Norway’s prime minister has crossed a line rarely even
approached in the country’s modern political history, openly
commenting on the conduct of a senior member of the royal family
and in doing so exposing the fragility of an unwritten
constitutional convention.
Jonas Gahr Støre said this week that Crown Princess Mette-Marit
had shown “poor judgment” in her past contacts with Jeffrey
Epstein, aligning himself with the royal palace’s own apology but
nonetheless making a public intervention that many in Oslo regard
as without precedent. Sitting prime ministers have traditionally
avoided any direct assessment of the behaviour of working royals,
regardless of controversy.
The extraordinary nature of the moment was underlined by
reaction from journalists and constitutional watchers. One
Norwegian reporter wrote on social media: “Norway’s PM Jonas
Gahr Støre commented today that Crown Princess Mette-Marit had
shown poor judgment following revelations about connections to
Epstein. Unprecedented coming from a sitting PM about a member of
the royal family. I can’t recall having seen anything like
this.”
Such reactions reflect a deeply ingrained political culture.
Although the monarch reigns but does not rule, ministers are
careful to preserve a strict separation between elected authority
and the royal household. Criticism, when it arises, is usually
channelled indirectly or left to the media and the palace
itself.
Støre was careful in his wording. He did not accuse the crown
princess of wrongdoing and made clear that inclusion in the Epstein
files did not imply criminal conduct. Yet by publicly endorsing her
admission of error, he departed from the long-standing practice of
ministerial restraint, lending the weight of government to what
would normally be treated as a private royal matter.
The timing of the intervention has sharpened its impact. The
revelations about Epstein emerged just days before the start of a
high-profile criminal trial involving Mette-Marit’s son, Marius
Borg Høiby, placing the royal family under intense public scrutiny.
Against that backdrop, the prime minister’s comments appeared to
acknowledge – rather than deflect – public unease.
Støre extended the principle further by criticising a former
prime minister, Thorbjørn Jagland, for what he also described as
poor judgment after planning, and later cancelling, a holiday on
Epstein’s private island. In doing so, he framed the issue not as a
singular royal lapse, but as a broader failure of discernment among
figures at the highest levels of public life.
Whether the episode marks a one-off response to an exceptional
situation or a subtle recalibration of how openly Norway’s
political leaders speak about the royal family remains an open
question. For now, the significance lies less in what Støre said
than in the fact that he said it at all.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source royalcentral.co.uk ’
