#royal horn

[theancientwayoflife]

~ The Norwegian Royal Horn (drinking horn).

Date: 14th century

Place of origin: Skalholt Cathedral

[glassshine]

I don't like Icewings cause they all look the same to me so I drew some

[florencechase]

can we just talk about how august is one of the most well-written antagonist characters in modern media? he’s done some unforgivable things but you still see him as human. he’s not just an evil person to make the storyline more interesting, he’s so much more complex than that. from a writer’s perspective i absolutely love his character and his storyline so much. also props to malte gårdinger for playing him so well. wow. just. wow.

[bigalockwood]

What’s even better about Augusts fate is that Wille didn’t give him the title out of spite, as a final fuck you of some sorts. No. He’s forgiven August as much as he can. He thinks he’s doing him a favor.

[jay-wasstuff]

Oh my fucking god.

[lesbiamano]

more very normal art of them

[illustratus]

Duke Ernest the Iron rescues Cymburgis of Masovia by Franz Josef Dobiaschofsky

[jadenvargen]

det är august augusti hörni

[echo-and-dust]

from dawning realization to absolute fear in his eyes.. (props to malte he is such a good actor)

something something you made your bed now you gotta lie in it

[ryllen]

Doodle i didn't know exactly where to direct it to

[bluedalahorse]

There’s been some good S3 August content today and it inspired me to make a meme.

[sflow-er]

About the settlement in YR S3

A discussion with @scatteredpiecesofme a while back inspired me to look more closely into the settlement between August, Wilhelm and Simon. I already dabbled in criminal justice meta after S2, but I didn't account for a settlement back then, so it's time to update my info!

Posting this, I know it's a topic people have strong feelings about. If you choose to read below the cut, please keep in mind that it's not meant to be a moral judgment. It's an attempt to review the case as presented in the show and interpret it through what I've learned about law and procedure in real Sweden.

TL;DR: The offences being settled are defamation and unlawful breach of privacy. The settlement of 1.2 million kronor is dozens of times higher than what Simon could realistically expect from court.

Sources: Swedish Criminal Code (EN-SV), Code of Judicial Procedure (SV), preparatory documents for relevant laws (this and this), reference collection on kränkningsersättning, cases available online or in the media (e.g. this and this on dagensjuridik.se), legal blogs, articles and legal advice websites (e.g. lawline.se, Domarbloggen), discussion on treasonable offences (SvD column, expert exchange, motion to parliament, this and this tabloid article), guidelines/advice for prosecutors (e.g. on defamation, day-fines).

Disclaimer: I'm just a layperson and not even Swedish myself, so it's entirely possible I missed something! Respectful discussion and corrections are very welcome!

.

The facts of the case against August

Quick recap

August committed criminal offences by filming and posting the video.

Sara reported August to the police.

August, Wille, Simon and their legal counsels and parents negotiated a settlement at the royal palace with Jan-Olof presiding.

JO said they wanted to avoid a trial. Rickard claimed the evidence and testimonies would not be enough to secure a conviction, and the video was not likely to be considered explicit.

Simon's counsel said Wille's legal team had already decided not to pursue the matter in court.

They settled for 1.2 million kronor, presumably per plaintiff.

The offences on the table

“Spreading that kind of video could be considered gross defamation, gross unlawful breach of privacy, and possibly a CP offence. The penal value is prison, in any case.”

It's pretty clear August also committed intrusive photography, but that overlaps with unlawful breach of privacy, so that might be why it wasn't mentioned. Here's a complete list:

- intrusive photography (kränkande fotografering, covertly photographing or filming someone in a private space) - unlawful breach of privacy (olaga integritetsintrång, disseminating sensitive images in a way that's liable to result in serious harm) - defamation (förtal, disseminating information that identifies someone as a criminal or their way of life as reprehensible, or is otherwise liable to expose them to contempt) - treasonable offences (högmålsbrott, a clause that, among other things, makes some crimes more severe when committed against a member of the Royal House) -CP (I'm not writing this out so the post doesn't get caught in filters)

Unlawful breach of privacy was also mentioned by Rosh back in S2. It's a fairly new offence that entered into force in 2018, and very few cases lead to a conviction (only 27 out of the total 1,876 in 2021). Even when a perpetrator is identified, it's hard to prove it was them (and no one else) using the device. Proving an intent of serious harm isn't easy either, but the court usually considers whether the defendant should have known that was liable to occur.

