She did her duty to the very end. She was a pioneer in anything as far as I can tell, but she also complained about not having been given much education when she was raised. Thus in many ways she was also not given the tools to fundamentally understand and challenge the system she was part of.

It is something I notice different in the Norwegian Monarchy compared to the British. Here there is more emphasis on skills and education. The Royals are much more involved in work for the government. They are expected to be more knowledgable in a range of subjects. In Britain the focus seems to be more on ribbon cutting and charity.

Of course that isn't entirely the fault of the royal family. Their role will be affected by what expectations society places upon them. It may have ended up different in Norway because we are a smaller and less important country than the UK. Hence using the Royals as leverage in international meetings and negotiations is of much greater benefit.

Britain also has much longer and deeper traditions for its monarchy and aristocracy. Norway has no aristocrachy and has a young monarchy that was elected by the people. They have thus felt a stronger urge to earn their keep and be seen as doing something for the people. Here the Royal family is much more like permanent employees of the government.