Future of The Spanish Monarchy

[Sean.~]

Originally posted by A.C.C.@Jan 29th, 2004 - 11:19 pm
Maybe the Spanish press doesn't spend time creating stories about the Spanish royal family like British tabloids do about the British royals? Anyway, I just think that the Spanish monarchy will not be abolished anytime soon (my opinion).

I disagree. I think there is a very good possibility of it being abolished after Juan Carlos, particularly if Felipe does not assume his role with gusto. The monarchy is not a strong institution in Spain. It is Juan Carloism' that is strong. This isn't to say that the Spanish people hate the institution.

I think if Felipe had abdicated his rights in order to marry, that may indeed have jeopardized the future of the institution.

[sheeba]

QUOTE
I think we have reached intersting times with the increasing strength of the EU the US marching on unilaterally and the whole debate about what do we want from the EU as an institution how to make it more democratic equally applies to monarchy as well.


I don't really understand your statement. For the most part, the European monarchies are the strongest democracies in Europe, so I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Perhaps you can clarify.

God it looks like I missed all the fun last night. Sean the reason why European monarchies today are the strongest democracies is because after revolution upon revoulution their subjects demanded that of them with the exception of Spain where the King was extremely wise (hence his popularity) to go down the democratic route and you are right Spain could easily have become the Serbia of the Iberian Peninsula. The way I see it, it took England over 700 years from the signing of the Magna Carta to universal suffrage to have the sort of parliamentary democracy we have today with a constitutional monarch with limited powers. England did not get here because the monarchies wanted it, they had to be dragged into constitutional reform. How long did it take for the British Monarchy to pay taxes. So yes the strongest democracies in Europe are European monarchies but for me, its more of a testament to the will and strength of the people and nothing to do with the benevolence of the institution or the people in it. Spain might be the exception to this rule.

[Sean.~]

Sean the reason why European monarchies today are the strongest democracies is because after revolution upon revoulution their subjects demanded that of them with the exception of Spain where the King was extremely wise (hence his popularity) to go down the democratic route and you are right Spain could easily have become the Serbia of the Iberian Peninsula. Magna Carta to universal suffrage to have the sort of parliamentary democracy we have today with a constitutional monarch with limited powers. England did not get here because the monarchies wanted it, they had to be dragged into constitutional reform. How long did it take for the British Monarchy to pay taxes.

Lol. You're giving me a history lesson!?? Anyway, your comments have nothing to do with the EU, the future of monarchies, and the argument I put forward (and I would still like you to clarify your previous statement). Moreover, "revolution" after "revolution" does not negate the fact that they are the strongest democracies *today*. Nor does it negate the fact that they do play a role in their respective countries and that they may become even more entrenched with continued European integration. Also, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, and even Britain have not had "revolutions" in a very, very long time. Actually, Spain is the only one to have had a recent revolution.

So yes the strongest democracies in Europe are European monarchies but for me, its more of a testament to the will and strength of the people and nothing to do with the benevolence of the institution or the people in it.

Who said otherwise? That's the same with most institutions. Look at colonialism for instance. Social change takes collective action.

As I said before, I am not making a pro or anti monarchist argument. However, your statement does not negate the fact that the monarchies of Europe are the strongest democracies in Europe *today*. Nor does it have any bearing on my hypothesis that monarchies will become more popular with increased Europeanization. For the monarchies to have survivied this long they've had to have been doing something right (whether that includes 'giving in' is irrelavent). You're earlier statement of

EU the US marching on unilaterally and the whole debate about what do we want from the EU as an institution how to make it more democratic equally applies to monarchy as well

did not make sense to me and that is in the context in which I made my comment. Again, perhaps you would clarify your satement.

[sheeba]

QUOTE
EU the US marching on unilaterally and the whole debate about what do we want from the EU as an institution how to make it more democratic equally applies to monarchy as well

did not make sense to me and that is in the context in which I made my comment. Again, perhaps you would clarify your satement.