The main angle in the show was defamation, which doesn't need to be untrue in Sweden. It's all about exposing someone to contempt - and if the defamatory statement is also liable to result in serious harm, it becomes gross defamation. This is why Rickard, who already called gross defamation in S2, argues in S3 that outing someone no longer counts as exposing them to contempt (he's refuting that it was defamation at all).

Another way off the hook would be to show that 1) the statement was true and 2) the defendant was “obliged to make it” or it was “otherwise justifiable to provide information about the matter.”

The treasonable offences clause is a bit of a legal minefield. It allows the public prosecutor to demand harsher punishments for some crimes when they are committed against members of the Royal House, but it also creates questions of whether the royals are even able to bring these types of charges the normal way. It clearly didn't come into play in YR, but I'll return to it in the conclusion.

A CP offence was also mentioned in S2 by Rosh and Rickard. Rosh reckoned it was a sure thing and could land August in prison, but Rickard only listed it as a possibility. He said the penal value was prison “in any case” because gross unlawful breach of privacy is always punishable by prison (more about the penal values in my now-obsolete post).

Still, this was dramatic exaggeration by the writers. August is 18, and persons under 21 could not be imprisoned unless there were very heavy grounds for it back in 2020/2021. Even the stricter law from 2022 mainly applies to violent and gang-related offences.

By the old law and practice, any sentence given to an 18-yo would be reduced to 50% of an adult's sentence, and August is also a first-time offender. If convicted, he'd be looking at some combination of fines, youth community service, and/or a suspended sentence.

That's another silly thing about the Alexander ploy in S2, although not as silly as Alexander forgetting he had already been caught with the drugs.

So that's the potential crimes listed. We'll get to the crimes that were actually being settled in a little bit.

Relevant facts about procedure

To understand how they got from Sara's police report to the settlement scene, it's useful to look at some intricacies of the Swedish justice system that may differ from other countries.

The right to press and pursue charges

By Swedish law, most crimes are subject to public prosecution by the state. The police are legally obligated to start what is known as a “preliminary” investigation when a crime is reported, and the prosecutor is legally obligated to consider charges and pursue them. Regardless of what the victim/plaintiff wants.

There are two notable exceptions. Charges for målsägandebrott (“plaintiff offences”) can only be brought by the plaintiff, and angivelsebrott (“offences subject to report”) must be reported for prosecution by the plaintiff. If an angivelsebrott is reported by someone else, the plaintiff decides if they want the case to go ahead.

These are also the only types of crimes where the plaintiff is able to withdraw the charges. If they do, neither they nor the public prosecutor can ever bring the same matter again.

In the YR case, defamation is målsägandebrott, the privacy offences are angivelsebrott, and CP is always subject to public prosecution.

It's also possible for angivelsebrott to be publicly prosecuted when public interest calls for it (e.g. gross unlawful breach of privacy is often considered serious enough to meet this bar). The same goes for målsägandebrott under certain circumstances, e.g. when the victim of defamation is under 18. Public prosecution also applies if there are multiple offences and one of the other offences is subject to it.

If charges are raised by public prosecution, the injured party becomes unable to withdraw them (the state becomes the plaintiff in their stead).

Concurrent offences and protective interests

When someone commits more than one offence by a single action, these are assessed for brottskonkurrens (concurrence of offences).

