Talk:Mette-Marit, Crown Princess of Norway/Archive 1

Archive 1

Courtesy title

I do not believe that it is correct that Mette-Marit's HKH (Hennes Kongelige Høyhet/Her Royal Highness) is a mere courtesy title. She will become Her Majesty Queen Mette-Marit when her husband accedes to the throne, and I believe that her title is "Crown Princess," while "HRH" is how to address her. --Leifern 14:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't believe that it is a courtesy title either. She did receive it upon her marriage, as other consorts have, the title and the style HRH The Crown Princess, is dependant upon her married status, as we saw with Diana, Princess of Wales. But thankfully, so far their marriage looks happy and hopefully they will remained married, and Mette-Marit will become Queen.Prsgoddess187 00:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This article includes too much gossip, and it has a standard far below what should be expected from an article in an encyclopedia.

Which parts of the article do you consider gossip? All of the information included seems pretty legitimate to me. Yes, it is not a reserved article, but she has readily admitted to all of her past.Prsgoddess187 13:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You write ”she has readily admitted to all of her past”. That is not a correct statement. She has admitted to the real past of which details are not really known by any outsiders. This article has mainly taken its text from the official WebPages of the Royal House and then mixed it with a mixture of negative information collected from a variety of sources about variety of incidents melted down into just a mishmash which therefore of course becomes untrue gossip. The article can also be criticized because it seams to highlight issues of the past which was debated before the wedding, but have really neither been a public issue nor been debated in public in Norway since the wedding celebrations. The second half of the article’s introduction (untrue or not) is therefore totally out of date regarding to what have been the issues for the last four years. It is also strange that a biographical article in an encyclopedia can focus so much on people around the person and connect this to the person’s personal integrity, as what is the case in this article. This illustrates the problems with this kind of forums where individuals with some emotional involvement in the case, comes up with grumpy comments which is out of proportions and makes the article so visibly unbalanced as in this case. The editing history of the article clearly shows that this is a continuous problem here.

You are utterly mistaken. She is still very much a controversial figure in the royal family. The press in Norway is known to be soft on the royals, in spite of this, it was a lengthy tirade about her lavish spending and unwelcome building plans in the locla press of her birthplace. I believe that even though there is not much negativity in the media, I can hardly imagine anyone talking about her without some sort of contempt. I find this article VERY soft.

first name

Has she a given name? --Melaen 18:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

How is Mette-Marit not a given name? -- Jao 22:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

External links

Isn't it better to link to the orignal news source rather than a homemade page? I'll make that change, if there are any objections, please state them here. Delta Tango | Talk 19:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

need citations

This article desperately needs proper sourcing, especially for a living person. Renee 15:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Fourth child ?

Some German magazines like "Echo der Frau" say, that Mette-Marit is expecting her fourth child ? I look at the official homepage and I can't find informations about this story.

What do you think ? Is it possible or not ? --AndreaMimi (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Illegitimate son"

Is there any other phrase in the english language that can be used in this article to describe Mette-Marits son? In Norway, this word is never used any more, as it is completely normal (and socially /legally acceptable) to have children out of wedlock. It seems odd to use the old-fashioned term when speaking of a Norwegian child. Ida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.9.128.231 (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

shooting at Utøya

Should it be added that her stepbrother was one of the victims of the shootings at the youth camp in Utøya? Norum 12:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's mentioned in reliable sources, yes. Surtsicna (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's in the article. http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110725/110725_norway_terror/20110725/?hub=CP24Home

It has been mentioned often enough for me to have found this article. Varlaam (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

CP24 is one of the majore new stations in the Greater Toronto Area. Norum 05:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm from Toronto. I have no faith in CP24 for anything that happens outside of Toronto.

In this case, the CP24 article is just reprinting a wire story from The Associated Press.

But The Associated Press can be used as a source.

Varlaam (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: My removal of tthe Breivik COATRACK was marked "rv vandalism" Edits made pursuant to WP:BLP are not vandalism, and I intend to go to WQA should the revert stand - in short I am asking that the addition of Breivik be reversed as he is not a notable part of the Princess's biography. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

" concerning her involvement in the rave scene in Oslo, which included a significant drug-subculture, also added to the controversy"

Citation needed? --85.196.118.210 (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The citation precedes the sentence, but the wording of the material doesn't fully comport with the source.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The preceding citation does hint to a drug scene in general. Unless there is a notable claim from a notable source about a video-clip with a scantily clad lady with a powdery substancy being inhaled off her torso(upper half of body) by a male — then I don't see anything notable.