The monarchy by definition is an undemocratic institution - primogeniture, one family has privileges above everybody else. Democracies dictate that we are all equal. The same applies to the EU- the issue of democratic deficit and how to make the EU more transparent and accountable to European Citizens at the moment its a half way house because some nations want integration others want an InterGovernmental Union with accountability to the directly elected governments of the nation states. The French and Germans are currently arguing for an integrated European superstate to counter American Hegemony other nations think other wise for me this is mirrored in the current debates in the UK about the modernisation of the House of Windsor to fit the 21st Century. Pretty much modernise or die -what are the basic arguments put forward about the Eu in a globalised world you need to be united etc etc

So far as I'm concerned and I doubt if this applies to continetal European Royal family's but I am not getting value for money from the House of Windsor - why should we drag them into paying taxes, why should we force them to decommisioning the royal yatch britannia, what the hell am I doing paying for bunch of cousins in kensington Palace who do not perform any royal duties - the house of Windsor costs as much as seven european royal families put together!!! are they made of 50 carat gold, they are not doing anything different from their cousins in the continent so why on earth are they so expensive? Why is the civil list that long? If the House of Windsor wanted to strengthen the institution of monarchy in the UK they should be coming forward and saying we've chatted to our advisors we believe its best for the institution and the country as a whole if we paid taxes, cut the civil list etc etc. The image projected is one of you have to drag us kicking and screaming just to modernise and there will come a point where people will say you know what just go. I'll give you an example Charles came up with the idea of cutting the civil list (making it smaller) like what goes on in the continent apparently his papa disagreed with him and his little brother Andrew was upset that his daughters would no longer have the title of HRH and benefit from state hand outs. Really!!! Are they thinking about the future of monarchy or their own selfish reasons. another example remember when windsor castle burnt down the british subjects (and by the way the British are the only subjects in the world - we are not yet citizens!!!!!!) were told to pay for the reconstruction as windsor castle belonged to us. That was news for the entire nation, so far as we were concerned windsor castle belonged to the royal family and they had to pay for it. The average british SUBJECT does not know what belongs to the state or the HOUSE OF WINDSOR and even though we apparently own buckingham palace, Windsor palace etc we have to pay to go and view for something that already belongs to us and that we pay for through our taxes.

If we strip everything down devoid of personalities etc no one is doubting the resilience of the institution of monarchy. But what is the monarchy for - if we define the monarchy as say x fulfilling role y. its logical to assume these variables will change with the passage of time and if monarchy does not modernise with the winds of change they are pretty much letting in republicanism through the back door. If you look at all the republics of Europe whats the biggest lesson there from the French Revolution onwards you don't modernise your gone.

[Sean.~]

Sheba, thank you for the clarification and the interesting post. I agree with many of your conclusions (and have made the same points in many of the forums here and on other boards),but I also disagree with some of your points. I will post a detailed response next week, when I have more time.

Have a nice weekend everyone.

S

[Elspeth]

I think one big advantage of a monarchy is that it separates the state from politics. It's much harder for a Prime Minister in a monarchy to play the patriotism card than for a powerful President, because in the European monarchies the monarch is the national focus and it's understood that the Prime Minister is basically a party politician.

In the USA there's always been a tendency for an incumbent president to take advantage of his position as head of state to try and tie patriotism to his political party. Since the events of 11 September, George Bush has been utterly shameless about doing so and has tried (and succeeded to an alarming degree) to plant in people's minds the notion that voting for the other party would be tantamount to an act of treason and would emphatically not be the action of a properly patriotic American because Bush, and by extension the Republicans, embodies the state. if Tony Blair pulled a stunt like that, people would see it for the cynical piece of manipulation it was because Tony Blair is recognised as head of government and a party leader but not head of state.

I think people in Europe possibly have a clearer view of what's going on the USA than the Americans do, and while Bush is playing the patriotism-equals-a-vote-for-my-party card, he's going to turn Europeans away from the idea of replacing their monarchs with a system like that.