In some cases, the offence with the harshest punishments 'consumes' the others so they no longer count. For example, gross unlawful breach of privacy is always punishable by prison, so it often consumes defamation and even gross defamation.

In other cases, all the offences count 'in concurrence'. One example is when the laws that were broken had different skyddsinteressen (protective interests). In the YR case, intrusive photography and unlawful breach of privacy have the same protective interest: both crimes infringe on the right to privacy and personal integrity. Defamation infringes on a person's honour and reputation, which is a different interest. Hence, unlawful breach of privacy of normal severity is often pursued and punished in concurrence with defamation (normal or gross), but less often with intrusive photography.

As for CP, Swedish law classifies it as an offence against the public order (not as a sex crime, although it can overlap with sex crimes such as using minors for sexual posing). The protective interest is twofold: the individual child's right to personal integrity, and the right of children at large to be safe from CP. So there is some overlap with the privacy offences, but it's also an offence that falls within a completely different area of law.

Note that the sentence is not given as the sum total of the concurrent offences! It's the sentence for the most severe offence, with increases for the concurrent offences (as determined by the judge).

Settlement vs. mediation

JO tells us the parties are doing förlikning (settlement) to avoid the matter going to trial. This is different from medling (mediation).

Settlement primarily applies to disputes, but it can also be a private, out-of-court resolution for some offences. In my understanding, these would be målsägandebrott or angivelsebrott, as the plaintiff agrees not to pursue the matter in exchange for compensation. The settlement also prevents public prosecution even if it is determined later on that the conditions for that are met.

Mediation is a process where a neutral party authorised by the court (not JO) brings the victim and perpetrator of a crime together. It can also be used for family law disputes, but this is less relevant for us. The parties can agree on compensation, but the main objective is just to discuss and process the matter. The perpetrator must admit their guilt in order for mediation to go ahead.

Mediation is separate from the court process, but the defendant's willingness to enter it and a favourable outcome may be taken into account. The prosecutor may bring less severe charges or even offer åtalsunderlåtelse (no-prosecution deal), whereby the offence goes on the guilty person's criminal record but they avoid trial and punishment. If a trial does happen, the judge may be more lenient.

How this all relates to the settlement scene in YR

Based on the above, the settlement in 3.01 must be for defamation, and very likely also unlawful breach of privacy. Intrusive photography is also possible, although the characters never mention it.

Defamation is målsägandebrott and privacy offences are angivelsebrott. Hence, the matter can be settled out of court.

It's hard to say if any of the offences could be gross, despite what Rickard said back in S2. The breach of privacy probably isn't, since it hasn't consumed the defamation or been publicly prosecuted. The defamation could certainly be (this would align with legal precedent for spreading sex tapes), but I think this type of gross defamation of the Crown Prince and another minor should already meet the threshold for public interest.

We don't know exactly when the settlement scene is set, or how long has passed between seasons. Offences involving minor parties must be investigated without delay, but it is possible that the prosecutor is still considering whether to claim public interest. If the settlement is finalised before public charges can be brought for these particular offences, that will no longer be possible.

The opposite is true for the potential CP offence. In my understanding, being able to settle out of court means that must already be off the table.

The police will have been legally obligated to open a preliminary investigation when they received a report about a legal (young) adult having filmed two minors in a sexual situation. Simon and Wille will have been notified of the privacy offences and defamation, and asked if they wanted the investigation to go ahead (since they didn't make the report themselves). But a CP offence is different. It's the kind of crime that must have been investigated even if the victims said they didn't want to press charges or refused to cooperate.

Based on the preliminary investigation, the prosecutor will have considered charges. August's age and development gap to Wille and Simon and the explicitness of the video will have been assessed. His defamatory (not sexual) intent and the other offences could have factored in as well.

I'm not going to guess any further at the reasoning, but no charges were brought. CP is subject to public prosecution, and that also applies to any concurring offences. The settlement wouldn't be possible if it was still in the mix.

