By J.K. Baltzersen
Those powers which the Constitution grants the King of Norway to empower him to promote the well-being of the land according to his conviction are not greater than that they should be preserved in the hands of the regal power, such that no practice against constitutional principles is established, which according to article 112 of the Constitution cannot even be brought about with a constitutional amendment. One of the principal principles of the Constitution – the most important – is that
is a constitutional monarchy. This principle cannot be unified with the King sinking to a no-will tool in the hand of the Council of State. If, however, the members of the Council of State through denial of countersignature are able to prevent each and every royal decision, the King of Norway would be without any part in state power. This situation would be as equally denigrating for the monarch as harmful for Norway herself. Norway
After in such a manner, in violation of the Constitution, having sought to nullify a legal decision by the King of Norway, the Council of State has by resigning their offices in Parliament put the King of Norway in a position without advisors. The Parliament has accepted this violation of the Constitution and through a revolutionary act declared the legal King of Norway for having ceased to reign as well as the union between the united realms dissolved.
- Oscar, Rosendal Palace, June 10, 1905
Two weeks ago was the centenary of the last Norwegian royal veto. 11 days after this veto the Norwegian Parliament resolved to depose Oscar II as King of Norway. After yet another 3 days King Oscar protested this resolution. Today we mark the centenary of this heroic protest.
events came as steps towards the dissolution
of the Swedish-Norwegian union.
This was quite a loose union. The union consisted of a mutual King – the King
was King of Sweden and King of Norway – and a common foreign policy.
The Secretary of Foreign Affairs was always a Swede. The union dissolution has
often been erroneously described as
In 1905 there
was a much greater cultural relationship between
Swedish-Norwegian King met separately with his Swedish and Norwegian councils.
There was, however, a union council for foreign policy and other matters of
mutual interest. There were no representatives of the Swedish Government in
not many Swedish buildings in
The Swedish-Norwegian monarch was supreme commander of the military forces of both nations, and according to the Act of Union the nations were to stick together in times of war. It would be hard to imagine two military organizations with the same supreme commander at war with each other. However, these two military organizations were completely separate save the supreme commander.
was crowned in both countries, basically first in
|Courtesy of the National Library of Norway|
The King was generally termed “King
of Sweden-Norway” or “King of Sweden and
was born on January 21, 1829 as Prince Oscar Fredrik in the reign of Carl Johan
as third son to Crown Prince Oscar and Crown Princess Josephine. He was named
the “Norwegian prince.” He married Princess Sophie Wilhelmine Mariane Henriette
was the only monarch to comply with the constitutional provision to stay some
Oscar I ascended the throne, and as a “morning present” a union symbol was
placed in the upper inner corner of both the Swedish and the Norwegian flags.
The union symbol was formed as to symbolize a union of equal partners. The
union symbol has the nickname “herring salad.” In
In 1844 the
union symbol was placed in the state flag,
the trade flag, and the royal banner. The royal banner also got a dual royal
crest. The royal banner and the state flag remained the same until the end of
the union. The trade flag, however, was amended in 1898, when the “herring
salad” was removed.
can be said that the Swedish-Norwegian was a union by formally equal states,
there can be little doubt that
Our Constitution is very much a symbol of a national fight, more than an instrument of limiting government. Once upon a time it did serve as limitation on government power of sorts. Recently though it has been filled with “banner articles,” articles that sound nice, but at the same time consciously have been constructed so as to avoid their being binding on the government, i.e., these articles are basically no more than PR.