[Elspeth]

Sheeba, if it's any help to know this, the Civil List's been cut. The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh (and the Queen Mother until her death) are the only people covered. When other members of the Royal Family do public duties (including the Kensington Palace cousins the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent, but not the Michaels and I think possibly not the Duchess of Kent because of ill health), the Queen reimburses them. They're not on the Civil List any more.

[sheeba]

Dear Elsepth
Thanks for clarifying that but are you sure about the civil list. Because Andrew, Sophie, Edward et al are still on it. Prince Charles idea was the civil list catered for Ruler, consort and direct heirs (i.e. him and his sons) everybody else make your own way which for me, that would get my vote if Charles became King he could not implement such a change quicker, most of his ideas for modernising the monarchy have been practically flatly refused by his Parents and frankly I don't think they are giving him the merit he deserves. Yes he made a mistake with Diana, yes his households a bit of a mess but you should not hold that against him and I think because he has been so scarred by Diana he would make a good King. The Princes Trust does a good job. I just wish the British Monarchy could copy their continental cousins, I almost fell of my chair whilst reading about the Dutch Royal Family when Prince Constatin (I think thats his name) got married and he and his wife were moving to London because of his job because he is not on the Civil List and he has to make his way. I think they are back now and he is a consultant to the EU. Frankly lets admit it Sophie and Edward will not be able to live in Bagshot Park with their wages, Edwards business went bust and I don't know whats happening with Sophies business. They might have cut off extended family but immediate family are still there. Take Spain for example doesn't Infanta Cristina live in a flat what would the Spanish people think if the King did not pay for his daughters weddings and put them up in Lavish big homes and had to be forced by the Spanish people to pay taxes. I think Spain would be a republic. I believe theres a direct relation between the popularity of the monarchy, the way the media treats them and how much they depend on their subjects. Whats the first line of defence for every scurilous tabloid editor its in the public interest because we pay for you. The tabloid editors I believe will not get away with what they get away with in the UK in continental europe well certainly in Spain - or am I being naieve and too kind to the tabloid press in Europe. And besides we speak of the future of the Spanish Monarchy one phenomenon that past kings never had to deal with is the media and the internet. I don't know who owns the majority of the media in Spain but if Letizia has not gotten of on a good footing with them and Felipe thinks the good will shown to his father will somehow automatically trickle down to him, they've got their work cut out. In the UK Rupert Murdoch is anti Monarchy but only believes in the imperial succession of his sons to rule his empire (ironic to say the least) so the British Monarchy will always be on the defensive from now on. William will never present a single mother or divorced mother to the British Public oh boy and dare I say a mixed race girl or a catholic girl - the House of Windsor is way to damaged to cope with such a bomb and besides Rupert Murdoch would love it. And speaking of the internet - the media can bung on and on about how this poll showed people are pro letizia or there will be a republic if this happens, the nobility on Spain are against this and that etc etc you cannot tell in todays age,information is so diffused you can skew a poll to suit your political objectives and that makes the jobs of advisors in the Palace even more difficult. Do they have their fingers on the pulse of the nation and you get the feeling that they don't - look what happened over here with the jubilee celebrations expected to be a no show look what happened. No doubt there were pleasantly surprised. Imagine if the exact opposite happened in Spain with everybody saying everybody likes Letizia and the exact opposite happens. Always prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

[Elspeth]

Thanks for clarifying that but are you sure about the civil list. Because Andrew, Sophie, Edward et al are still on it.