Instead, they could be having court-authorised mediation with a neutral party, but only if August already admitted his guilt. (This was actually the part that confused me the most when I first watched the show and wasn't aware of the difference between the processes.)

Anyway. Now that we know what was being settled, I also want to look at the level of compensation.

Compensation compared to court sanctions

The settlement was for 1.2 million kronor. Presumably per plaintiff, as that was the number Simon's counsel gave him. Both he and Rickard described it as generous.

So how does the sum actually compare to what the court might have awarded Simon or handed down as a punishment to August?

Fines

If convicted in court, August could be sentenced to dagsböter (day-fines). The sum ranges from 50 to 1,000 kronor per day, and the minimum number of fines is 30. The maximum is 150, or 200 for multiple offences.

In this case, there are indeed multiple offences (two or three depending on whether intrusive photography still counts), so the absolute maximum is 200,000.

Now for some speculation!

A day-fine is the person's annual income divided by a thousand, adjusted for net wealth and debt. August is a cash-poor student with no job. He must get a bit of income from the estate and possibly some other investments, but if he can't afford to pay Simon back for the drugs and alcohol, it can't be much.

So, the base sum will be low. It gets raised by 50 kronor for every 500,000 of net wealth over 1.5 million, but then there's also a reduction for significant debts. If August truly has to sell his estate to free up 2.4 million, it can't be valued very high and/or he must be in serious debt. His day-fine will land in the hundreds, but I doubt it reaches 1,000.

It's hard to say how many day-fines he would get, but I don't think it would be anywhere close to 200. In examples found online, 40 seems pretty common for each of these crimes at normal severity. In one case, a man convicted of unlawful breach of privacy and gross defamation got a suspended sentence + 80 day-fines, which changed to 100 day-fines for just gross defamation on appeal.

Although the parties in these cases are all adults, while August is in the young offenders bracket. For example, he might get those 80 day-fines but no suspended sentence, or he might get something else entirely. Compare with a case where an 18-yo boy (17 at the time of the crime) spread a film of his friend having sex with a woman: he was convicted of both intrusive photography and unlawful breach of privacy but only sentenced to 35 hours of youth community service.

However, the boy did have to pay compensation.

Compensation payable to the victim

An injured party is often entitled to apply for compensation. In these types of crimes, it's called kränkningsersättning (compensation for infringement/suffering), and there is no cap on it.

However, there are some relevant sample cases online.

The boy in our previous example had to pay 25,000 to the woman.

A person who spread a sexual film showing a 14-yo girl was convicted of gross defamation and had to pay 25,000.

A man who secretly filmed an 8 to 12-yo girl in the bathroom was convicted of a CP offence and had to pay 25,000. The reference collection of cases says it's worth noting this happened before intrusive photography was criminalised as its own offence.

A woman who filmed a 16-yo boy having sex with his girlfriend and posted the video online was convicted of unlawful breach of privacy and gross defamation and had to pay 30,000.

A man who spread sexual photos of his ex to her friends and employer was convicted of gross defamation and had to pay 50,000.

A man who uploaded films of his ex on an adult site was convicted of gross unlawful breach of privacy and had to pay 60,000. In a very similar case before the privacy offences were criminalised, a man was convicted of gross defamation and had to pay 70,000.

The settlement sum of 1.2 million is 17 to 20 times higher than the highest examples. It's also 40 times higher than the example of the 16-yo boy and his girlfriend, which I think is a remotely similar case (although the place of filming was less private and the dissemination was less broad and damaging than in YR). On August's side, the 2.4 million is many times higher than the day-fines plus compensation, even if we don't know the exact numbers.

So that gives us some idea of the level of compensation and monetary punishment that Simon and August could realistically expect, but those aren't the only factors Simon might consider.

Conclusion: a trial could get very complicated

As mentioned above, Wille's legal team had already decided they would not be going to court. It's unsure if that could have even been done in the normal way.

