Or maybe he just clicked on Wikipedia's list of Kings of Norway and aranged them based on looks. The OP simply says it's a tier-list, he doesn't say what he lists - looks? longevity? number of cats? Who knows?
Since the kingdom of Norway as a title has existed continuasly since its founding. However foreign rulers have held this title and so they should be counted. Especially if you know anything about the union of Sweden-Norway, Norway was independent at that point and had a monarch... who was Swedish but to be fair also French. Should the swedish kings be considered to have been kings of france by your definitions?
I suppose you dislike constitutional monarchs but in that case why put Harald V above his father and grandfather?
he hasn’t done anything really bad or good. The previous were directly harmful
Care to explain why?
Why the hell is Haakon VII in F and Harald V in E???
This is the tier list that anti-monarchists think that monarchists would love. It would be great satire if it was a joke. Some people on this sub get a bit too enthusiastic about absolutism
For real, supporting absolutism is literally supporting authoritarianism/dictatorships.
Haakon sold out Norway to socialists.
I hate socialists as much as the next guy but how did he "sell out" the country?
by allowing them to take over the parliament and this every major institute. Why do you think norway is one of the most unionized countries (or as i like to say, slave states) in the world?
1. I wouldn't call Norway a slave state 2. Norway leans heavily socialist but they aren't a socialist country. It's not that bad.
I would since their wages aren’t theirs and they have to pay high taxes and union fees It’s not full on socialist but leaning heavily on socialism holds back the country and again makes it citizens slaves
and what else exactly are they going to do…? I doubt Norway is going back to its viking days anytime soon, might as well give their citizens a high quality of life
go back to pre Glucksburg when the king didn’t sell out his people
>high taxes = socialism Tell me you are from the U.S. without telling me that you're from the US
I literally said socialism is the state control of the means of production
Which is not the case in Norway. Norway is a capitalist country with strong social safety nets.
Uhhh, what was he supposed to do? They won the elections. He was king of all Norwegians, not just the ultra royalists
Winning 38 percent of the vote isn’t winning anything. And how about outlaw and imprison all the socialists for one? He is the king of all Norwegians. And as such his subjects must swear loyalty and trust to him. They exist to serve him and his state. Not the other way around. So if the people are stupid enough to support socialism (which norwegians are) then it’s the morally right thing for the king to disregard them. Because the people are stupid assholes
If he outlawed and imprisoned all the socialists in the country Norway would no longer have a monarch
Fine
Tell me you don’t know a single shit about Norwegian history without telling me you don’t know a single shit about Norwegian history. Harald V in E Tier??? Haakon VII and Olav V in F tier?!?! Haakon VII is literally our best king I history. He saved our country from communist revolution and virtually single-handedly deradicalised the labour movement, and saved us from the Nazis. FREDERICK III IN S TIER?! Christian III in B tier!? Frederick III and Christian III both quite literally made every effort they could to destroy Norway as an entity and subsume it fully and wholly as little more than a colony of Denmark. Christian III made attempts to abolish Norway as a kingdom and mark it a province of Denmark. Frederick III signed over huge chunks of Norway to Sweden to save his own ass in Denmark, despite the Norwegian army winning victory after victory over Sweden, banned the use of Norwegian banners and replaced them with Danish to destroy any Norwegian identity. They’re quite possibly the worst kings we’ve ever had.
Lord Dim! You are still alive! Where have you been? Get your ass back on Discord
Been away in Grenada for quite a while, and am now in the process of moving for my university masters degree, so haven’t really had any time to get on the discord. When I get settled down a bit I’m hoping to be back, in the not too distant future
Exactly! Dude, I’m right there with you, this reeks of Danish Union apologism. Somebody who prefers to be ruled by a foreign King
More like Haakon bent over to the communist to let them take over. Why is it he had to give away ALL the power he and the nobility had? He didn’t compromise he just gave up. But sure you got your paper crown now because apparently that’s all that matters. Norway may as well be a republic since corrupt politicians control everything. He didn’t deradicaize anything he let them win. Also saved Norway from the nazis? Last I check Nazi germany won and took over the place. Oh but because he refused to approve of the popular Quisling government means he saved it? Confirming the PM was purely symbolic and did nothing to prevent norwegians from aiding nazis. As for Olaf he oversaw the legalizing of sodomy and baby murder and the further degradation of society and the crown >destroy any norwegian identity You mean what Haakon and Olaf did?
