India | News | Norway | Surrogacy

Norway's Crown Princess Flew to India, Posed as Nanny to Care for Gay Employee's Twins Born to Surrogate

Norway's Crown Princess Mette-Marit went the extra mile for a gay palace employee who could not get a travel visa to care for his infant twins born to a surrogate mother in India, Reuters reports:

Mette-maritArmed with a diplomatic passport that granted her immediate access, the future queen jumped on a plane in late October when the employee, who is also a friend, and his husband were unable to travel to care for their newborns.

"For me, this is about two babies lying alone in a New Delhi hospital," Mette-Marit said in a statement. "I was able to travel and wanted to do what I could."

She did not alert Indian authorities and spent several days with the babies at the Manav Medicare Centre, where staff assumed the wife of Norway's Crown Prince Haakon was a nanny.

A relative of one of the fathers eventually took over while the palace kept her absence under wraps. Said Mette-Marit: "Sometimes life presents you with situations with few good solutions. This was one of those."

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Wow, talk about a fairytale princess.

    Posted by: Michael | Dec 3, 2012 8:51:48 PM

  2. WOW! Awesome story.

    Posted by: aneas taint | Dec 3, 2012 8:56:23 PM

  3. Now that is a Princess!

    Posted by: BRAINS | Dec 3, 2012 9:05:08 PM

  4. FYI egg donation is illegal. And surrogacy is illegal in Norwa. For all people, gay ot straight. Mette marit being very criticized precisely for that reason.

    It is complicated and many couples who have obtained child in this way is in trouble with the authorities, and there are kids who lose rights there (the times they get the kids into Norway) many hides, it for that reason.
    I`m pro surogacy with protection of all parties and good laws about it.

    Posted by: nn | Dec 3, 2012 9:09:17 PM

  5. Wow, indeed. And if @NN is correct about surrogacy in Norway (and I have no reason to believe s/he isn't), this is one princess whose humanity and courage will have a major impact on such laws.

    Posted by: rroberts | Dec 3, 2012 9:19:17 PM

  6. What a striking story, equivalent and then some of the New York policeman buying a cold man warm shoes. Both warm the heart. Thanks for posting this.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Dec 3, 2012 9:35:20 PM

  7. What an amazing story!

    Posted by: Reality | Dec 3, 2012 9:36:19 PM

  8. That's a great story and a great Princess!

    From the linked Reuters article about the surrogacy ban:

    "Surrogacy is a hotly debated issue in Norway and the government discourages Norwegians from paying surrogate parents for children.

    Protestant Norway was the second country in the world in 1993 to register same sex partnerships while same sex marriage has been legal since 2009.

    The Crown Princess acknowledged the debate and insisted she is not taking a side and only did what a friend had to do.

    "Sometimes life presents you with situations with few good solutions. This was one of those," she said. "There is an important debate going on about surrogacy and this was not meant as taking a side."

    The only thing about surrogacy that seems creepy or odd are the cases where a surrogate is hired seemingly because the bio-mom just doesn't WANT to carry the baby and pays someone else to do it. IIRC that was the situation with Dennis Quaid and his wife. The egg was hers, the sperm was his, but they hired a surrogate so she wouldn't ruin her figure!

    Posted by: Caliban | Dec 3, 2012 9:50:54 PM

  9. She is so cool and adventurous. In these times of indifference, this story is a breath of fresh air.

    Posted by: Gast | Dec 3, 2012 10:07:34 PM

  10. Well, I suppose you can't win them all. Norway is admirably progressive on LGBT issues, but on surrogacy it's disappointingly antiquated.

    Posted by: Manny Espinola | Dec 3, 2012 10:22:23 PM

  11. What a wonderful friend she is. I can't imagine, for one moment, being denied the right to care for my own child just because I'm married to a man. Kudos to her.

    BTW - the guy who got the new $75 shoes in NY? He refuses to wear them, has hidden them (he says) because they are too valuable. He has returned to going without shoes.

    Posted by: OS2Guy | Dec 3, 2012 10:26:58 PM

  12. Why would anyone ban surrogacy its the couples money and the woman is doing it voluntarily. Just another reason to hate socialism I should be able to do with my money whatever I want

    Posted by: Lee | Dec 3, 2012 10:45:46 PM

  13. @Lee I doubt all the people who live in these so-called "socialist" nations (myself included) would agree with that statement. We have 1/10th of the worries Americans have.

    Also, the Crown Princess is a perfect example of an amazing human being and exactly what a royal should be! Love her!

    Posted by: Chris | Dec 3, 2012 11:11:50 PM

  14. I'm gonna assume the law says surrogacy is IN Norway, not in India, Norway wouldn't have any jurisdiction if the surrogacy in another country.