Some legal experts believe the treasonable offences clause prevents members of the Royal House from bringing normal charges at all if they are victims of målsägandebrott or angivelsebrott, because they are considered a stately institution. Others think it should be possible if they just waive their right to treasonable offences, but the royals have never tried.

Instead, the public prosecutor may ask the government to authorise a treasonable offences charge. In theory, the government could say yes even if the victim themself said no, but that's extremely unlikely (for example, when a teen threw a cake in the real king's face in 2001, it was considered the king's decision). The prosecutor who handled the matter in YR could have already asked and been denied, or they could have decided against it if they knew Wille would object.

If Wille had decided to try and bring normal charges, his legal standing would have become a hot topic. If treasonable offences had been charged, the charges would have been public. Either way, the case would have gained a lot of media attention.

Wille being one of the plaintiffs could have also lead to a more stringent punishment for August. Especially for treasonable offences; the real cake-thrower was sentenced to 100 day-fines for harassment, which is a big sentence for a 16-yo (an adult could've got up to four years in prison). Even if they were normal charges, Wille was the one August intended to harm, which would have made the crimes all the more severe.

The level of compensation could have been higher too...at least for Wille. It's frankly beyond my comprehension as a layperson whether his and Simon's cases could have even been tried together due to their wildly different circumstances.

Simon is like any other person in the legal system. If the case did go to trial and August was convicted, he would receive compensation in line with the above. August would also have to pay his legal fees, as well as the potential fines.

It's hard to say how good the chances of a conviction were. Rickard was just defending August when he said identifying someone as gay was no longer considered defamatory, but that is true for Swedish society at large. However, it can still be defamatory if you out someone to people who can be expected to react with contempt (e.g. a religious group). For both defamation and privacy offences, it should also matter how widely the information was disseminated and how bad the consequences were (although you won't be rewarded for causing less harm than expected/intended).

We never actually heard if Rickard had a defence in mind for Simon's particular circumstances. On the one hand, Simon was already out, and he wasn't the target of August's harmful intent. On the other hand, surely August should have known he was liable to suffer serious harm by association. Their lawyers could argue these and other standpoints, and it could get complicated, especially if Wille couldn't be involved after settling.

For argument's sake... Let's say Rickard was right about the evidence and testimony not being enough, and Simon lost the trial.

He would have to pay both his and August's legal feels. Those are probably covered by the Erikssons' home insurance, but there will be a deductible of about 20%, and a cap of two, three hundred thousand. I assume this would normally be enough, but going up against “one of Sweden's best criminal lawyers” could still be a daunting prospect. Rickard might be representing his stepson for free at this early stage, but if the case went to trial and he was very confident they could win, that might change.

And leaving the financial stuff aside, Simon says he just wants the whole thing to be over. He doesn't want to have to rehash it all in court against August and Rickard, and although it's Wille's side who complain about the media storm, that isn't fun for Simon either. On the contrary, he's the one who's been targeted for hate and scrutiny.

The proceedings would likely be held behind closed doors since Simon is a minor, but an anonymised version of the court decision would still be public. At any point, word could get out about the case, which would quickly be connected to Wille because they were on the video together, and the media would be all over Simon again.

All that considered... Settling out of court for a comfortable sum of money he can use to move on with his life might not be the path of “maximum justice” for Simon, but it is a very understandable choice.

[thatsmybook]

Though Young Royals is primarily about imperfect teenagers, it is also about imperfect parents. It's about generational trauma and the breaking of those cycles to choose the life they want to lead. "We can't choose what lives we are born into," says Boris "but we can choose how to live our lives".

All five of the lead characters' parents have impactful stories. Micke is my favourite for how he tells Sara, (paraphrasing) "You may have inherited my diagnosis, but you are not me (so you won't end up making my mistakes)."