According to Professor of history Roald Berg historians have had to concede that foreign powers did not recognize the Swedish-Norwegian border in the period from 1814 to 1905. The border was not an international border, but seen as an internal Swedish-Norwegian issue. Minor conflicts existed, but basically the border had been defined before 1814.
to Professor of history Francis Sejersted the story of
union there were several trade acts, giving duty free trade between
In the year
of the union dissolution
was called the most educated of
can be celebrated about the union dissolution is that the union was peacefully dissolved. Historian Øystein
Sørensen has stressed several points as the reason for this. Firstly, it was a
very loose union. Further, no major border conflicts existed. Also, among about
the 50,000 Swedes in
How vital for the security of the Scandinavian peoples the union is it is not worth the sacrifices actions of force would bring […]
it has been claimed that King Oscar II and Queen Sophie had a provision in a marital
agreement that war would not be made against
|Courtesy of the National Library of Norway|
was a wise attitude in
widely held in
that democracies do not go to war against each other has been brought up in
connection with the Swedish-Norwegian union dissolution. Historian Halvdan Koht
has claimed that both
dissolution went hand in hand with the rise of democracy and popular
sovereignty. Not only did the events bring democracy forward in
|© BN Reklam & Flygfoto|
Historians believe that Prime Minister Christian Michelsen, the head of the Cabinet, wished the bill to be sanctioned. However, when the denial was there, he used this denial for all it was worth. When the Parliament met on June 7, King Oscar II was “deposed” for an act he had done as King of Norway. The Parliament simply declared that Oscar II had ceased to function as King of Norway because he could not supply the country with a Cabinet. This was his constitutional duty. His Majesty’s statement on his not accepting the resignation, put in writing, was cited with the removal of the word “now.” As a consequence of Oscar II no longer being Norwegian King the union was dissolved and the Constitution amended as an outcome of this dissolution. If this is not usurpation, what is?
Historians generally believe this act to be dubious at best. Historian Dr. Nils Ivar Agøy has said that he has seen only one attempt at judicially defending the act, and from what I can see from this “defense” it is very dubious indeed. The fact is that we had a constitutional arrangement with a Parliament with quite extensive powers, but still not absolute. What it did was to take the powers vested in the King and usurp those for itself. It “appointed” a Cabinet “vested” with those powers which according to the Constitution were vested in the King.
of oaths made to the King and the Constitution is here quite interesting. Agøy has
made an excellent account of the oath issue for Norwegian officers. The oaths
to His Majesty and to the Constitution have been treated quite
opportunistically. There was a theory that the constitutional oath lasted only
as long as the Constitution was relevant. Once the Constitution was outdated
the constitutional oath was invalid. Another theory was that since Oscar II had
“ceased to govern” or “deposed himself” through the “effective abdication” in
the Cabinet meeting on May 27, the oath to him was no longer valid. It is
important to note that military officers had an oath of their own not made by
other officials. At the end of the union with
Immediately after the usurpation of June 7 the most senior officers were summoned by the usurpers to resolve the issue of the oath to King Oscar. An ultimatum was made. The officers were told if they stuck to their oaths they would be relieved of duty with no pension whatsoever. Among those officers summoned there was a minority of officers prone to be loyal to King Oscar, even though among all those officers eligible to be present such loyal officers were in majority. One wonders whether this was a coincidence.
Agøy gives in the said account a
short reflection of royal prerogatives. He says that the power of the royal
office has been underestimated in post-1884 Norwegian history, i.e., after
impeachment trial to end liberty in
the Norwegian Parliament has as top national symbol is tightly connected to the
Norwegian Parliament’s role in the fight against the royal office and
King Oscar II did not formally recognize parliamentarism. In the year the conflict between King and Parliament was at the top, 1884, Oscar heroically declared his prerogatives to be intact while still giving in. He wrote about this in his memoirs in 1894:
This protest has never been recalled; it still stands today […] Neither will it be recalled, to the contrary, God willing, once in the future it will be brought up again […]
To begin with he heroically hesitated to comply with the impeachment trial against his Cabinet. However, Oscar II and Prime Minister Selmer could not continue the fight alone; a couple His Majesty compared to Don Quixote and Sancho Panza. Oscar felt abandoned by his Council and betrayed by the Supreme Court, which had given legitimacy to an illegitimate verdict by sitting through the “trial.”
to Stefan Gammelien the King got threats even from Norwegians who had emigrated
[Y]ou will be chased off like a dog.
