The Banned Cover of 'El Jueves' Magazine and Related Issues: July 2007

[lula]

De la Vega also has said

Interstitial - Noticia

" This is not incompatible with the fact that the freedom of expression coexists with other fundamental rights: the honor, the intimacy and the dignity of the persons "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several data that to add to the subject.

- Today they have commented that the magazine had reduced its sales in the last months. That is to say, that is than evident more, than what they did, they made it to create controversy and does business.

- De la Vega must save the face of a government who assumes progressive.

- The Public prosecutor of the State like the judge Del Olmo, has been in the middle of political controversial in the last months. The Public prosecutor, has been accused by the political opposition to be too soft with ETA to help the plans of the government. The judge Del Olmo, was the one in charge to judge 11M until they obtained that he left the case. The press and the politicians have seen in this problem an option to continue their “war”. None is objective.

 

[Duncan]

Just one remark, dignity or human rights in general are not at issue here. The judge has acted under the articles of the Penal Code that refer to slander against the Crown, not under the ones that defend regular citizens' dignity.

Therefore, he has taken this decision not because the dignity of two Spanish citizens has been attacked, but because those two citizens belong to the royal family. So maybe we should not discuss as much about the right of every person to be defended by a measure like this, since this measure has only been taken because the characters concerned are relatives of the king.

It's interesting to see the positions of the political parties:

In favor of the ban: the governing center-left party PSOE and the conservative Catalan nationalist party Unió.

Against the ban: the conservative party PP, the leftist party Izquierda Unida, the center-right Catalan nationalist party Convergencia, and the leftist republican Catalan party ERC. I don't know about the remaining parties.

As you can see, not everybody approves of the action taken by the judge.

 

[lula]

Duncan, the PP is in against, because it is in opposition to the government and of the district attorney. When the logical thing, for its ideology, would be to be to favor. Like the PSOE is moderate in its ideas because they are they who govern. How it is habitual in the Spanish politicians they change it is convenient for them.

I do not agree in that this one is not a debate on the rights of the persons. The Wreath is an institution that represents all the Spanish, and the persons who form a part of it are persons with the same rights that all the Spanish. The Spanish Royal House never denounces anybody, because they do not want polemics, because they do not want that one accuses them of concealing things or to censure. And the list of assaults is long to their dignity and intimacy, which they include even attack minors. They never take private measurements because they are conscious that also they are the representatives of a country. What cannot be either is that they as representatives of the State and as private persons, they are defenseless before these assaults.

The certain thing is that the District attorney has resorted in few occasions to this crime of the penal code ... it is in use in exceptional occasions, where already the limit is exceeded. If to the Princes, since individual persons had done a denunciation there had been created the same scandal (I do not want to remember the scandal that create the press when the Royal House denied with a letter to a newspaper that the Princess was sick).

Only there are two options, that the press is kept inside a few limits, and that like that no district attorney with boring day denounces them. Or that agree, that the members of the Royal Family are persons who have the same rights that all the citizens... and that the press for defending itself does not tackle a campaign against them.

I do not believe that to the spanish press , liked that the Spanish Royal House was taking the measurements of other Royal Houses, where the denunciations to the press are more than habitual.

 

[Duncan]

Yes, lula, I agree Mr Acebes' (PP) statement against the banning came as a surprise. I would expect his party to remain silent. Nevertheless, almost all the newspapers and electronic media from all political stances have condemned the banning.

Here is a striking paragraph from an article (Estrella Digital*23/07/2007*-*OPINIÓN:*De jueves a domingo) in which the author claims that prime minister Zapatero ordered the banning in order to damage the princes' reputation:

We are afraid that the one who violated freedom of expression was not El Jueves but the public prosecutor Conde-Pumpido obeying orders from Zapatero, the official censor of the kingdom. The aim was not to defend the royal family or the Princes de Asturias, but to raise an angry campaign against them, because that cover, which was going to be seen by only thousands of readers, now has already been seen by millions and has gone around the world through the Internet[…]. And people still saying that it was Letizia the one who was enraged when she saw the El Jueves cover in the TV programme "Tomato" of Telecinco and started the row! […]
By the way, concerning the cartoon I will highlight just an idea: what kind of work does the Prince de Asturias do, besides protocol tasks? It is not known; then again he certainly should do some work. As we have said several times, the Prince should work every day, like all the Spaniards, in a concrete function, in the Foreign Ministry, the Cervantes Institute, the Prado Museum, some embassy, a company, or the Army with a real command role. Because attending burials, baptisms, weddings, presidencies of honor, inaugurations of presidents and other cheesy duties does not amount to work. And therefore, what should happen finally happens, as it happened just now.

