—
King worship continued long after the war. The story of the good king seemed strongly legitimizing to the monarchy.
Chronicle
This is a chronicle. Opinions in the text are at the writer’s expense.
Then I answer no or for the sake of my heart.
No, it’s going to be until my last moment.
The Judas who betrayed his fatherland
was Quisling, a Usling we name him!
This is how it sounded about King Haakon in a poem dated 13 April 1940, printed on 20 April in Lillehammer Dagningen. The role of hero and villain was already occupied.
Also in the world, the “king’s no” immediately struck through.
“A noble no!” wrote the Yorkshire Evening Post. And the Paris newspaper Le Temps thought “le non du roi Haakon” was a possible turning point in Europe’s political history.
After King Haakon’s evacuation from Norway, he retained the heroic role not least because the Germans demanded that the Storting oust him. In the summer of 1940, this demand triggered the first tendencies towards coordinated resistance.
The war created H7
The war situation created and gave power to the symbol King Haakon. Without the occupation and the propaganda struggle against the National Assembly (NS) and the Germans, it is impossible to explain that London radio compared him to Olav the Holy or said he wore Håkon the Good’s golden helmet.
For some it might be strategy, but many’s feelings for the king were real.
A woman told of an illegal May 17 rally: “It was as if we had His Majesty, King Haakon in the middle of the ring, the symbol of all that was safe and good.”
Both socialists and bourgeoisie supported King Haakon VII (H7). While the NS attacks on the king backfired on the collaborative regime, the London government succeeded in building the king to that degree.
1 of 3Photo: Per Bratland / NTB
King worship continued long after the war. The story of the good king seemed strongly legitimizing to the monarchy.
King of the Conservatives
There are two traditions of Haakon worship. One is conservative and supports the royal family as an institution.
In 1952, Conservative chief CJ Hambro described the king’s arrival in 1905 as the completion of a Bjørnson national dream: “Purely figuratively, it was as if the entire Norwegian people stood high on the rampart this morning and saw Olav Trygvasson summon in port with Ormen Lange.”
For many conservatives, the king was the defense friend who said no when the Labor government failed in 1940.
Much of this lives on in Alf R. Jacobsen’s book Kongens nei, partly also in Erik Poppe’s film, in which the Labor Party councils are portrayed as incompetent – in contrast to the king.
Also the king of the radicals
The second tradition is radical and tells of a democratic “people’s king” – in Nordahl Grieg’s words. It highlights the then Prince Carl as elected king: Against the will of leading Norwegian politicians, he demanded a referendum to accept the throne.
In 1928, the king appointed the first Labor government – against the advice of bourgeois politicians. The statement “I am also the king of the Communists” is impossible to document, but was nevertheless diligently highlighted, for example in January 1945 by the Norwegian Communist Party’s (NKP) illegal newspaper “All for Norway” – the king’s election language!
In addition to the myths about the king in 1905 and 1928, the notions of the personal no to the Germans in 1940 are also central to the radical tradition.
Absolutely striking is the absence of public criticism of King Haakon – until today
–
In 1942, it was stated in the birthday greeting from the Home Front: “Dignified and calm and without great facts, he strengthened and strengthened [ …] the free democratic traditions and institutions, whose supreme trustee he was. ”
The words smell of Einar Gerhardsen – he sat in the home front management.
On the other hand, former Prime Minister Johan Nygaardsvold’s choice of words in 1946 – in a radio speech to the king – is biblical: “These two things, Your Majesty’s name and Norway, it was for our people the pillar of fire that showed the way out of the desert of freedom.”
NKP fighter Martin Gunnar Knutsen admired two statesmen, he said in 1975: “Outside our country [ …] Lenin. Within Norway’s borders, King Haakon. “
In the radical narrative, the monarch’s personal qualities make him deserving of the people’s trust: “I think I interpret many people’s feelings”, said Prime Minister Einar Gerhardsen at the king’s death in 1957, “when I say that the memory of King Haakon will always be inextricably linked with memory about a nice and good person that one fell in love with ».
As early as 1905, Christian Michelsen had greeted the king as follows: “Simple and steady as the people themselves, he will practice his royal deed among us.” The prime ministers Michelsen and Gerhardsen appear to be key royal makers.
King Haakon was never considered critical
Absolutely striking is the absence of public criticism of King Haakon – until today. Even after 1945, the only significant criticism came from NS circles.
Not even radical educators in the 1970s thematized the worship of Haakon, although they criticized monarchist historiography.
Admittedly, professional historians have placed less emphasis on the king’s role than in popular historical and nationally oriented versions. Historians emphasize that decisions are made by political and military authorities. But they also lift the king as a rallying mark and constitutional anchor.
Historians such as Olav Riste or Magne Skodvin could use big words about the king when they communicated to the public.
In part, the uncritical treatment of the king’s role during the occupation is due to the fact that the monarch is constitutionally above criticism: the ministers must take the brunt.
The constitutionally correct has thus contributed to the king being spotless
–
The Storting’s Commission of Inquiry after World War II subjected all key players to a critical review – with the exception of the Royal Family. This was also the case in the Netherlands. The constitutionally correct has thus contributed to the king being spotless.
In Norway, there was hardly any monarchy discussion until the 1960s. In fact, in the 1970s and 1980s, a couple of doctrines tried to write the king out of the occupation narrative. But in the latest textbooks, he is back in full force.
Tor Bomann-Larsen’s book points in the same direction – only the scope of eight volumes tells us that the king is important.
The king as a story
Increased interest in the royal family is a trend. Drama productions such as Atlantic Crossing and a planned major series about King Haakon – The Winter Throne – testify to this.
Internationally has The Crown aroused considerable interest. While the British production has a critical eye on the royal family, Sveriges Television’s review concluded Kongens neithe film reads as follows: “The basically uncritical attitude makes the film look like a commissioned job from the court.”
In established, popular stories about World War II in Norway, most other actors seem to fade and disappear in the dark. But the king’s star shines ever brighter. When Nygaardsvold cries, it’s miserable. When the king weeps, it is noble.
Carl Emil Vogt is currently working on the book “The Hero King Haakon: Symbol in War and Peace”.
–