Another Norwegian-American threat – or shall we say a pre-Wilsonian Wilsonian private threat? – was:
Your days are numbered if you do not yield to the will of the Norwegian people.
has become] a worm-eaten figurehead on the ship of state, which is sailing under false flag with republican goods. Kingdomof Norway
Oscar II was furious when the conservatives started using the instrument of vote of no confidence.
According to historian Agøy opposition to parliamentarism was especially present for some time among officers. Naval Captain Niels Juel said that he did not care about the sovereignty of Parliament, a principle “foreign to our Constitution.”
Our constitutional fathers left the monarch as supreme military commander. Whether this was because it was vital that the chain of military command could not be blocked when in conflict with an enemy, because it was to give the royal office a means of striking down upon usurpers, or for another reason is an issue I will leave. However, when one does have a mixed government, one must concede that each part of this mixed government must be able to stop usurpations of the other part. Oscar II had the means of militarily striking down the usurpations that in fact did take place. Although such action was considered, no military action was made. We see that Oscar II was one of those monarchs, as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn told us, who relinquished their powers with little opposition.
According to historian Roy Andersen just prior to the June 7 revolutionary act Parliament was to reestablish the Eidsvold Constitution of our constitutional fathers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although an independent nation, as our original Constitution asserted, did rise, the system established in 1814 was basically gone as of the June 7 revolutionary act and the following dissolution.
Historian Ole Kristian Grimnes has told us:
It is generally said that parliamentarism was established in
in 1884, but that’s only partly true. If we with parliamentarism denote that the executive power is to act as the legislature’s lengthened arm, the executive power in Norway could not do this as long as the King acted politically, and he did so even until 1905. It was not before the emasculation of the royal power that came with the union dissolution parliamentarism could function without interruption, with the King as a unifying symbol, but without political power. Norway
We know that there has been a strong tradition of “nation-building history writing.” Textbooks promoting hatred against Swedes were in common use. One could wonder whether anti-Swede indoctrination through schools was a major factor in the monolithic almost unanimous sentiment against the union.
The revolutionary act of June 7 was a manifestation of the dangerous principle of popular sovereignty,
|Courtesy of the National Library of Norway|
The climate around [the referendum] was such that one, putting it mildly, had to be tough to vote nay to the Parliament’s act of June 7. The result was so overwhelming that it strongly resembles countries with which one rather would not be compared.
This overwhelming result has been used as a legitimatization of the revolutionary act. The very small minority is almost always referred to when doing so. However, if one believed that the union actually was not dissolved, one could not vote at all because voting would be a concession that a union dissolution, and hence a king deposal, had taken place. Moreover, given the immense pressure towards voting and voting “the only right thing” it would be quite pointless to vote in such a farce and a joke of a “referendum.” Historians should start considering those who did not vote more seriously.
On March 3, 1905 Aftenposten was victim to a demonstration for belonging to the “wrong” side on the union issue. Windows were broken.
Winther was a teacher in Drammen.
After having written an anonymous letter to the editor in a Swedish newspaper
he was revealed and had to flee to
to historian Agøy it was necessary for the Cabinet to use hard pressure and
unorthodox methods in order to achieve external agreement. Clergyman
Christopher Bruun, according to Agøy, asserted that quite a number of the
There are several examples of police being called in for protecting people from mobs. Protective custody was even used. At the polls symbolism made it very clear what was the “right” choice. People who did not vote were publicly harassed for not voting. There is at least one story of a unionist voting nay and putting his name on the envelope containing the vote so it would be rejected.
ago I heard a story of what was perhaps the first opinion poll. It was
The unanimity of the act of Parliament to “depose” the King has probably made its share to the mess. Professor Francis Hagerup – who had been relieved as head of the Norwegian Cabinet by Christian Michelsen – was an exceptional politician. He had always believed that negotiations were the way of solving the union problems. That’s why he was relieved. If the negotiation platform were to be abandoned, a platform he felt bound by from the last election campaign, he had to bring the issue anew to the voters. He, moreover, believed that everything had to be done in a completely judicially untouchable manner. I have no doubt that he stood up for this in the secret meetings prior to the open meeting on June 7. It is sad to see the treason demonstrated by his not standing up in the final hour. One could argue that in such a national issue sticking together is the right thing to do. However, it is a dubious claim that this was a national crisis demanding everyone to stick together for survival. It was far from being such a national crisis. Also, more importantly, something much more fundamental was at stake, namely our constitutional order. This constitutional order was severely damaged by this dangerous precedent. Choosing treason against that order, upon which the founding of Hagerup’s party initially was based, over treason against the “fatherland” and a nationalism which went hand in hand with the perilous concept of absolute parliamentary or popular sovereignty is no noble act.