I would like to raise a question for the forum. What do you think, does the artist Guillermo deserve a sentence of two years in jail, as he could get under the Penal Code?

 

[lula]

I would like to raise a question for the forum. What do you think, does the artist Guillermo deserve a sentence of two years in jail, as he could get under the Penal Code?

The theory of the Zapatero's conspiracy is exagerate ... but it does not stop being true that there is anything strange. The list of ambushes, specially to the Princess, is long, authentic barbarities have been said. Also barbarities on the Infanta Leonor, who is a baby. Why did they act now and not before?
A polemic district attorney, a polemic judge, a polemic measure... A measure against the Princes, against the district attorney, against the judge, revenge of the government for the jokes of the magazine ... the list of suppositions is long. But if that everything is a bit strange.

The District attorney has passed but he will not come to so much. Once begun the process, the functioning of the justice must continue forward ... the opposite, it would be also a scandal. Probably, or they end up by acquitting them or they they will put a minimal sentence that could be exchanged by a fine or something similar.

It is not necessary to forget that in the last years, only has been condemned once for this crime. The reprobate was Otegui, for saying that the King was " the chief of the torturers " ... and it was condemned only to 1 year of prison ... and it that Otegui whenever he opens the mouth is in the limit of committing a crime.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I would like to raise a question for the forum. What do you think, does the artist Guillermo deserve a sentence of two years in jail, as he could get under the Penal Code?

Rubbish. Will make it even worse. A fine for the mag, if at all, should do.

 

[crisiñaki]

The funniest part of all is that banning the magazine, they gave it even more publicity, it was sold out and now people is paying a lot of bucks for it on EBay

The ban only caused the magazine to go worldwide, if there has not been so much fuss about it, then it would have stayed in Spain

Way to go, Judge del Olmo, way to go

 

[*SofiaM*]

I would like to raise a question for the forum. What do you think, does the artist Guillermo deserve a sentence of two years in jail, as he could get under the Penal Code?

A two year jail sentence? I don't think that's the right way to go. Like I said before, we've seen cases where people commit extremely serious crimes and don't recieve lenghty enough (if any!) time is prison.
At the end of the day, the magazine did break the law (whether we think it's a stupid law or not), so I do think they should recieve a fine. That's all that is needed IMO.

 

[crisiñaki]

This week's cover:

http://www.eljueves.es/revista/imagenes/portadas/1574.png



Way to go El Jueves!

 

[Ennyllorac]

I fully believe in freedom of the press. But it is a totally tasteless caricature, I would say that no matter who it is of. It's disgusting.

 

[donnaK]

Well, the whole thing is supposed to be / hides behind satire and that's the way his answer should be looked at. He's not scared but continues with what he does the whole day, ridiculing people. Why should he be scared? The ban makes it an even bigger success for the mag and I doubt there will be a limit for the future. They might not do something like that every week but in gerenal the whole thing won't turn this kind of press into deep thinkers who'll reflect on what might hurt the princes before they publish something. And if the courts have to decide again, so what?

I didn't mean he was scared about the ban, but any further actions such as jail or hefty fine did scare him a bit, otherwise no reason to lie. There is nothing in the drawing resembles Tom and Katie, people are not blind.

 

[donnaK]

I would like to raise a question for the forum. What do you think, does the artist Guillermo deserve a sentence of two years in jail, as he could get under the Penal Code?

I don't think Guillermo deserves a sentence of 2 years in jail, but the magazine deserves a hefty fine. It was the magazine who decided to publish his drawing. Any person violates the Penal Code could be imprisoned for 6 months to 2 years, but it doesn't mean he must be, all depends on the judge.

 

[MarvelousMarta]

Just one remark, dignity or human rights in general are not at issue here. The judge has acted under the articles of the Penal Code that refer to slander against the Crown, not under the ones that defend regular citizens' dignity.

Therefore, he has taken this decision not because the dignity of two Spanish citizens has been attacked, but because those two citizens belong to the royal family.