Whereas the Queen, Poppe, and Smysan want Wille and Felice to be just like them. Felice breaks from being who her mum wants her to be in season one. She then breaks from what her dad expects her to do (conform to the white environment and work ten times as hard to be as good) by being honest about the school he loves and stopping the conforming cycle.

August's dad was a drug addict and took his own life. There's a hope in season 3 that August has become aware of his own mental health struggles and has started to open up to a therapist. We don't see him take any drugs as coping mechanisms is season 3. Maybe he will break the cycle and overcome the trauma of his dad's death.

Simon accepts his imperfect parents. He gives his mum grace for putting up with their troubles with their dad. He wants to have a relationship with his dad and goes to him for help even though he is wary of him. But, he doesn't drink or take drugs at all, probably because his dad did. He 'deals with' and protects his sister in areas where his mum is not able to. He gives them all second chances. He accepts their failings but doesn't duplicate them in his own life. He chooses differently in his own life.

Wille's struggle is probably the hardest of them all because, as Sara says in Season 1, "Isn't that the point of the Royal Family? That they do not change." The RF's cycle of generational trauma is so rigid and long standing. There is no blueprint for what Wille is trying to do to break the cycle. Choosing not to be like his mum and his brother is monumental and unprecedented. As Simon said in season 1, "You are brave".

Some of the time in YR, we as an audience defend the teenagers for their mistakes because of their age. But the reality is, that even the adults make mistakes. Because they're human.

[bigalockwood]

What I also love about the ending is that Wille escapes the cycle but the others haven’t. The Queen finally admits to how terrible the system has been for her. We see August grow apprehensive of the title he’s inherited. But unless he breaks out of it, it’ll continue forever. They all keep making the same mistakes for the sake of tradition. They insist on the importance of tradition and are miserable because of it. They perpetuate suffering. Wille grows and changes, questions tradition and the system upheld by it. And as a result he’s happy and free.

[young-royals-confessions]

August is a terrible person but he treated Sara better and was a better boyfriend to her than Wilhelm ever was to Simon.

[malinthebodyguard]

Young Royals is anti-monarchist propaganda (always has been) 

I think it’s fair to say that most of the fandom was quite happy with the finale. However, I’ve seen a handful of posts by people who were unhappy, specifically  those who were unhappy with Wille giving up his place in the line of succession. These criticisms range in everything from dismissing Wille’s choice (Wilhelm has made a harsh decision without thinking of the consequences, this won’t actually make the media circus around him go away), to those disappointed in how the monarchy in general was represented (Wille could have modernized the institution, no one in the show attempted to consider how the monarchy could be good, actually). I don’t want to invalidate anyone’s feelings about the finale. If you didn't like it, that’s more than ok and I don’t want to argue with anyone about their taste. 

But when it comes to criticism about Wilhelm giving up the throne,  I do find myself frustrated at what I see as a fundamental misunderstanding of what this show was trying to communicate. Young Royals, plain and simple, is a story that  denounces the incompatibility of antiquated and hierarchical institutions (Hillerska, the monarchy) with equality and justice. 

If you’ve had the displeasure of being my fandom friend you’ll know that I’ve spent the last 3 years yelling about how this show is about abolishing the monarchy. I even wrote a lengthy  fanfic with the sole excuse of having Wilhelm arrive at this conclusion. Still, I knew that whatever statement the show wanted to arrive at, we’d only really be getting to it at the end of the show. 

Seasons one and two were setting up all the characters on the chessboard for the end: Wilhelm is the Crown Prince, although he does not want to be. He and Simon are in love, but Wilhelm’s role drives a wedge between them. Erik’s legacy and August's spot next in line are keeping Wilhelm in his place.

 From episode one, I think the show was telling us about the many things that are wrong with the monarchy, but I don’t think it’s until season three that these discussions become more explicit. Is this why some people were disappointed by the ending? Maybe so. Still, I wanted to look at how season three in particular answers some of the questions or issues  people are bringing up regarding both the monarchy and the Wilhelm’s choice. 

