This will be Harald V's funeral: from the Oslo Cathedral to the Akershus Royal Mausoleum

I do not have structured and specialized access to the regulations and institutional practices of Norway; my area of work is the institutions and procedures of the Spanish political system. Therefore, I cannot describe in a technical and authoritative manner the specific procedures that the Norwegian monarchy follows after the death of a monarch. However, I can, with due caution, explain the general framework of how these processes are usually articulated in a parliamentary constitutional monarchy, so you have an orientative reference and know what types of steps usually exist.

1. Principle of automatic succession

In modern constitutional monarchies, the basic rule is that succession is automatic: the heir becomes monarch at the very moment of the death or abdication of their predecessor. This idea is often expressed with phrases like “the king is dead, long live the king.” Legally:

• The head of State position does not remain vacant: it immediately passes to the heir established by the Constitution and succession laws.
• The death of the monarch triggers the start of a series of formal acts (proclamations, oaths, registrations, etc.), but these are for confirmation and solemnization, not for creating the right to reign.

2. Official communication and proclamation

After the death of the monarch, there is usually a basic sequence of institutional acts:

• Public announcement of the death by the Royal House or the Government, with an official statement and often a declaration of national mourning.
• Meeting of State authorities (Government, Presidency of Parliament, high military and civil officials) to formally recognize that, according to the law, the heir has already become the new monarch.
• Official proclamation of the new king or queen, usually through a solemn act where their name and title are made public and it is declared that they have acceded to the throne.

Legally, this proclamation acts as certification and publicity of a succession fact that has already fully occurred with the death of the previous monarch.

3. Oaths and constitutional commitments

Another very common element in parliamentary monarchies is the existence of one or more solemn oaths or promises by the new monarch before democratic institutions:

• The king or queen usually takes an oath of loyalty to the Constitution and the country's laws.
• Sometimes, they also swear to respect the independence of Parliament and guarantee the functioning of the democratic system.
• These acts may take place before one or several authorities: the Parliament in joint session, the president of the chamber, the Government, or a mixed body.

From an institutional point of view, this oath is the explicit link between the Crown and the current constitutional order, and it is considered a requirement for the full exercise of functions as head of State.

4. Administrative and protocol actions

In parallel with the solemn acts, numerous administrative procedures are carried out:

• Registration of the death of the monarch in the corresponding civil and State registries.
• Updating all official records where the head of State appears (legislative documents, orders, treaties, official seals, coats of arms, etc.).
• Issuance of new oath formulas and references for the administration, armed forces, and judiciary, now under the name of the new monarch.
• Official opening of the mourning period, with flags at half-mast and other symbols, which coexists with the preparation of the coronation or the main enthronement ceremony.

5. Coronation or enthronement ceremony

Finally, many monarchies contemplate a coronation or enthronement ceremony which, although it may have a strong religious or symbolic content, also has an institutional character:

• Official invitations are extended to representatives of Parliament, Government, other States, and international organizations.
• In some systems, during this ceremony the monarch reaffirms their commitment to the Constitution and citizens' rights.
• From then on, the succession is considered socially and politically fully consolidated.

In summary, in a parliamentary monarchy like Norway's, the key is that the succession to the throne is legally and automatically immediate, while the institutional procedures (proclamation, oaths, registrations, ceremonies) serve to formalize, publicize, and ritualize that succession within the constitutional framework. To know precisely the specific normative details of Norway (specific articles of its Constitution, succession laws, exact body before which the oath is taken, deadlines, etc.) it would be necessary to consult directly its constitutional texts and the most recent Norwegian parliamentary practice.

I do not have tools or databases to work rigorously on the Norwegian monarchy or on the “new King Haakon,” and my specialization is focused on the Spanish political and institutional system. Therefore, I cannot offer you a reliable and updated comparison between the constitutional powers of that monarch and those of his father.

My working framework revolves around:

• Spanish institutions: Crown, General Courts, Government, Constitutional Court, regional bodies, etc.
• Regulations and initiatives: laws, royal decree-laws, legislative projects and proposals, parliamentary regulations, and provisions of the various Spanish public administrations.
• Parliamentary and political activity: processing of initiatives, composition and functioning of chambers, debates, votes, and positioning of parties and political actors in Spain.

I can, if you find it useful, help you in a more comparative field but always taking the Spanish system as the axis. For example:

• Explain what constitutional functions the Crown has in Spain (according to the 1978 Constitution) and how they differ from those exercised by Juan Carlos I or Felipe VI, always within the Spanish framework.
• Generally analyze the figure of the parliamentary head of State (as occurs in many European monarchies), describing typical features: representative functions, arbitral or moderating role, sanctioning laws, power to dissolve Parliament at the Government's proposal, appointment of the prime minister, etc., and how this is articulated in Spain.
• Comment on how, in parliamentary monarchical systems, formal powers are usually very limited by the Constitution and the principle of political responsibility of the Government, so that the monarch almost always acts following the Executive's countersignature.