If the Judges ruling was based on "slander against the Crown" then I totally agree with the ban. It had nothing to do with banning public speech. If it's an actual "crime" or a form of lawlessness to slander the Crown then the magazine should be reprimanded. However, personally I feel that magazine was in poor taste. L & F really didn't deserve that. They are high profile individuals who act in a very respectfull manner. How far do we allow this public speech to go? What if it depicted a Queen or King, Pope, Dalai Lama etc.?

They have so many Hiltons, Lohans, Simpsons, Princess Stephanies to provide all the satirical material they need. I think it would be a proper commentary on society if they left the "good ones" out of such trash.

 

[MarvelousMarta]

I just found a picture of the item in question. Wowzer that is horrible. I thought it was a little picture in the magazine but it's a full blown cover. That is just awful. Yes, it should have been removed. What if their children were older and saw such a magazine, heck, they probably will sometime down the road. Tastless, tacky, and totally inapropriate.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

This week's cover:

http://www.eljueves.es/revista/imagenes/portadas/1574.png



Way to go El Jueves!

What a follow up cover They know how to react, that's for sure

 

[Duncan]

L & F really didn't deserve that. They are high profile individuals who act in a very respectfull manner. How far do we allow this public speech to go? What if it depicted a Queen or King, Pope, Dalai Lama etc.?

If the queen or king are from a foreign country, the penalty is less severe. For example, one can freely criticize Morocco's monarchy. It's only the king of Spain and his relatives who are covered by Article 490(3) of the Penal Code:

Anyone who slanders or insults the King or any of his ancestors or descendants, the Queen consort or the spouse of the Queen, the Regent or some member of the Regency, or the Crown Prince, in the exercise of their duties or on the basis or occasion of these duties, will be punished with a prison sentence of six months to two years if the slander or calumny are serious, and with a fine of six to twelve months if they are not serious.
El que calumniare o injuriare al Rey o a cualquiera de sus ascendientes o descendientes, a la Reina consorte o al consorte de la Reina, al Regente o a algún miembro de la Regencia, o al Príncipe heredero de la Corona, en el ejercicio de sus funciones o con motivo u ocasión de éstas, será castigado con la pena de prisión de seis meses a dos años si la calumnia o injuria fueran graves, y con la de multa de seis a doce meses si no lo son. (Ley Orgánica 10/1995, de 23 de noviembre, del Código Penal.)

​

As for showing the lookalikes of "high profile individuals who act in a very respectfull manner" having intercourse, there are countless examples in the Spanish media and nothing ever happens. I can imagine the huge scandal it would be if a certain programme was banned from public TV for showing the highest-ranking officials in bed:

The love life of Zapatero (in Spanish):
YouTube - Una historia de amor (remix) ~ Polònia

How do Spanish politicians make love? (in Catalan and Spanish, rated R in YouTube, even though it was shown in prime-time public TV):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADA6TiPI7Z8

 

[Verde Esmeralda]

This week's cover of El Jueves, plus an article about its rectification, published in the argentinian newspaper Clarín:

España: la revista que satirizó a los príncipes se "rectifica"

 

[MarvelousMarta]

If the queen or king are from a foreign country, the penalty is less severe. For example, one can freely criticize Morocco's monarchy. It's only the king of Spain and his relatives who are covered by Article 490(3) of the Penal Code:

Anyone who slanders or insults the King or any of his ancestors or descendants, the Queen consort or the spouse of the Queen, the Regent or some member of the Regency, or the Crown Prince, in the exercise of their duties or on the basis or occasion of these duties, will be punished with a prison sentence of six months to two years if the slander or calumny are serious, and with a fine of six to twelve months if they are not serious.
El que calumniare o injuriare al Rey o a cualquiera de sus ascendientes o descendientes, a la Reina consorte o al consorte de la Reina, al Regente o a algún miembro de la Regencia, o al Príncipe heredero de la Corona, en el ejercicio de sus funciones o con motivo u ocasión de éstas, será castigado con la pena de prisión de seis meses a dos años si la calumnia o injuria fueran graves, y con la de multa de seis a doce meses si no lo son. (Ley Orgánica 10/1995, de 23 de noviembre, del Código Penal.)


