On Friday, the Royal Household issued the following statement:
"We understand the strong reactions people have to what has emerged in recent days.
The Crown Princess strongly disavows Epstein's abuse and criminal acts. She is very sorry for not having understood early enough what kind of person he was.
The Crown Princess wants to tell about what happened and explain herself in more detail.
She cannot do that now. The Crown Princess is in a very demanding situation. She hopes for understanding that she needs time to gather herself."
The Crown Princess states the following:
" I would like to express my deepest regret for my friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. It is important for me to apologize to everyone I have disappointed. Some of the content of the messages between Epstein and me does not represent the person I want to be. I also apologize for the situation that I have put the Royal Family in, especially the King and Queen ."
And from the Royal Household:
We would also like to add to what we have said so far on the matter:
The Crown Princess stated this on Friday, January 31, 2026:
“Jeffrey Epstein is personally responsible for his actions. I must take responsibility for not checking Epstein’s background more thoroughly and for not understanding quickly enough what kind of person he was. I deeply regret that, and this is a responsibility I must take. I showed poor judgment and regret ever having had any contact with Epstein. It is simply embarrassing. I want to express my deep sympathy and solidarity with the victims of the abuses committed by Jeffrey Epstein.”
As we reported in 2019, the Crown Princess chose to end contact with Epstein, partly because she felt that Epstein was trying to use the connection he had had with the Crown Princess towards other people. The last written contact took place in 2014. Unfortunately, we slightly misremembered the exact time in the previous round.
The 2019 statement explained the relationship:
The meetings with Epstein took place in social contexts, most of them in the United States. One of the meetings was at Epstein's. In addition, the Crown Princess met Epstein briefly once he was in Oslo. At all the meetings, several people were present. When the Crown Prince Couple was vacationing in St. Barts, they met Epstein on the street. Then Crown Prince Haakon greeted Epstein for the first and only time.
The meeting with Epstein at his home, which we referred to in 2019, occurred in connection with the Crown Princess borrowing his house in Palm Beach through a mutual friend. The Crown Princess stayed there with a friend for four days.
The Crown Princess has never been to Epstein's private island.
We have also communicated that the Crown Princess has not received any money from Epstein, either for her personally or for funds/foundations she has been involved with.
During the period the Crown Princess had contact with Epstein, she was not aware of the extent and nature of the criminal acts he had admitted to and served time for. The Crown Princess was, of course, also not aware of the crimes that have since been uncovered.
This is what we replied to Dagens Næringsliv in 2019:
The Crown Princess met Jeffrey Epstein on a few occasions between 2011 and 2013, after being introduced by mutual acquaintances abroad.
The Crown Princess chose to end contact with Epstein in 2013, partly because she felt that Epstein was trying to use the connection he had had with the Crown Princess towards other people. [In retrospect, it turned out that we were wrong about this. We apologize for that. The correct thing is that the Crown Princess ended contact in 2014.]
The meetings with Epstein took place in social contexts, most of them in the United States. One of the meetings was at Epstein's. In addition, the Crown Princess met Epstein briefly once he was in Oslo. At all the meetings, several people were present. When the Crown Prince Couple vacationed in St. Barts in 2012, they met Epstein on the street. Then Crown Prince Haakon greeted Epstein for the first and only time.
During the period the Crown Princess had contact with Epstein, she was not aware of the extent and nature of the criminal acts he had admitted to and served time for. The Crown Princess was, of course, also not aware of the crimes that have since been uncovered.
The Crown Princess states:
"I would never have had anything to do with Epstein if I had known the seriousness of his criminal acts. I should have investigated Epstein's past more closely, and I regret that I did not."
"Through my long-standing work on international health issues, I have seen firsthand the profound harm sexual abuse inflicts on children and women. We all have a shared responsibility to combat sexual abuse and support victims, and I want to express my deep sympathy and solidarity with the victims of the abuses committed by Jeffrey Epstein."
On Friday, Crown Prince Haakon took time during an official visit to speak with the press. He was at a Sami kindergarten in Oslo to celebrate Sami National Day.
The Sámi are an indigenous people living in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia.
"For me, the most important thing these past few days has been to take care of the flock," referring to his family.
"We support Marius in the situation he is in. We look after the other children as well. They also need to be cared for, and I have to ensure the Crown Princess is taken care of.
The Crown Prince said that Mette-Marit understands that others want to hear from her.
"She thinks that is completely natural. She would like to speak, but she can't at this time. And I also tell her she is not allowed to.
She needs time to gather herself, and then she would like to say more about the matter, and we hope people understand that she needs a bit of time."
The Crown Princess suffers from pulmonary fibrosis and will need a lung transplant.