If you want to continue exploring the topic from a perspective I can address precisely, I propose several question options:

• That I explain in detail what the constitutional functions of the King of Spain are and to what extent they are symbolic, representative, or effectively decision-making.
• That we analyze the evolution of the political role of the Spanish Crown between Juan Carlos I and Felipe VI, based on the Constitution and political practice.
• That we see, with examples, how the King's powers are materialized in practice in Spain: sanctioning laws, calling elections, proposing a candidate for the Presidency of the Government, etc.

If you reformulate the question in a Spanish key (for example, comparing the powers of two Spanish kings or asking for a general explanation about the constitutional role of the Crown), I will be able to give you a detailed and well-founded answer.

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway (Grunnloven) practically does not go into details about monarchs' funerals. It regulates the figure of the King, succession, regency, and certain formal acts, but does not establish a specific “constitutional protocol” for royal funerals. State funerals for Norwegian sovereigns are organized based on customary practice, decisions of the Government, the Royal House, and the rules of the Church of Norway, rather than detailed mandates from the constitutional text.

1. What the Constitution does regulate: death of the King and succession

What the Constitution does address directly is the legal effect of the monarch's death and the transfer of power:

• Continuity of the Crown: upon the King's death, the Crown automatically passes to the heir designated by the succession rules (currently, absolute primogeniture within the Royal House). This principle of continuity is recognized at the constitutional level, although the text does not enter into rites or ceremonies.
• Oath and proclamation: the Constitution provides that the new King takes an oath before the Storting (Parliament) and that his accession to the throne is proclaimed. These ceremonies may be coordinated in time with the mourning period and the state funeral, but the Constitution only establishes the obligation of the oath and the relation with Parliament, not the funeral format.
• Regency and government: if the death or incapacity of the King raises situations of minority or vacancy, the Constitution regulates the figure of the regent and ensures the institutional continuity of the Government. Again, this has political and legal relevance, but not protocol relevance in a funerary sense.

2. What it DOES NOT regulate: rituals, liturgy, and symbolic protocol

On the other hand, there are a number of aspects that, in practice, form part of a state funeral for a Norwegian monarch and that are not constitutionalized:

• Religious rites: although the Constitution mentions the historical relationship between the State and the Church of Norway, it does not impose the liturgical structure of a royal funeral. The specific form of the religious service, prayers, readings, and clergy participation are decided according to ecclesiastical norms and practical agreements between the Royal House and the Church.
• Ceremony of the coffin, escorts, and parades: the use of funeral carriages, honor guards, military formations, gun salutes, or processions through the streets of Oslo is governed by the protocol rules of the Royal House, the Armed Forces, and the competent Ministry, not by constitutional precepts.
• Place of the ceremony and burial: the choice of cathedral, royal chapel, or mausoleum, as well as the burial regime of the royal family, is also not fixed in the constitutional text, but in historical decisions and administrative agreements.

3. Role of the Government and Parliament in the funeral

Although the Constitution is silent on funeral details, it does determine who holds political authority in that context:

• The Government declares official mourning, sets the use of flags at half-mast on public buildings, coordinates the participation of the Armed Forces, and manages the international dimension (invitation of foreign heads of State and Government, representatives of international organizations, etc.). These decisions are based on general norms and governmental prerogative, not on specific articles about funerals.
• The Storting participates in solemn acts, pays tribute in parliamentary session, and witnesses the proclamation and oath of the new monarch. Its role is supported by constitutional provisions related to the Crown and Parliament, but the specific forms (minutes of silence, speeches, official delegations) are based on parliamentary customs and internal decisions.

4. Legal nature of the royal protocol in Norway

In summary, the Norwegian regime combines:

• A very concise constitutional core (succession, oath, King–Parliament relationship).
• Subconstitutional law and regulations on flags, military honors, mourning days, and organization of state ceremonies, which the Government can adapt to each case.
• Custom and precedents of the Royal House and the Norwegian State, which provide stability and symbolic continuity to monarchs' funerals, without being detailed in the Constitution.

Therefore, from a strictly constitutional perspective, the “legal requirements and protocols” for Norwegian monarchs' funerals basically reduce to guaranteeing the continuity of power and the formal acts of succession. The rest of the ceremony is supported by ordinary norms, institutional practice, and tradition, rather than by express mandates of the Grunnloven.