    Posted by: KuMiCu | Dec 3, 2012 11:25:30 PM

  15. Wow, good on her for preventing the trauma of neglect.

    Posted by: Mike B. | Dec 3, 2012 11:28:42 PM

  16. THIS is how all royals should behave ! What a nice lady. If only the stuck up, elitist, racist, sexist, homophobic British royals would be as nice as this.

    Posted by: Icebloo | Dec 3, 2012 11:30:52 PM

  17. Wow! Pretty good story. Pretty selfless princess!

    Posted by: Natamaxxx | Dec 4, 2012 12:04:20 AM

  18. Great job by Mette-Marit. The Norwegian royal family are much loved by Norwegians, for good reason.

    The controversy over surrogacy is about how the surrogate women (in countries like India) might be used as 'baby factories'. Poor women renting out their bodies for survival... sounds quite a bit like prostitution, no?

    @ LEE: Your argument about 'your money' just shows how awefully ignorant and selfish you are. This is about anything BUT money!

    Posted by: Tanoka | Dec 4, 2012 12:05:34 AM

  19. I really admire her, Mr, Prince Harry.

    Posted by: Sirius | Dec 4, 2012 12:19:35 AM


    Posted by: RICK | Dec 4, 2012 12:28:39 AM

  21. Surrogacy is no different than donating a kidney or some other organ.

    In most gay cases, the surrogate is carrying the eggs of a separate donor and the sperm of the father who plans to raise the child.

    The child is not in any way biologically related to the surrogate.

    She is basically providing a service that is her right to do since it is her body.
    There is no sex involved and no coercion in above-board cases.

    When someone wants to donate an organ to a strange, it is seen as honorable but surrogacy is somehow seen as "prostitution"? Really?

    As long as everything is consensual, I don't see why the state has an interest in preventing this kind of service.

    Posted by: Persa | Dec 4, 2012 1:01:34 AM

  22. @PERSA

    The point here is that there's a money exchange for bodily services. That makes it different from organ donations, which is only legal if there's NO MONEY changing hands.

    Or maybe you wouldn't have any moral issues with buying a kidney from a poor man in Pakistan (or Birmingham, or New York)? I mean, it would be consensual, right?

    I have no problems with surrogacy that doesn't take advantage of poor women.

    No matter what one thinks about this issue though, the Crown Princess did a wonderful thing. The babies needed someone and she was in an unique position to help.

    Posted by: Tanoka | Dec 4, 2012 2:10:33 AM

  23. surrogate mother is the one who is seen as the mother (not necessarily) parents. It's not a law that applies only to gay people. news sources from other countries are not always correct work with the information they provide. I could write a lot about the law on this In norway.

    It is also only known donor sperm who is legal (where the child can contact the donor when they turn 18)So many women go il neighboring country where anonymous donor is legal. Donor Banks in Norway hat trouble getting enough sperm because they must be known, IVF is been very financial support from the government(3 times) inclusive lesbians couples,

    Posted by: nn | Dec 4, 2012 2:27:07 AM

  24. I am fine with surrogacy; to claim that poor women are being exploited when they serve as surrogates robs these women of their moral agency, reducing them to animals at which point any ethical claims are rendered moot. If they do have agency, then the argument against surrogacy collapses: it is not the place of the government to legislate what a woman can or cannot do with her body.

    Posted by: Endo | Dec 4, 2012 2:37:17 AM

  25. Stop moral policing. Women know what is good for them. We are not going to be ruled by a moral standard set by those forefathers who could not care less about us. We are here for the coming generations and would want them to make their choices on their will and not some early-man standards. I live in India and lemme tell you, women here become surrogates for more reasons than one, it's not always economic reasons but also a way to serve, help others and be close to God.

    There's no need to nag so much about surrogacy unless and until it's forced. In fact, I believe that even prostitution shouldn't be looked down if it's not forced. Having said that, it's true that a lot of the times it's because of the economic pressure that women get into prostitution or stuffs like that but then, it gives you no right to say how one should use their body. They have a free will and they could decide for themselves. Even after that, if ppl are still so much interested and concerned about a woman's chastity and sexual life then please go and make a change, help a cause to educate and make such women financially strong but if not then take your hypocritical moral standards up your a$$ and leave us on our own, we can always take care of ourselves.

    P.S.: Someone, here down the line said about legality and illegality of selling organs. I would like him to suggest a search engine called, Google. Please educate yourself about the varying notions of legality and illegality, all around the globe, in this respect.

    Posted by: Jyotsana | Dec 4, 2012 3:11:27 AM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «2012 in Movies, a Supercut: VIDEO« «