​

As for showing the lookalikes of "high profile individuals who act in a very respectfull manner" having intercourse, there are countless examples in the Spanish media and nothing ever happens. I can imagine the huge scandal it would be if a certain programme was banned from public TV for showing the highest-ranking officials in bed:

The love life of Zapatero (in Spanish):
YouTube - Una historia de amor (remix) ~ Polònia

How do Spanish politicians make love? (in Catalan and Spanish, rated R in YouTube, even though it was shown in prime-time public TV):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADA6TiPI7Z8

Yes, I see what you mean. However, there is this form of satire which is so over the top with the actors, and the overacting it actually proves amusing. I feel that you can separate the actor from the person they are portraying. I think if they did a funny of L & F in this manner I wouldnt take that much offence. But the picture of the two of them naked, and to put it bluntly, Letizia being taken doggie style by Felipe, is downright pornographic. It's just a cartoon, but still, the nakedness and the position for all to see is just so degrading to them.

I hear ebay has banned sellers from selling the magazine.

 

[RaniaRocks]

If the cartoon would of being about Jesus and Ma. Magdalena or the same God for that matter, about the Pope, about the politicians we elected, as we have seing in the past (the same El Jueves have done a huge amount of satirical cartoons about all those public figures), nothing would of being happened, nothing, niente, finito, zero, nada, and that's sad and that's why people are so mad about the whole situation, we have seing all kind of cartoons, sexual ones too and nothing has happened in the past, that's the kind of society in where we live, where two persons are "more equal" than the rest, of course you can have Aznar and Zapatero, people that we elected, on sexual explicit cartoons and no Judge will dare to send the police to the stands to kidnap the magazine ever or even maybe close the webpage but oh, "is just Zapatero, is just Aznar, is just God", this is a complete shame and non-sense, as we say is Spain "O todos moros o todos cristianos".

When it comes to the Monarchy, in this case Felipe and Letizia, some "smart" people have decided to make a circus out of it that has had the opposite of what they expected because now not only the spaniards who used to buy the magazine knows about the cartoon but the whole Spain knows about it, but wait, not only Spain but the rest of the world, those people are the best marketing the magazine could ever have. The same standard most be applied to every person and not only to the royals in a country where everything is critizised because last time I checked Franco wasn't there anymore and we had a democracy but whith "selective freedom of speech" and "non touchable people" we are in a big problem as a country and as a democracy and maybe the people will start questioning, as I'm, certain laws and inmunities, certain chapters of the Constitution that only some selected people can enjoy and even more, questioning the Monarchy, if a Judge don't get crazy when he sees a sexual cartoon about Aznar and wife or Zapatero and wife, or Jesus or God in sexual postures then is a great deal of hypocrisy to go nuts for two and only two people, for more princes they could be, because rights comes with duties and being public figures comes not only with a high life style but with burdens too, period. If somebody in the RH felt unconfortable the right way is to place a demand in a court and wait for a Judge to rule not for a Judge to send the policeman to kidnap the publication and probably close the webpage. Unfortunately that's the hypocrite society in where we live in, in where some sexual cartoons are funny as hell and the same Judge will laugh high and clear just because the Princes are not the protagonists but God a Prime Minister or any celebrity for that matter, in those cases "is funny" and "legal" but o course some people are "more equals" than others.

 

[planetcher]

If somebody in the RH felt unconfortable the right way is to place a demand in a court and wait for a Judge to rule not for a Jude to send the policeman to kidnap the publication and probably close the webpage. Unfortunately that's the hypocrite society in where we live, in where some people are "more equals" than others.

I know we have a language barrier here as English is your second language, but are you saying that the Royal House demanded to ban the magazine? I believe many people in Spain right now and maybe even you (just maybe) are not aware that the order came from the State judge and not from the Royal House or the government. Unfortunately that's the idea that many people have. The RH had nothing to do with the banning of the magazine at all. They didn't demand the judge to "kidnap" the publication; he was basically acting upon what was on the Penal Code. There have been a lot of negative cartoons, polemics, books about the members of the Royal family and that includes Letizia and Leonor all this time, so if they wanted to use that power on what was written on the Penal Code then they would've done it long time ago during the height of the polemics on Letizia's supposed anorexia, having her tubes tied, abortions, and of course Leonor's illness, which were even worse than this cartoon IMO.

On the other hand, I believe that banning it was a bit too much. Also, the only member of the SRF who benefits from that Penal Code is the King because he is "untouchable". I can just imagine what would've been written or said or drawn about him if he were not.