|Courtesy of Terje Bodin Larsen|
should further have been willing to form Cabinet to save the royal powers at
least, as Emil Stang – son of Frederik Stang – had done in 1893 to save the
union and the royal powers. Also, Oscar II should have come to
The revolutionary act of June 7 followed by a political climate with no allowed opposition, a near unanimous referendum, women’s signatures for the union dissolution, and democrats negotiating with Danish Prince Carl to become King of Norway has clearly contributed largely to bring about a constitutional order where the Parliament is the arbiter of what the Constitution is. The Parliament on June 7 no doubt usurped such a role. It is argued that this was emergency law, but that is a very dubious claim. If this case was emergency law, what later cases of conflict between King and democratically elected politicians would not “justify” “deposing” the monarch? We saw just some 6 years later – in 1911 – a unanimously passed constitutional amendment clarifying that all decisions of the King in Council needed a countersignature in order to be valid. Moreover, the military command was made subject to countersignature. One wonders if not the events of 1905 contributed considerably to this unanimity. It seems a linkage of nationalism or “love of the fatherland” and democracy, which the democracy movement tried to impose for a long time and with which it had succeeded only partly, completely triumphed in 1905. The concept that emerged is, in the words of the present-day Swedish Constitution, that “the source of all public power is the people.”
We can say Oscar II was our last old order monarch. This is not to say he represented the ancien régime, which went in 1814. Moreover, he was the grandson of Carl Johan Bernadotte – born Jean-Baptiste – a son of the French Revolution, the cradle of modern democracy, and – like Napoleon – a usurper and parvenu. In that sense his successor as King of Norway, Haakon VII, who belonged to the House of Glücksborg, was more of the old order. However, Oscar II was a monarch who wanted to rule and who did rule. He did not believe in the concept of parliamentary or popular sovereignty. He did not accept a role for the monarch as a no-will tool in the hand of the Council of State, or worse – according to biographer Langslet – in the hand of Parliament. Moreover, his sympathies were generally with the political right. He stuck together with German Emperor Wilhelm II. He no doubt tastes a bit as a Hoppean monarch.
King Haakon VII is known as our
“first constitutional monarch.” Former Speaker of Parliament Jo Benkow has even
called him the founder of our constitutional democracy. Before Prince Carl
accepted the throne of
A monarch had been “deposed” unanimously by Parliament because of his “unconstitutional” behavior. There was hardly any opposition to this. A farce of a referendum, whose only purpose was to provide legitimacy to the “deposal,” was held. Those negotiating for the continuance of the monarchy had a clear pro-democracy sentiment. To think that a young prince from a foreign country would not be influenced by this is not reasonable. Haakon VII saw as his duty to serve the people in the sense that he was under the will of the people. Our monarchy since 1905 has been denoted our “popular monarchy,” where the monarch “is to serve and not to rule.” Of course, the monarch is always there for the people. This concept is not something that came with “democratic monarchy.” That’s plain democrat propaganda.