The money granted to them via the Civil List is being repaid to the Treasury by the Queen. Her allowance from the Civil List didn't go up by that amount, so the reality is that the other members of the Royal Family (except for the Duke of Edinburgh)aren't being paid for by the Civil List.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page318.asp

[TODOI]

thanks everyone for replying to my original question, it makes for some very interesting reading

Sean and Sheeba your posts have been both informative and educational so once again thanks

[Meg]

[QUOTE]Indeed, without without Juan Carlos, Spain would be the Serbia of the Iberian Penninsula

I don´t agree with Sean King Juan Carlos has made a good diplomatic work. But the monarchy in Spain is merely representative, King has no real power. Spanish situation in Europe is due to Spanish real Governments. Juan Carlos is very popular in Spain, but Spanish people are juancarlistas not monarchist. Their loyalty is not unconditional, Felipe must be very cautious. We never cut our Kings heads as our French neighbours did, but we have exiled them twice.

[sheeba]

Meg - Although all European Monarchies at the moment are constitutional. I think the Spanish King has more powers than the British Monarch and the same goes for the Dutch Monarchy. Yes the King was a good diplomat, I made a point that King JC was the only reigning monarch to be voted as one of the most influential Europeans of the century in an FT poll currently running. They would not have done so if he had not made smart political decisions with regards to Spains Democracy. Compare his strategy to the Military coup to his brother in laws in Greece. And for that he needs to be commended. Only the future will know if Felipe will ever reign, same with Charles over here. Que sera, que sera!

[Sean.~]

I don´t agree with Sean King Juan Carlos has made a good diplomatic work.

May I ask why? I was actually referring to political decisions, but I think he's been a very good diplomat as well, particularly in securing a kind of Latin 'axis'. The King does have more political power than most of his European counterparts and more than many ceremonial presidents.

He also has the loyalty of the military which is important in Spain.


S

[Meg]

I speak a very bad English and I forget a comma sorry. I mean that Juan Carlos is a good diplomat, but I know pretty well the Spanish Constitution and he has almost no power.

[Conde Valleverde]

The King has little power. According to the Constitution, the King cannot sign any decree without the approval of the Government. He doesn´t preside over the Cabinet neither. He cannot propose any law. He just proposes to the Parliament as a Prime Minister the person who has won a general election. Therefore, he has more or less the same powers as Queen Elizabeth. The only difference is that when he opens a Parliament session, his speech is not the new Government´s programme. In that speech he reflects his own thoughts, trying not to be partisan.

[Genevieve]

Originally Posted by P******

Look at Juan Carlos de Borbon and Sofia, they started with nothing, now they are millionaires !!!... And still the people of Spain have to pay Royal taxes and fees for those "suckopteros" to have vacations on the last corner of the world, private jets, servants, first education, first healths providers...while there's people in Spain that can't pay a single appartment not to mention vacations. Why ?.

Can someone tells me what goods brings the monarchy to any country ?.

Can someone tell me what DO I HAVE TO PAY to have one Letizia, if Felipe was born with the so called "blue blood" that's not Letizias case....she's nothing, just like you and me but was cold enough to scalate ... and even if the marriage was for LOVE, so what ? I did get marry in love and noone pay my bills..... why do I have to pay for that &*^%&&^ so called Princess ?. She's NOTHING and means NOTHING to me and to my family. After Juan Carlos I don't give a dime for the Monarchy in Spain.

If anyone could be a Princess, anyone could be a King or what is better, No More Royal Family Anymore !!!.

Many people who are now millionaires and billionaires started with nothing and now have access to or even own several private jets, own mansions and self-described palaces and their children get the very best education money can offer. So I don't think Juan Carlos and Sofia are unlike others.

While Felipe could've married someone who had blue blood he did not. And while he married a commoner its not as if he and Letizia sit around their home watching television and "hanging out" all on the Spanish tax payer's expense. While they certainly have a cushier life than most others, Felipe and Letizia also work very hard on behalf of the Spanish people -- even if you do not value that work. Consider how exttensively they travelled in the weeks and months after their wedding to represent Spain, from within and around Spain to Mexico and the Dominican Republic.

