Stupid Loyalty to the Monarchy

Remember that this was only 35 years after the dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden. The king was a symbol for the independent Norway and very important for the fighting spirit. And the king didn't rule the people, the government did.

Agree, man. The king of Norway is probably planning to build concentration camps as we speak... *sigh*

You completely miss the point. The King is merely a symbol. A national symbol around which the people of Norway defined themselves. When your country is under foreign attack it is completely irrelevant whether you are pro-monarch or anti-monarch. Since the Norge government was non-existent and the local police was working for the Germans, the only symbol of authority the people could be united under was the exiled King. The pro vs anti-monarch debate, if there was any, could again resume after the end of the war. This has nothing to do with one's political views, it's plain old common sense. I am naturally anti-monarch myself.

http://www.korioi.net

Well since the king was actually elected as a king (he demanded a vote before being crowned) with a four to one majority. You could definitely say that it was the peoples will that he was their ruler.

That being said, the royal family had (and have) very little political power here in Norway. It was eroded to a small trickle through the century prior to the war as a mean to get independence, which we got in 1905.




It`s far easier to start a war than to end one.