Last Thursday (February 5), Norwegian news agency NRK published a long comment from Princess Ingrid Alexandra's private Instagram account. The account has about 800 followers.
"For 6 years I have written many notes on my phone. This is just a thought experiment. And this text probably doesn't pass the "VG test". It had been taken apart and used against me. I'll be clear. It's not about any issue, not Marius, not Mom or Dad or Magnus. It's about personal attacks. It can apply to anyone. But it often applies to us. I chose to post it here. Because I'm going completely crazy.
When is enough?
When I turned 22, I posted some pictures of the lovely bunch. Thanks to all of you❤️
What if I say you killed someone?
What do you say then?
Maybe you say you haven't killed anyone.
Then I write a story on VG. "... In defense against media storm: "I haven't killed anyone.""
All those who haven't heard the question then think that there is a reason to believe that you killed someone. Since you feel it is necessary to defend yourself.
I'm also saying that I have access to everything your friends have ever posted about you. All the pictures, all the messages, everything you've ever said in public.
And you start thinking. Is there anything I've ever done? That might seem suspicious. Maybe you've hit on someone in town. You can imagine that case. Incredibly suspicious. Maybe bad enough in itself.
Or maybe you've never hurt a fly. But you've argued with a friend once. And I have a picture of you looking at him in the face. I'll put it next to the post. "In defense of media storm: 'I haven't killed anyone.' New pictures."
But the reason I choose to say that you killed someone, it's not really about you. It's about something bigger. Who should have power over this podcast that you run. It must be allowed to question.
You agree that the podcast is important for criticism. It's about freedom of speech. Democracy.
Maybe you're telling me that the claim I'm making has nothing to do with the podcast. Ingrid, why do you choose to say that I killed someone without proof?
Then the headline becomes "Has nothing to do with the podcast." That's suspicious. And wrong. If you've killed someone, that matters.
I'll answer you. Someone else has told me that you have killed someone. Also because a friend of mine has met you and then you seemed threatening. And there are many pictures out there of you looking at so many people in an ugly way. Regardless of whether you have killed someone or not, it is clear that you are violent. A lot has been written about it.
And then you realize. There's nothing you can say. Nothing you can do. You can't disprove that you killed someone. At least not without thinking carefully about everything you've ever done.
Every message you've ever written. Every single situation that could be interpreted as aggressive. It doesn't matter if you saved 10 people. Because that doesn't prove you didn't kill anyone.
Besides, did you really have a right to be mad at your friend in that argument where you looked down on him? For that argument you have to be ready to defend. Are you willing to expose it to the world? Because if you make a mistake. Then there will be big consequences. At least if you get caught in a lie. Then everyone will think you killed someone.
Or you choose to swallow it. To hope that people just realize that it's not true. And every time you walk around Norway you have to think again. Do I do something now that will be interpreted as violent. Everyone on the streets has just read that headline. And you have to be careful not to give them a reason to believe that it's true.
But it's okay. Because I'm not going to say that you killed anyone. I'm not going to insinuate that because I thought it was an exciting thought.
It is important not to make claims for which you have no basis."
VG, I believe, is the Norwegian tabloid newspaper, Verdens Gang.
NRK cannot confirm if Princess Ingrid Alexandra is referring to specific allegations." The newspaper justified its decision to publish the princess's private posting of "how the media fulfills its social mission is of public interest."
Norwegian royal historian, Ole-Jørgen Schulsrud-Hansen, who often appears on TV2 as a royal commentator, said: "She can't start acting like an influencer and throwing out criticism against the press via social media." He believes she should not have written the post, stating: "If she wanted to say this in any public way, it should have been done through the communications staff."
This view is not shared by another Norwegian royal historian, Trond Norén Isaksen, who told NRK: "I don't see the problem here. This is a private and closed Instagram account. The post expresses how she experiences the situation that she and her family are in now."
He does not think her comments were controversial. "She writes that one should be careful about making claims for which there is no basis. I don't think anyone particularly disagrees with that. But it's not like the royal family doesn't have opinions. She doesn't tell this to you and me, but to her friends and those she trusts."
Norén Isaksen does not believe Princess Ingrid will write a similar post. "No, she will probably be more careful."
I concur with Trond. Ingrid is second in line to the throne and is entitled to an opinion on the press. She does not have a constitutional role, not until she becomes the Crown Princess. NRK did not say how they learned about the post, but it seems likely that one of her followers shared it, which, of course, was not the right thing to do. Ingrid Alexandra wrote the post. Her copyright. Her permission should have been sought.
The 22-year-old princess is in the first year of a three-year BA program in international relations and political economy at the University of Sidney in Australia.
No comments:
Post a Comment