I think the asset of royals is that because they are neutral they can represent their country completely without undertones of politics or partisan values. And when you have royals to represent you, you allow the government to focus on developing and improving policies that would best serve your people rather than flying half way around the world to meet a new incoming president. Think about how much time Felipe and Letizia have sent since May in South America, from their visit to meet President Fox and earlier this month to attend the innauguration of the new incoming president of the Dominican Republic. Nearly two weeks combined spent on both those trips which, while nation building and nation supporting, would've taken the President/Prime Minister away from working to better Spain. And even if he had gone, he would've represented a certain set of political values -- values that if Felipe and Letizia have or share or disagree with were not as evident.

Monarchies are representatives of their countries and act as bridges between the various political parties. Consider the aftermath of the March 11 attacks in Spain. Many Spaniards were upset with Anzar's government for sending Spanish troops into the war in the first place and the new incoming government opposed the war. And in the middle were the royal family who grieved and mourned with the nation in a way that neither of the party leaders could.

[carlota]

i don't think it will be abolished. however, spanish royals are not very popular...
it's a pity... sofia is, imo, one of the best queens in europe.

[Gabriella]

Originally posted by carlota@Apr 5th, 2004 - 4:17 pm
i don't think it will be abolished. however, spanish royals are not very popular...
it's a pity... sofia is, imo, one of the best queens in europe.

They seem as if they are really popular with the people right now. I read somewhere that they are being hailed as the "People's Monarchy".

[Alexandria]

Originally posted by Gabriella@Apr 5th, 2004 - 5:24 pm
They seem as if they are really popular with the people right now. I read somewhere that they are being hailed as the "People's Monarchy".

I read this in a BBC article, about the Spanish royal family being hailed as "the people's monarchy." It was about how members of the royal family were the only ones to reach out and console the grieving family members after the memorial mass while members of the government stood around watching. (The article added that members of the government felt that they couldn't comfort the grieving families because they were partly responsible by chain of actions, such as supporting the U.S. alliance against terrorism and then sending Spanish troops. I am not sure that I completely believe this, but it is what the article said. Personally, I think the government should've been the first people to comfort the grieving families.) But in this way, the monarchy acted as the bridge between the government and the people.

As unfortunate as the events of March 11 were, and in no disrespect to I mean to demean the horribleness of those terrorist acts or the sad loss of lives, but the subsequent actions taken by the family the day of the terrorist attack and in the weeks after leading up to the memorial mass have shown the Spanish people how important and special their monarchy is. All members of the royal family showed tremendous compassion and sympathy with those who were hurt and/or those who lost family members, friends and loved ones. Even the "newest" (not technically official yet, I know) member of the royal family, Letizia showed tremendous concern and compassion.

I read that according to the Spanish press, they were most impressed with Queen Sofia during these weeks. She is normally quite stoic and unaffected emotionally by things, or at least does not show her emotions easily, but during the memorial mass she was the one member of the royal family who cried the most. I know that crying the most doesn't mean anything, but it does show how affected Her Majesty was by the event.

And also, I think that however opposed some of the Spanish people felt about Letizia becoming their future Queen this coming May, Letizia's actions and her behaviour at this time certainly demonstrated that she is capable for the task at hand. She may not be the Spanish people's perfect ideal of a future Queen, but in her own way and with her own style, she is capable. In a way, I think it was a trial by fire for Letizia, and certainly from what I have read and seen, she passed the test.

[Gabriella]

Giving credit where credit is due, I think it was through one of Alexandria's posts on another thread where I got the information of the People's Monarchy. But you are very right and your post was very well said.

It's unfortunate that it takes something as horrible as a terrorist attack for people to finally understand that what they have is great, and what a huge asset the Spanish Royal Family is to the people. I remember much of the same sentiment said in the US after September 11th.

I myself was quite impressed by their actions in the days following the attacks. A royal family is usually so stoic and held together. For them to be visibly upset and affected by the attacks shows to me how much they truly care for their country and their people. In King Juan Carlos' eyes you could see pain and grief, as if a close loved one had just died. Cristina openly weeped and Sofia went out of her way to console family members. I gained a new respect for the royal family after seeing all of those pictures.