What do you like about the monarchy? 

Season 3 Episode 4 is the first time we hear an explicit discussion about why the monarchy could potentially be a good institution. I’ve seen some people complain that the show didn’t give this idea enough thought. 

I completely disagree with this take: the short conversation Wille and Simon have in this episode  is succinct, but still effective at presenting both arguments in this debate. A  longer and more drawn out conversation would have been a bit unrealistic and probably boring to watch. These are not academics having a debate, but two teenagers who are talking about what for them is emotionally charged.

There’s also no need for a longer, more detailed discussion. Wilhelm does provide a very good answer to the question: The monarchy is there to unite the people. To be a neutral party in situations when the government cannot or will not interfere. 

A quick civics lesson: In parliamentary democracies, the monarch serves as the Head of State. 

This role is predominantly representative, although in many places the government is formed in the name of the monarch. This could, theoretically, grant them some political power-- since they could technically reject the winning party from forming a government. However, in most parliamentary monarchies, the King or Queen simply has to accept whatever decision is made based on election results.

However, the value of the Head of State is precisely in its apolitical nature. Regardless of who’s in power, the head of state is a neutral ambassador of the nation, both in and outside of their country. Their job is diplomatic and representative, and one that is thoroughly divorced from politics. This is what Wilhelm meant when he said that the monarchy was there to ‘unite the people’. Whenever I’ve spoken to pro-monarchy folks about their beliefs, they cite this as the reason why they like it. 

It’s easy to see why Wilhlem would latch on this as his main argument to defend the institution. I don’t think there is anything inherently bad about having a separate head of state that represents the country. I don’t think the major grip with this issue is the having a head of state, but the fact that the head of state is a hereditary position. Simon says this himself twice in this episode: the issue is not that the head of state exists, but that the head of state is not an elected position. Furthemore, the head of state is a role that is imposed on a person not by their talent as a public speaker or negotiator, but by a simple accident of birth. 

The job’s legitimacy or importance should not be above any individual’s right to autonomy and self-determination. Furthermore, considering that taxpayers are the ones who finance this position, shouldn’t they be able to elect who it is? 

Let’s imagine a scenario where a friend tells you they’ve gone into a career because everyone in their family works in that industry, and they simply had no choice in the matter. It wouldn’t even matter if they were good or bad, they had a job in this career guaranteed from birth. 

 Would you not be concerned that maybe your friend is unhappy for a rather unnecessary reason? Would you not think that perhaps someone who actually wanted the job would be better suited for it? Would you think it right for a company to hire someone simply because of their family history? Would you consider any of this fair? And what is so special about monarchy that makes us have a different answer for it than we would if the question was about law or medicine? 

You’ll always be famous. 

Another common criticism I’ve seen is that Wilhelm will inevitably regret his decision, especially once he realizes that public scrutiny will not be going away. This is true, Wilhelm will likely always  be a figure of public interest. But to me, this has always been a negative consequence of the monarchy, and I have a hard time seeing this is a valid reason why he should stay in it. 

From the second we meet him, we know Wilhelm is uncomfortable with both the public attention and the scrutiny placed on him. However, this goes a bit further than that. I’d argue than more than the  scrutiny itself,  Wilhelm is weighed down by having to keep a public image. Because, remember folks, Wilhelm is not merely an awkward teenage boy with acne and a crush. No, no, Wilhelm is the State. Wilhelm is going to be a publicly-funded representative of the nation . This means, of course, that there’s a narrative, as he mentions himsef, that needs to be put forward. One that’s generic, serious, and unproblematic: 

From the get go, Wilhelm is uncomfortable with the inauthentic and performative aspect of his role.This is a constant we see with Wilhelm in seasons one and two: every ‘performance’ he has to do fills him with nausea, anxiety, or some sort of discomfort.