 

[RaniaRocks]

No, what I'd try to say is that if the RH, as the harmed ones, feel the need to go to court let be it, as in other Monarchies or even as you and me as a juridic person, because they have rights as juridic persons as well outside the royal paraphernalia, that's understandable but what nobody understand, for many good reasons, is that a Judge ordered to kidnap the magazine from the kiosks and even try to close the page, it sounds like a one-way-justice where the other part doesn't count, is like fighting with a leon and with their arms tied. A lot of people will understand better if the implicated person or institution take an action or lawsuit as plaintiff and a court decide what is to be done, a fine, a month without publication against the magazine or even nolle pro in favor of El Jueves, whatever the outcome may be I assure you that's more democratic and more century XXI.

 

[lula]

If it is certain that for a long time a judge has not been retiring a magazine, but not long ago if images of television or articles have retired. And they have been by denunciations of private people.

The Spanish press separates with difficulty the public and the private thing when it is related to the Royal Family, I do not have any doubt who if instead of the Public prosecutor, the denunciation puts a member of the Royal Family as private person… the result would be the same, or worse. It is not necessary to forget, that a newspaper that assumes serious, created a great controversy and said that they attacked its freedom of expression, when from the Royal House, sent a letter to the director to denying a information.

They do it with the Royal Family and they do it with private personages… is very difficult that the press assumes that has been mistaken, on the contrary, before they create the great controversy and they are taken hold to the “freedom of expression”.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Apart from the law, the King is too much respected to be ridiculed in such an indecent manner, so they do it with the Princes and get away with it. Where will this kind of behaviour lead to? F & L will have a serious problem in the future if they don't find a way of preventing this kind of behaviour towards them, a total lack of respect by parts of the media. It might not be the "serious" press but nevertheless the yellow press etc do have an impact of the opinion making of the public and no country wants a laughing stock as future King

 

[lula]

The certain thing is that if they have a serious problem. But I do not believe that question combines only of respect.

With the King they do not dare, because he is the Chief of the State, there are critiques but these always are more parties. With the Prince they dare a bit more, but you do not create either that great. With whom they do not put limits it is with Letizia, because at this moment it is the great business.

And the certain thing is that the press respects neither anything nor to anybody, ahead the business is. The attitude of the press, in general, respect to everything it has changed very much in the last years. But the Royal House continues doing the things like them it was doing before .... and it is clear that it already does not work ... also there is clear that most benefited is the King, who continues being protected from this history. The King is the one who gives the orders, and whom more protects the press, while it continues being like that the things are not going to change. The attitude of the Royal House before the rumors and the lies on the Princess, has been excessively benevolent. And what for my is more worrying ... at this moment the Royal Household has two babies who are " the golden mine " of the press, and those that the press so as to do negotiates does not seem to be very ready to respect. Or the King takes some type of measure, or is going to be partly a person in charge of destroying the infancy of his granddaughters.

 

[mtbcm]

Apart from the law, the King is too much respected to be ridiculed in such an indecent manner, so they do it with the Princes and get away with it.

No one, royal or not, should be ridiculed the way El Jueves did.

I wouldn't like to see my most hated neighbour pictured like that, so it is normal that (some) people who thinks the same, thought in saying "That is Enough!"

And I'm sure that many who laugh around with seeing Letizia and Felipe pictured like that wouldn't like to see their favorite royals in the same "position" (I know doesn't sound good, attending ) but the fact is that it is as simple as that - no one in his perfect mind likes to see - charicatures or not - people being ridiculed that way).

And there are other member of Spanish Royal Family that would profit much more in that position doesn't look THAT funny now, does it?!

Regards,
mtbcm


P.S. - And I agree with lula, or the good sense and parcimony prevails in the media or the King will have to take measures...

 

[Redferns]

Apart from the law, the King is too much respected

are you sure?

SLANDERING THE KING GETS MAN A YEAR IN JAIL

Basque convicted for king insult

A Basque radical has been sentenced to a year in prison for saying the King of Spain was "in charge of torturers".


