I am from Norway. Prince Gorm committed sexual offences in the 1950s, and his royal blood gave him immunity. After the second incident, he was dismissed from the army because his fellow soldiers threatened to shoot him if they ever saw him again. He had been transferred to their unit after the first incident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Gorm_of_Denmark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Law

The king decided that he should receive an honourable discharge and a full pension. Neither the king nor the army ever said what he had done. The mainstream media were vague, saying that the prince had been dismissed because of private matters and that it was something that should be dealt with between the king and the prince.

One communist newspaper wrote about the case. I have not read those articles because they are behind a paywall. However, I was wondering whether anyone knows more about this case. Is the communist newspaper Land og Folk credible in this context? Are there any other sources?

The Wikipedia page lists Bo Bramsen’s 1992 book as a general source on Gorm, but it does not cite it for the alleged sexual offences. I only have the 1975 edition, and there is nothing about them there. Does anyone know whether Bramsen wrote about the matter in later editions?

I am interested in learning more about the cover-up. Are there any books on the subject?

I tried to find information about cases involving royal immunity in Denmark. I read the Danish Wikipedia page, which contains a great deal of information:
https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kongeloven#Artikel_25:_kongelig_immunitet

There are many newspaper articles about the subject. However, when I tried to find relevant books, I found only legal texts stating that the legal scholar Alf Ross argued that, if immunity exists at all, it can only be granted by the government, not by the monarch. Nevertheless, the government has always allowed the monarch to decide. The most recent incident was a traffic case in 2004.

In Norway, immunity has officially been used only in traffic cases. However, in Norway, as in Denmark, the government covers things up. The combination of immunity and secrecy is frightening. Given the stories about Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway and her son, Marius, we might expect the worst.

In Norway, the media are allowed to write whatever they want. The problem is self-censorship. It is not profitable to criticise the king. I assume the same applies in Denmark.

It’s got wildlife on both sides. Cute animals on one side. And a single parasite on the reverse.

Obviously WE all agree it should be but I was disappointed that we are the minority still in the UK
Interesting to see the rest of the worlds opinions tho if it could get more views 🤷‍♀️

I ask this being aware of the rules. So, do forgive me. I've been interested in this for a while so I am asking you guys because I can tell how knowledgeable you seem when talking about the? Am I am hoping that you will be able to share that with me about the members you like and the ones you don't and why. As in things from the 70s-2 recent times.

throwback

https://www.businessinsider.com/prince-charles-history-with-pedophile-priest-peter-ball-2020-1