monarch “by the grace of the people” is obviously some kind of republic in
sheep’s clothing. However, having a king by the “grace of Parliament” could be
worse, and “by the grace of Michelsen” would perhaps be even worse. This only
goes to show that it wasn’t easy to get out of the mess
Now, King Haakon does not deserve to be portrayed as a monarch without character or will. He was quite hard against politicians. He emphasized openly not taking politically controversial stands, although appointing the first Labor Party Cabinet was quite controversial. Behind the scenes though he postponed cases and even threatened with abdication. The abdication threat was used against a proposal to emasculate the royal office and abolish the King’s personal right of giving orders such as the Royal Norwegian Order of St. Olav, a proposal he took as an insult. Not even with the emergency of the German invasion of April 1940 the King asserted any right to have the final say, although he made it quite clear that he wanted no part of the wrong decision in that he told his Cabinet that an appointment of a Quisling Cabinet would result in his abdication. However, he asserted his “Bagehot rights” of being consulted, warning, and encouraging to an extent that might not be accepted today. Haakon led the nation through World War II in a way that no partisan politician probably could have managed. Given the circumstances he did very well as a “modern monarch.” The old order is, however, preferable.
Michelsen wanted no referendum, neither on the union dissolution nor on the
form of government – or perhaps more correctly on whether to accept Prince Carl
of Denmark as King or not. He had his way in both referenda though. The second
referendum turned out with a majority of about 80% for monarchy – or Prince Carl. Things could
easily have turned out worse.
Michelsen had his way with respect to the referendum on the monarchy, there
might very well have been a step two, namely the step of “deposing” Haakon VII
and installing a full-fledged republic. The act of June 7 was not in accordance
with international law at the time. Support from the powers of
Korsaren no. 39, 1905.
Courtesy of the National Library of Norway
King Oscar II has his face portrayed
on sardine boxes far outside the borders of
Our Constitution has even had a protection of the freedom of enterprise since 1814, such that new and lasting infringements of the freedom of enterprise could not be established. However, this provision is only seen to forbid lasting privileges to private parties. It has no effect against government monopolies or granting money games rights to charitable organizations only. Just after the union dissolution we got lots of concession legislation, requiring government grants for hydro-electric power plants, with provisions for a no compensation “return” of the plants to the government after a certain number of years. These days this concession legislation is being revised and one hears arguments that “we” can’t give away “our” resources as we do not know what these resources would be worth in 60 years. Let’s “rent” it out instead, the argument goes. To this level that debate has fallen! As if the government is not powerful enough without this government capitalism, which sadly also is a concept doing its harm in the oil industry, to name the most important sector, and to name where it is least challenged.
Property rights were much more secure in most of the 19th century than what they are now. Up until the end of 19th century redistribution was considered outside the scope of the state. Since then democracy and popular sovereignty has given rise to a far-reaching big-size state. Socialism came to haunt us.
Our Constitution has a protection provision for property rights. However, although it does say that whenever the “need of the State” requires it those who must give up their property are to have full compensation, there is seemingly no limit to what the “need of the State” is. Moreover, private interests can acquire property, or at least use of property, through government confiscation. Furthermore, it seems to set no limit to confiscatory taxation. Even the “Conservative” Party, the party which is to be the property protection party above all, now seems to be going for new legislation to let leasees of land rob the land owners legally. The respect for property of the 19th century is gone. What relief this unbridled democracy is!
Oscar II is known to have said:
The people have no basis for having any opinion.
He was right in the sense that it is meaningless to refer to the opinion of the whole body of the people. Individuals may have bases for opinions. Maybe even small groups can have such bases. The conceived popular opinion is just that; conceived. There is no popular opinion in the sense that there are individual opinions. The “popular opinion” is often something which the people is led into. The ability of the common man to form an educated opinion is often very limited. Moreover, the effort the common man will go through to form an educated opinion is limited.
Of course, there could be reasonable grounds for removing a monarch. A tyrant should not be allowed to sit on the throne. However, it is perfectly clear that Oscar II was no tyrant. What was a threat to liberty in the fight over government powers were those usurping parliamentary politicians. They have brought upon their posterity much trouble. It is not that the denial of a separate independent consular organization necessarily is a good example of limiting the reach and size of parliamentary power. It probably is a very bad example. The point is the royal prerogatives in themselves as a check on the reach and size of parliamentary power. It is prudent in this respect to keep in mind something Bertrand de Jouvenel told us in On Power:
It is possible, with the help of prudently balanced institutions, to provide everyone with effective safeguards against Power. But there are no institutions on earth which enable each separate person to have a hand in the exercise of Power, for Power is command, and everyone cannot command. Sovereignty of the people is, therefore, nothing but a fiction, and one which must in the long run prove destructive of individual liberties.