In season three, Wilhelm begins acquiescing to this performance. Uncomfortable as he may be, for most of season 3 he’s accepted that this is his role. However, the attention this season shifts from Wilhelm to Simon, who’s now the one facing public scrutiny. The difference is that, unlike Wille, there’s no role for Simon to play. Nothing about who he is or what he believes is compatible with the public image the monarchy is putting forward. The only thing he can do in this situation is disappear, and Wilhelm is tasked with having to ask that of him. 

I know a lot of people were exasperated at Simon’s very bad and clumsy social media presence. I’m not gonna argue that my boy wasn’t being a bit cringey, because he absolutely was. But I think the larger commentary here has more to do with the expectation that these two teenagers have to censor and edit themselves to comply with a particular PR image. 

Ultimately, the criticism that Wilhelm will always be famous leads us straight back to the institution. Why does an underage boy have the same PR expectations as a politician? Why is a teenager dating his classmate + being cringe online justification for doxxing him? Unfortunately, no abdication is really going to undo any of this, and things are certainly going to be crazy once Wilhelm announces he’s stepping down .

However, this time around both he and Simon will at least have the agency to decide what they want to do with their public image, including the decision to disappear from the public completely if that’s what they want.

Queer representation 

This a sentiment that has been in the fandom for some time now. This was the main argument why some people wanted Wille to stay in the monarchy. Sure, the institution has always been about bloodlines and tradition. But wouldn’t it be so nice to have Wilhelm as a symbol for the queer community? I’ve always found this idea a bit shallow. I’m not sure how much of a symbol of a queer and progressive country Wilhelm could be, when the whole idea is predicated on absolutely no one having a choice in the matter. Is it really impressive to accept the queerness of the guy you already had no choice in accepting?  

There’s three scenes in season 3 where the potential Wilhelm -and by extension Simon-  could have for the queer community come up.  Farima brings it up in the first episode, but the framing here is reversed. Wilhelm isn’t serving the LGBTQ community by being a queer Prince, but the monarchy is using Wilhelm (and his queerness) to appear progressive.

The show, however, does humor this idea with the May 1st photo. We see what Simon and Wilhelm could potentially do for the community by simply existing as who they are: they’re inspirational. It gives Simon, briefly, hope that maybe something good could come out of this. 

But this moment is quite literally framed by politics. It doesn't matter that Simon is not participating in that manifestation, anything that is slightly connected with politics is a challenge to neutrality of the monarchy. This same idea is stated more explicitly int the next episode, when Wilhelm is reviewing the options for his charity.

Ultimately, any action significant enough to be truly impactful, would be bordering the limits of what could be considered political. He's got to stick it out with these quite frankly boring and limited themes, all for the sake of staying on the very narrow lane of things that are not political.

The weight of the crown. 

Stories about Kings and Queens usually carry the same fundamental tension of duty vs self. 

In order to rule, our protagonist has to sacrifice themselves, usually for the sake of their country and people. The Crown is an excellent example of this type of story. Sacrifice in that series is framed as something noble and selfless. 

Young Royals started out with this same fundamental tension, but the main difference is that Young Royals has framed this debate as a question: 

Why should Wilhelm give himself up, his happiness, the love of his life, and  his mental well-being? What’s so important and valuable about this institution that requires this sacrifice?

Wilhelm’s journey is about accepting and voicing his answer. He doesn’t want to be Crown Prince, he doesn’t want to be King. 

But by virtue of taking part of this journey with him, we’re able to examine this question from a different perspective: Is this institution valuable enough to justify all of this? I think the show is inviting all of us to evaluate this situation and arrive at the conclusion that it isn’t.

Even someone like August, who wanted this, is weighed down by the realization of just how much the crown weighs. Of course, a big part of the fandom probably doesn’t live in countries with parliamentary monarchies. Still, considering the worldwide popularity of the British Royals, for example, I still think it’s a worthwhile exercise to question the validity of these institutions. Are they really worth sustaining? And if they’re not, why should we continue to drag them on into the present, citing tradition?