During World War II the Germans tried to undermine the Norwegian royal house by proving that Queen Maud was Crown Prince Olav's adoptive mother. On the morning of September 21, 1944, a member of Quisling's NS party, Knut Knutson Fiane was liquidated in downtown Oslo's Majorstuen. Two men escaped with his briefcase.

"Fiane probably had been in Denmark collecting material about King Haakon and Queen Maud. Even before the dissolution of the union (with Sweden) in 1905 there had been rumors in high society in Copenhagen that Queen Maud was not Crown Prince Olav's mother, just his adoptive mother," historian Svein Blindheim, and former head of Milorg's liquidation group in Oslo, told newspaper Dagbladet three years ago. Blindheim was nearby when Fiane was assassinated.

In occupied Denmark German officers had collected information that would give the impression that Olav was in reality the son of Queen Maud's sister Victoria and a British officer. The latest speculation about the origins of King Olav in Tor Bomann-Larsen's book "Folket" raises the possibility that Olav was either the son of royal physician Sir Francis Laking, or even the result of artificial insemination, with Laking's son Guy Francis as a possible donor.

Olav was born to Queen Maud after her marriage with King Haakon had been childless for six years. Professor Thomas Åbyholm, head of the women's clinic at the Rikshospitalet University Hospital in Oslo confirmed that artificial insemination was technically possible in the early 1900s.

"I don't think it was very common but it could be done. It was done the same way it is today. It is usually a very simple procedure, one places sperm in the bottom of the uterus," Åbyholm said.
Åbyholm refused to comment on the ongoing speculation about the paternity of the late King Olav.

The sensational news that Norway's beloved King Olav V may not have been the son of King Haakon might fascinate, but it does virtually nothing to change the country's view of the monarchy. Nine out of ten surveyed said the news, if true, had no impact on their opinion of the current monarchy.

Olav, then crown prince, in 1929. In this photograph he bears a striking resemblance to the son of Sir Francis Laking, personal physician to Queen Maud. PHOTO: ARKIVFOTO/SCANPIX

The Opinion poll carried out for Aftenposten on Thursday evening had trouble finding people swayed by the possibilities raised by respected historian Tor Bomann-Larsen that King Olav may have been the son of the royal family's physician.

Only five percent had a more negative view of the monarchy in this case, while three percent said the news gave them a more positive outlook on the monarchy.

Norwegians favoring the dissolution of the monarchy, a 21 percent minority, had more skeptics about the royals, but even here only 13 percent felt more negative after learning about the doubts of the royal bloodline.

"It is not crucial to clarify the question of whether King Haakon was King Olav's father or not - neither historically, constitutionally nor legally," said Professor Trond Nordby at the University of Oslo.

Historian and journalism professor Guri Hjeltnes agreed.

"Exciting, yes, sensational - but King Olav will not be lessened. His position will remain unchanged with the Norwegian people, and even if in our time we like to know everything about everyone, I don't think it is by any means crucial if we clarify paternity now," Hjeltnes said.

And the mystery can likely be clarified - if the royals have any interest in doing so.

"One can analyze DNA samples if one has the right family constellation," said bioengineer Margurethe Stenersen at the Medico-legal Institute.

Stenersen said that King Harald or Crown Prince Haakon would have to give a sample that could be compared to the male descendants of King Haakon's brother.

Stenersen said the blocks of genes in the male Y-chromosome are passed down through several generations, and paternity could be established with great certainty even after many years.

Doubts over who really fathered Norway's late King Olav could have changed the course of history had they been publicly raised back in 1905. Instead, the circumstances of Olav's birth were shrouded in secrecy and the public appears to have been deliberately misled.

Questions continue to swirl about Norway's first royal family. This photo was taken after they arrived in the country in 1905. PHOTO: SCANPIX Prince Carl's arrival in Norway as King Haakon, with little Crown Prince Olav on his arm, might never have happened. PHOTO: NRK ARKIVFOTO/SCANPIX

As Norway gears for its centennial celebrations as a sovereign nation next year, largely linked to the re-establishment of the monarchy in 1905, Norwegians themselves appear to be in deep denial. As reported last week, an overwhelming majority say it doesn't matter who actually fathered King Olav, and that it doesn't change their largely positive views on the monarchy.

But it likely would have mattered very much at the time, if questions had been raised over whether Olav really was the biological son of Prince Carl of Denmark, who became King Haakon VII of Norway after a national referendum. "Our history would have been different," historian Øyvind Sørensen told newspaper Aftenposten over the weekend.

That's because it's entirely possible that Prince Carl of Denmark wouldn't have been chosen to be Norway's first modern monarch, as King Haakon VII, when the country emerged as a sovereign nation in 1905. Norwegians keen on re-establishing a monarchy might have needed to look elsewhere, but options were limited.

Rumors already were reportedly swirling at the time that Prince Carl, whose marriage to Princess Maud of England had remained childless for nearly seven years, was gay. A new book that's carefully examined the marriage and birth of Maud's son suggests that's not so, and that indeed the couple was very much attached to one another.

While the rumours of homosexuality are dismissed by author Tor Bormann-Larsen, he found old medical records suggesting that Prince Carl had contracted a sexually transmitted disease during a particularly "debauched" naval tour to the West Indies. The disease could have left him sterile, explaining why he and Princess Maud were childless for so many years.

Knowledge of that alone could have ruled out Prince Carl's candidacy for the new Norwegian throne, say some contemporary historians. Bomann-Larsen's hypothesis that the little boy eventually delivered by Maud was an early result of artificial insemination also may have made him less attractive as a candidate.

Bomann-Larsen raises the possibility that Princess Maud was injected with sperm from the son of her British doctor, or the doctor himself, on the belief that having a child would improve her poor health. Her documented stay at an exclusive London hospital in the fall of 1902, during which Prince Carl was nowhere in the vicinity, was kept under wraps by the British royal palace, which even blatantly lied about her whereabouts.

Not blue blood
The early form of artifical insemination would have made Maud's son biologically mostly British, and not a full product of royal blood, but at the time that didn't seem to matter. Until the Norwegians came calling a year or so later, neither Carl nor Maud were seen as being in a position to take over a throne, so there was no huge pressure to produce a royal heir.

Among the things that made Prince Carl and Princess Maud attractive as candidates to be King and Queen of Norway was not only the fact that they had an heir, but Prince Carl's position in the Danish royal family. While Maud's position in the British royal family was a political advantage, it was also important that Norway's future king had Scandinavian blood. Earlier history books have said Carl was chosen in part because his lineage could be traced to the old Viking kings.

It was expected that lineage would apply to his son as well, but that's now in question, even though Maud herself had a Danish princess for a mother who had married the heir to the British throne. It's possible that the direct blood ties between the Norwegian and Danish royal families are not as strong as long believed.