I have seen mention about a video clip, in print in a national newspaper in Norway — regarding Norwegian police projecting power [by paying a visit to a person of interest, which resulted in the removal of a clip from an unnamed website] to have a clip removed, sometime prior to the wedding. But I have never seen notable references about the plot of the video clip.--85.196.118.210 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

... in a milieu "where drugs were readily available"

What is notable about frequenting an environment that fits the description of high schools in the U.S. or in Norway?--85.196.118.210 (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a function of whether it's noteworthy. It's the reason given by the source and the assertion in our article needs that context; otherwise, it begs the question "why".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Video

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. A claim from unknown sources of the supposed existance of a topless-video. In itself not something we should have in this biography. Even if such claims have been referenced in the media. In addition the crown princess' father has commented that it is not her. So we have unfounded claims of a supposed video which does not depict the Crown Princess. That is not information worthy inclusion in an encyclopedia.Inge (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In this matter WP:BLP can hardly be invoked to suppress mention of this. True, there is no evidence the video acrually exists, but that is not the point here. There has been so much written about the alleged video that this justifies mentioning the matter. The publicity is notable whether or not the video is for real. __meco (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with suppression and I am dissapointed that you resort to that retoric. I urge you to read through what is stated in the above mentioned policy. I espeshially would like to point out these sections "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." The video was given some attention in tabloid newspapers and the like at the time mostly just in Norway. It was not a focus in serious journalism and is no longer a topic. It's notability, if you want to resort to that, is no longer there. Even if it could be concidered notable our policy would rule out its inclution. In itself any mention of it causes all sorts of problems with accountability. You state that she flashes her breasts in the movie; how can that be referenced? You state that she is on drugs in the movie and even specify the type; even if the video existed how can that information be extracted from a video? The information is still available somewhere on the web, accessible for people who enjoy that sort of thing, but the whole story is so low and so speculative it certainly does not belong in an encyclopedia. I will remove it again and refer you to this quote of wikipedia policy "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." Inge (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I still assert that you are misreading WP policy on biographies of living persons as well as misrepresenting the facts of the case. Apparently you are applying newspaper standards to the consideration of whether material should be included in an article or not when you state that as the alleged video is no longer a topic in the news media, its merits for inclusion in the present article has dissipated. If we were to write Wikipedia by that standard, we would have to remove 99.999% and then some of existing content. You present as fact that the mention of the video was limited to tabloid media in Norway, which is a claim for which you have presented no evidence. On the contrary, the reference used to support the text was from ostensibly non-tabloid Aftenposten. As for your several claims as to what I have claimed, there simply is no basis for these. I have claimed no such information, nor am I the editor who have written this section. There is ample evidence of the issue of an alleged embarassing video from Mette-Marit's past. That is the issue here. Not whether the video can be produced or actually exists. __meco (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Report about police meeting up with an individual who had uploaded

I believe that I have seen a small notice (a thin newspaper column of perhaps around 5 lines) in print in a Norwegian national newspaper (i seem to remember that it was Aftenposten). It was dated about a day after police showed up to meet with an individual regarding an uploaded video clip of Mette-Marit. The website was not named, but the video clip was allegedly removed the same day that police presented themselves to said individual.

If anyone wants to follow up that, then one would have to locate the date of newspaper or title of notice (if it had a title!)--85.196.118.210 (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

References and text regarding the Video movie

"She has acted in a video movie ("The Mette-Marit video" — in Norwegian, Mette-Marit-videoen) while she was girlfriend of John Ognby. The movie was offered for sale, but an offer of Norwegian kroner 2.5 million was not accepted by the owner of the movie. (The video clips "allegedly contain quite grapic scenes in regard to drug use and sex, claimed author Håvard Melnæs".)

If we can find more references, perhaps even in German, then we can add more text. --85.165.229.124 (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There are BLP implications associated with this section that must be ironed out before it can be reinserted if at all. I have opened up a discussion on WP:BLPN. I am going to remove the section again. Please do not add until the discussion has run its course.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"Mette Marit had a son prior to her marriage"

This sentence might need some attention — it has a "Norwegian ring" to it.--85.196.118.210 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

For those of us who are Scandanavian-challenged, could you explain what you mean by that?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it could be changed to Mette- Marit's son, Marius, was born before her wedding to Crown Prince Haakon. Morten Borg is the father. --PrincessAlice13 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Marius Borg Hoiby

Does her son have a last name? Was she married to his father? Who is his father? RickK 01:19 13 Jul 2003

Like many modern day people, HRH The Crown Princess was not married to her older son's father, Morten Borg. Her son is named Marius Hoiby-Borg. Hope that answers your querry.

Mostly right, except her son's name is Marius Borg Hoiby.

This should be mentioned in her background instead of being mentioned in passing under the "Engagement and Marriage" section. This article is poorly written and organized and is far too soft-handed. Details from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_of_Haakon,_Crown_Prince_of_Norway,_and_Mette-Marit_Tjessem_H%C3%B8iby#cite_note-frommer-6) need to be included here with relevant sources cited. 75.130.155.203 (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mette-Marit, Crown Princess of Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061119171951/http://aitel.hist.no:80/%7Ewalterk/wkeim/files/skandalepresse-en.htm to http://aitel.hist.no/~walterk/wkeim/files/skandalepresse-en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Crown Princess Mette-Marit

This article is pretty good but the name appears as above in the caption to the photo. Is this proper nomenclature with regards to Norwegian royalty? Or should it be Mette-Marit, Crown Princess throughout? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)