Fampo, 25.05.2026
The released Epstein files show that Norway’s Crown Princess Mette-Marit had much more contact with the convicted sex offender than admitted before. In this article on the webiste of TV2, one of Norway’s largest TV channels, one can read that Mette-Marit sent an e-mail to Epstein in 2011. In the mail, she wrote: “Googled you. I agree that it does not look good”.
If one googled Epstein at that time, one could find tabloid articles about the british Prince Andrew and his contact with Epstein, and the young women who were flewn in to party with him in Nondon. This was a top news story in Daily Mail in 2011, at that time the world’s largest newspapers, half a year before Mette-Marit wrote to Epstein that she had googled him. Andrew has claimed that he cut the contact with Epstein after 2010, more than a year after Mette-Marit sent the message with the smiley face to Epstein.
TV2 asked the Royal Palace what Mette-Marit googled and what she knew when she learned to know Epstein. The Royal Palace answered this:
“- During the period the Crown Princess had contact with Epstein, she was not acquainted with the extent of, and the character of, the criminal offences he had admitted and been sentenced for. communications director Guri Varpe says.”
Her message that she googled him, in 2011, conflicts with her earlier statements that she were unware of Epstein’s crimes. In 2019, she said whe was sorry that she had not checked Epstein’s background closer, and that she would never had anything to do with Epstein if she were aware of the graveness of his criminal acts.
The article also mentions that the released documents show that Mette-Marit had contakt with Epstein until at least 2014. One example is that Mette-Marit visited Epstein and lived for four days at his home in Palm Beach, Florida.
In this aticle at the website Steigan.no on 01.02.2026, editor Pål Steigan points out that it was possible already in 2019 to see that the official explanation by Mette-Marit was not reliable. The article republishes Steigan.no’s commentary fram 2019 explains how this shows that mainstream media failed to expose that the official explanation was not reliable.
In 2019, Steigan pointed at the fact that there in 2011 was a Wikipedia article mentioning Epstein’s crimes. In the article one finds the following. “«By 2011 at least 40 girls aged 13 to 17 had come forward with similar stories, some saying Epstein sexually assaulted them during the massage.” and «In June, 2008, after pleading to a single state charge of soliciting prostitution, Epstein began serving an 18 month sentence. Following his release he will be required to register as a sex offender“.
A person in Mette-Marit’s position also has an experienced staff which prepares her meetings. And when there are several meetings with a person, they conduct a background check. Steigan also points out that the extent of the contact between Mette Marit and Epstein mekes him a priority contact. This was written already in 2019.
This article in Norway’s governmental TV channel comments on some of the contact between Mette-Marit and Epstein. Among other things, she gave him advice on how to find a wife.
On 21.03.2026, Steigan.no published a commentary by Kjetil Tveit on the interview the Norwegian state channel NRK did with Mette-Marit.
Regarding how Mette-Marit learned to know Epstein, she replies:
“- Epstein was a close friend and a good friend of mine. So I was introduced to him through common acquaintances – through several, really. And they all worked in the field of global health and organisation.”
Tveit remarks the following:
“From the sentences we can read the following:
- It is the matter of a broad circle of friends of the Crown Princess working with global health
- “Through several, really,” implies that it is standard in these circles to be close to Jeffrey Epstein.
What does this say about global health?
Well, if wou work within global health, your contact network overlap a criminal blackmail and finance network.
Read the article “Når global helse blir business” [when global health becomes business} (2022 in Aftenposten innsikt.
Then you will understand that the UN (and thereby WHO) signed an agreement of intentions with the rich man’s club WEF in 2019, concerning among other things common health. President Børge Brende signed on behalf of WEF.
In the article, it is explained that this has led to for example food and clean water no longer being impoerant for the WHO, while (patented) vaccines became first priority.
This should be intuitively understandable to everyone: When the rich man’s club WEF gradually takes over the role of the UN/WHO, it is not public health that is at the center. Then it is business.
In 2022, VG reported that the world’s ten richest people had earned more during the corona pandemic than in the last 14 years combined.
These people are not playing business.
The Epstein files reveal that when Jeffrey Epstein wrote to Børge Brende (who has also been Foreign Minister of Norway) that the WEF should take over the role of the UN, Brende replied that he agreed with it.
The Epstein sphere (which of course lives on even though Epstein is dead) has turned public health into financial instruments that can be invested in.
The emails revealed how Epstein collaborated with JPMorgan to make the pandemic an investment object, and that IPI and Terje Rød Larsen were also involved in this. They also planned pandemic simulations as early as 2015.
In today’s Crown Princess’s interview, it is stated, among other things, that she was a special envoy for an AIDS program.
So were Bill and Hillary Clinton. The Clinton Foundation was established with great help from Jeffrey Epstein in the initial phase.
The same applies to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Epstein worked for the Gates Foundation for six years.
So if you thought royals travel around and do good deeds, it is more accurate to say that they travel around and make global health a business at the expense of those in need.
Then I miss four questions from today’s interview that I think NRK could have asked:
Klaus Schwab of the WEF has stated that he has “penetrated the world’s cabinets” with the help of Young Global Leaders who sit in royal houses, governments and who have even become prime ministers in several countries.
A few years ago, the Crown Prince posted a video in which he explained that he was a YGL (as was the Crown Princess), and that they were working to “restructure the world”.
Does the Crown Princess think that her background as a YGL and “WEF envoy” or “cabinet penetrator” makes her fit to be queen, or does she think that this conflicts with loyalty to the fatherland?
What does the Crown Princess think about the democratic principle that power should not be inherited, that royals should therefore not exercise political influence/power, but that the Crown Prince Couple should still “restructure the world” in the direction of the WEF’s wishes? Isn’t this taking sides in a politically sensitive issue?
What does the Crown Princess think about her restructuring the world together with Børge Brende, now that we know that he also had close ties to Epstein, and that the two of them together obviously wanted to do this by phasing out the UN?
What does the Crown Princess think about the fact that she, as YGL, is part of a corporatist network that “penetrates the cabinets”, challenges the role of the elected public and can thus help to phase out democracy?”
This article in iNyheter also comments on the NRK interview with Mette-Marit.
It is referred that according to the newspaper DN, the Crown Princess says in the interview that she was manipulated and double-crossed, but several questions are left unanswered – especially regarding what she actually knew, and why she continued her contact with Epstein. The most explosive formulation – that she had witnessed extortion – is only cited in text, and not in what is presented as “the whole interview” on video.
The Royal palace does not want to elaborate on what the Crown Princess aim at. The communications chief says to DN that she has not got anything more to add than what is already said.
NRK denies that anything is left out on purpose. The topic editor explains to DN that two answers were given to the same question, and that one was chosen for TV, as it functiones better visually. The rest is, according to NRK, about “coordination”. But as iNyheter asks – when such a serious staement survives in text only and not in what the viewers actually see, an obvious question remains: What else are the viewers not presented?
Fampo 