Arnaldo Otegi, spokesman for the banned Basque nationalist party Batasuna, was charged with slandering King Juan Carlos during a 2003 news conference.
The Supreme Court's decision overturns a ruling by the Basque Superior Tribunal, which cleared Otegi in March on grounds of freedom of expression.
Batasuna was banned for allegedly being part of the Basque militant group Eta.
Appeal
The slander charges related to a visit to the Basque region by the King of Spain in 2003.
Otegi told a news conference that the King was "chief of the Spanish army, that's to say, the person responsible for the torturers, who favour torture and impose his monarchic regime on our people through torture and violence".
Otegi later said that he had not intended to slander the king, and his criticism was directed at those who commit torture and not him personally, El Mundo newspaper reports. Otegi faces an appeal at the Supreme Court later this month against a 15-month conviction for defending terrorism. He has previously spent four years in jail for kidnapping.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Basque convicted for king insult

 

[Redferns]

Spanish soldiers convicted for king insult
Defensa confirma que cinco militares grabaron un vídeo en Ceuta con insultos al Rey y quemando su retrato - 20minutos.es

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

are you sure?

SLANDERING THE KING GETS MAN A YEAR IN JAIL

Basque convicted for king insult

A Basque radical has been sentenced to a year in prison for saying the King of Spain was "in charge of torturers".


Arnaldo Otegi, spokesman for the banned Basque nationalist party Batasuna, was charged with slandering King Juan Carlos during a 2003 news conference.
The Supreme Court's decision overturns a ruling by the Basque Superior Tribunal, which cleared Otegi in March on grounds of freedom of expression.
Batasuna was banned for allegedly being part of the Basque militant group Eta.
Appeal
The slander charges related to a visit to the Basque region by the King of Spain in 2003.
Otegi told a news conference that the King was "chief of the Spanish army, that's to say, the person responsible for the torturers, who favour torture and impose his monarchic regime on our people through torture and violence".
Otegi later said that he had not intended to slander the king, and his criticism was directed at those who commit torture and not him personally, El Mundo newspaper reports. Otegi faces an appeal at the Supreme Court later this month against a 15-month conviction for defending terrorism. He has previously spent four years in jail for kidnapping.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Basque convicted for king insult

Yes, I am sure that if the cartoon had been about JC and Sofia, the spanish public would have reacted differently. There would be a ban, of course, due to the law, but I think it would be much more supported by the public than it is now. I think people would distance themselves more and think it's tasteless than they do now due to the respect they have for the King. Besides, he's the Head of State, and not Felipe, therefore IMO he deserves a special protection, that's the case in any country, monarchy or republic.

As stated earlier, it has become fashionable or a business to bash the Princes, something that would never be done with the Kings, because they seem to have less protection and are an easy target, due to their place or standing in the current state of the monarchy.

Of course there will always be radicals, enemies of the state or the crown, who will express their views in an offensive manner. But I think that's different, more ideological and has to be prosecuted because it's against the monarchy / Head of State itself. IMO there is no similarity to this case, a personal offence hidden behind satire, because a radical (in this case even a criminal) doesn't have the purpose to discredit or ridicule a person in order to make money.

 

[lula]

Duke I believe that the sketcher never would have arrived so far with the Kings, and if he had done it it had happened the same. Or perhaps there was more unnoticed past because the Kings do not interest so much.

The press looks for the easy objective, and the objective that is to them profitable… and nowadays that objective is the Princess. The King is 70 years old, which does not have counted in 30 years,is not very interesting to count it now, nor to people interests it in excess. It is easier, to have like objective to the newness, the person who is new, that has still not been able to present… that in addition is the one that interests more. The Prince suffers “collateral damages” but they do not attack to him so directly. The princess has become a personage who serves for everything… only name her in articles that havelittle or null relation with her, so that people reads the article.

The subject of Otegui is a different case, is a political subject. Whenever Otegui opens the mouth a judge is kind in case he commits a crime.
How it is when the independentists republicans open the mouth. The attack to the Monarchy and the King, is a way to justify themselves politically and to gain votes.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Duke I believe that the sketcher never would have arrived so far with the Kings, and if he had done it it had happened the same. Or perhaps there was more unnoticed past because the Kings do not interest so much.

The King is 70 years old, which does not have counted in 30 years,is not very interesting to count it now, nor to people interests it in excess.

lula, because of the law the same had happended, I agree. Maybe people had seen it more as satire in the first place and not as a personal insult because they can't imagine the Kings still have sex so the issue had developed much less controversial.