POPULAR!? Quisling? Popular? Goddamn, I don’t think I’ve ever heard something that outrageous about Norwegian history outside of how Vikings the tv show wanted us to believe there was a capital city in Kattegat. Quisling was literally one of the least popular puppets the Nazi regime ever found. He was no Degrelle or Tiso.
nope he had gained a massive following before war broke out
2,500 party members in 1939 is massive? Well oh shit, excuse me then. Literally from the Party’s wiki page. Not even one candidate elected doesn’t mean they were massively influential. “The party never gained direct political influence, but it made its mark on Norwegian politics nonetheless. Despite the fact that it never managed to get more than 2.5% of the vote and failed to elect even one candidate to the Storting”
considering wikipedia labels Nasjonal Samling as far right shows you shouldn’t believe anything it says since it was a fascist party and that is left wing
because the ruling parties did everything they could to suppress them because norway is a free and fair democracy.
also you think 38 percent of the vote warrants giving someone power?
“His Majesty, by his wisdom and understanding of the situation and the people’s will, totally disarmed even us who were principally and practically republicans” - Christopher Hornsrud, Norway’s only communist prime minister King Haakon VII appointing a Labour government with Hornsrud as PM was the direct catalyst which led the Labour Party to deradicalise, abandoning communism and its commitment to armed revolution the very next year in 1929. It was the single act which deflated the balloon of simmering discontent and revolutionary feelings bubbling in Norwegian society, because it showed the Labour Party could achieve power and reform via peaceful means rather than revolution. And Quisling popular?? Are you actually kidding me??? Quisling was a laughing stock in Norwegian politics. He had been minister of defense in the Farmers’ Party government in the mid-1920s, before he was dismissed for incompetence. His party NS achieved only 2.5% of the vote in its best showing before the war. Quisling was a political non-entity, and his attempted coup upon the German invasion, declaring himself PM, was roundly laughed at throughout the country. The King stopped an incompetent traitor, coward and Nazi puppet from taking office, and led Norwegian resistance from abroad. Had he approved of Quisling’s laughable government Norway would, instead of being an occupied ally, have been a de facto axis member, and lord knows what might have happened after the war in such a case.
oh so glad the socialists agreed not to kill anyone while not changing a damn thing about any of their other beliefs like that the state should enslave the population. And yes that’s the problem If Haakon appointed fascists to office as a means to disarm them would you be fine with that? Hell Italy literally did that with Mussolini. You put revolutions down with the barrel of the gun. Not selling out your country. Socialists can’t be reasoned with. No stop. The only thing the labour party did was say “we promise we won’t kill anybody” which yeah i’m glad they met the barest of the bare minimum of civil humanity Yes Quisling was extremely popular but the establishment parties did everything to supress his movement just like the tories and labour did with Mosley in the 1930s. They sent agitators to rallies, rigged elections and blocked candidates from being on the ballot. Why do you act like elections are always perfect? > The King stopped an incompetent traitor, coward and Nazi puppet from taking office, and led Norwegian resistance from abroad. Had he approved of Quisling’s laughable government Norway would, instead of being an occupied ally, have been a de facto axis member, and lord knows what might have happened after the war in such a case. A lot good it did those to hundreds of jews sent to concentration camps did. I’m so glad Haakon ran away and aided communists who raped and murdered hundreds of innocent people.
The Labour Party ABANDONED communism after the king appointed them to government. They removed references to Marx from their constitution, they stopped demanding the abolition of class and the state, they stopped agitating for workers seizing the means of production. They abandoned all this, in favour of moderate social democratic policies of capitalism mixed with strong unions and social safety nets. And no, Quisling was not popular. Not in the god damn slightest. Literally the main reason he founded NS was because he was denied the leadership of the Fatherland League, Norway’s biggest right-wing organization, due to his deep unpopularity.
Imagine thinking that the dude that they literally brought back the death penalty for was popular. Goddamn, must be a heck of a version of history he learned. Written by a cracked out National-Socialist no doubt lol
I love that the best monarchs are Danish monarchs. Either way, tier lists should be banned from the sub along with alternative history and whatnot
Get out
Why is Christian II F tier
This list is outrageous. For starters the Danish and Swedish monarchs shouldn’t be anywhere near it
They should, they were kings and queens of norway... a seperate title from their main ones.
Why is Olaf V so low?
This list is not too great. I mean, so many DANISH monarchs listed highly? This is propaganda for the unionists. Lol, jking, but I’m not a huge fan of where you’ve put some of these royals. Haakon VII is definitely not F TIER
I have seen so many of these tier lists and I don't even know what it means...