King Oscar was no absolute monarch, although with the abuse of political terms that we are haunted by, he very well might be erroneously described as one. Oscar II was a part of a regime that was supposed to be limited after monarchical absolutism had been allowed to blossom. Our mixed government of the 19th century was born in 1814, got a serious blow in 1884, and it basically got its final blow in 1905. What Bertrand de Jouvenel and On Power told us basically describes what happened:
[Authoritarianism] could, no doubt, have been avoided if there had been a stable, vigorous, and unified executive to which the legislature acted merely as limitary principle. But in fact, as we have seen, the contrary happened: the legislature made itself the ruling sovereign.
Historians would protest a claim that Oscar II’s reign was marked by personal rule. Even when he ascended the throne personal rule had been reduced in the sense that the Cabinet had very much real power, independent of Parliament and in practice to an extent independent of the monarch. However, it is still fair to say that Oscar II represented personal rule, and On Power again gives an excellent account of the historical development:
The royal will was, and was known to be, that of a crowned head, his favourite, or his minister; it was in that respect as human and personal as that of anyone else. The will of democratic Power goes by the name of general. It crushes each individual beneath the weight of the sum of the individuals represented by it; it oppresses each private interest in the name of a general interest which is incarnate in itself. The democratic fiction confers on the rulers the authority of the whole. It is the whole that both wills and acts.
Prime Minister Løvland, who initiated the process of “deposal” of King Oscar II,
Luckily, the anniversary celebration is not a celebration of democracy. It is no big feast to the great god Demos. There is, however, a conference in Karlstad – the town where dissolution negotiations were held in 1905 – on the development of democracy in the two countries this upcoming September.
June 7 is
fortunately no public holiday. It is merely a public flag day. I would say it
is my least favorite public flag day. There is absolutely no reason to
celebrate this revolutionary act in any way. The thought of wearing a black
suit with a white shirt and black neck tie has crossed my mind. So has flying a
flag on half staff. When I’m not seriously considering it, that’s because June
7, 1945 was the day on which King Haakon VII returned to
The day October 26 is recognized as the union
dissolution day in
You might say that I’m with those who in 1905 wanted dissolution, but who were sorry for the way in which it was done. The fact still remains, though, that the union and our Bernadottes represent a period with relatively limited government prior to mass democracy. Just two days ago a two volume work on Swedish and Norwegian history in the period from 1814 until 2005 was released. I have not yet had time to have a look at it, but the title of volume 1, covering 1814-1905, is “union and democracy,” and the title of volume 2, covering the last hundred years is “social democracy.” None of these titles sound very well. However, when one considers that democracy only seriously blossomed in the last part of the period, there is no doubt which period is preferable. The words of Henrik Ibsen are truer today than in his days:
is a free country inhabited by unfree people. Norway
the union itself is not the point. The union nevertheless provided an argument
for an absolute veto for constitutional amendments, and otherwise a strong
royal office. The mixed government arrangement provided would logically do, but
having supplemental arguments would absolutely be helpful. We must also keep in
mind that the Swedish-Norwegian was a very loose union. Any serious study of
Swedish-Norwegian relations would show that integration – or perhaps more correctly,
harmonization – in most ways has been
at a greater level after the dissolution of the union. For instance,
one do to celebrate the memory of His Majesty Oscar II? What about having a go
Oscar sardines or related
products? Perhaps one could have a dish
Photo: Udo Jacob
A wine from Liechtenstein, specifically from the wineries of the Prince of Liechtenstein, would certainly go well to any such dish. What an excellent celebration of non-democratic monarchy wouldn’t that be?
For a more intellectual celebration reading the memoirs of Oscar II, some of his diaries or other literature from his hands would be quite appropriate. Proficiency in the Swedish language – sometimes in the Norwegian language, which is quite similar – is required though.
have a party on board Oscar II. One could
go to Marstrand
Today, exactly one hundred years since June 10, 1905 we raise our glasses to the memory of the old European order and to the memory of the Grand Master of the Order of the Norwegian Lion. These memories shine gloriously.
June 10, 2005.
J.K. Baltzersen is a senior consultant of
information technology in
© J.K. Baltzersen 2005
 This was problematic as
 About a year ago I picked up a free
newspaper at a stand at
 Saving the old Norwegian
 The leader of the Norwegian Cabinet
delegation to Stockholm at the time, and hence bore the title of statsminister – Prime Minister – Dr.
Sigurd Ibsen – the son of Dr.
Henrik Johan Ibsen – called these terms “the vassal realm terms.” Professor
of law Francis Hagerup – head of the Cabinet in
 That Harald Hairfair united
 He was also the architect for the Drammen Exchange and Drammen Theater. The latter was the venue for the opening ceremony of the dissolution anniversary celebration, which is officially a marking – not a celebration – so as not to hurt the feelings of any Swedes.
 The architecture was not Swedish, however, but Italian, more specifically Lombardian.
 This order was never formally abolished, but it has been sleeping since the dissolution of the union.
 The state flag has a split and a tongue, which the royal banner also had.
 Supplying the market with paper based on rapidly growing trees Lorentzen has probably done a lot more than most large groups of “environmentalist activists,” despite the problems his business probably also has caused.
 I concede that a case can be made against the union by referring to
 This was to be a temporary arrangement. No formal act to alter the Constitution such that the King would be emasculated was made. Moreover, an offer was made to the House of Bernadotte for another prince to ascend the throne, a part of a strategy to conceal the anti-monarchical agenda. Although there were many with a republican agenda, the general idea was to get rid of the union, not the monarchy, as getting rid of both at the same time was believed to be too risky. As we will see, though, what we got was very much a republic in a monarchy’s clothing.
 The Norwegian Parliament got 38%, the Swedish Parliament 11%, and the Danish Parliament 10%. The monarchy was not an option in the survey.
 Whether this was a claim explicitly made by the usurpers does not clearly show in the account of Andersen. However, it is quite probable that such propaganda had been used by those politicians.
 When the closed Parliament
meeting on June 6 was over and a unanimous act had been guaranteed, Michelsen,
according to historian Roy Andersen, sent an unsigned telegraph to a good
friend saying “tomorrow morning we will cross Rubicon.” Thus, the connection to
the end of liberty at
 At the time of the fight over parliamentarism the conservative side saw the monarchical element as a protection of minority rights.
 The railway between Christiania and
 This was probably part of a strategy to be King for everyone. Haakon VII is ascribed “I am also the King of the communists.” He, however, denied Nazis any audience. A lot can be said about such different treatment of these two leftist ideologies, but I will leave it for now.
 Postponements even led to Cabinet minorities turning into Cabinet majorities.
 A curiosity is that in
 This does not bar privileges being granted for a limited period of time and being constantly renewed for “limited time periods.”
 Only later did the Parliament stop appointing committee members who were active politicians due to problems connected with committee independence.
 Such a recognition from Parliament will not come easy, as such a recognition would be tantamount to recognizing that Parliament cannot do as it wills; that there are limits to what it can do; that it is not omnipotent. Moreover, such a recognition would also affect the plebiscite and its authority in very much the same way. Dare Parliament ever question the sovereignty of the people expressed through the August 13 plebiscite by declaring that the union was not dissolved before October 26?
 We must use the term relative as on one hand war was avoided between the two nations and on the other hand mob tyranny against opposition can by no means be considered peace.
 Eventually Sweden turned a worse provider state than Norway and degenerated constitutionally further than Norway, with perhaps the most emasculated monarch on the planet – leaving the monarch basically without even formal, advisory, and emergency powers – and putting in writing in the Constitution that “all public power comes from the people.” On the other hand that is in a way more honest.
 Oscar II was the first King of Norway to visit Finnmark since Christian IV.