Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
It could very well be that Letizia would have held the same ideas as her aunt had she not married the now king... She lived in Barcelona and was according to many a republican as well.
 
Letizia did not live in Barcelona, her sister Thelma is who lived and now lives in Barcelona.

Henar is a brainless woman who likes to draw attention ... her irresponsibility has caused several serious problems for her family, including her elderly mother who, at 90, had to face a trial.
 
Sorry but I do not see the monarchy very strong in the long term. I would not be shocked if the monarchy were to go away in the future.
 
I think Juan Carlos is a genuinely talented man in many ways. Flawed, yes, but certainly charismatic and able to read people and connect with them very well. It's not hard to see him having been a high level politician or CEO or something of that sort under different circumstances. He was also lucky, though, in that his natural abilities matched up well with the times and events during the early and mid parts of his reign. Cometh the hour, cometh the man.

Felipe seems to have a very different style and personality compared to his father. Less flawed, yes - at least that we know of so far - but also less human and sympathetic, IMO. Part of this may be because he knows he has very little leeway with the Spanish government. There's no conceivable government formation which would be in favour of giving him the chance to amass the influence and genuine power that JC had, even if Felipe had the natural abilities to do so. I think Felipe has always known this and has been willing, even eager, to demonstrate to the Spanish political class that, to be blunt, he knows his place. The speech he gave last week was the most high profile chance he's had to demonstrate his understanding of what the Spanish monarchy is post - Juan Carlos, and that may be why he decided not to take advantage of the very small amount of wiggle room he had to add a personal touch and instead stick 100% to an almost word for word recitation of the government's position.
Wow that sucks for Felipe. I believe he has done well in his reign and would do wonders if he had the same powers as his father had in the past. The Spanish government is so corrupted we need someone who is actually decent and thinks of the people.
 
That is incorrect. Time is not running out for the monarchies in europe, in fact many of them has more popular support than ever.

A constitutional monarchy is much better than a republic, in a constitutional monarchy we has a head of state who unites most of the people, while having a parliamentary system and an elected government. It works very well in the UK, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. These monarchies are going to survive as long as they has popular support, something they have. These countries are not going to become republics in my lifetime or in my children's lifetime, and I'm only 27.

The Swedish Monarchy has had its problems and the King is unpopular, and it has long been a majority in the parliament to remove the monarchy, but it's not going to happen. There is not strong support for a republic in Sweden and people are going to require a referendum, and we know who is going to win.

Spain and Belgium are more unstable countries, and I'm not sure about the future of these two monarchies, but I doubt that the Belgian monarchy is abolished soon.

The Spanish monarchy had popular support because of Juan Carlos popularity, but the support dropped when people saw him for what he is. I like Felipe and I think he does a good job, but I'm unsure of the monarchy's future in Spain.

I believe the US is doing very well as a republic.
 
I believe the US is doing very well as a republic.

There are republics that are doing well, like Germany (of the USA, i take your word for it), and i doubt monarchy will ever be back in Germany. That doesn't mean that monarchy will be abolished in other countries, because imo the alternative is not better (maybe also not worse, but why change something when it doesn't majorly improve things...
 
There are republics that are doing well, like Germany (of the USA, i take your word for it), and i doubt monarchy will ever be back in Germany. That doesn't mean that monarchy will be abolished in other countries, because imo the alternative is not better (maybe also not worse, but why change something when it doesn't majorly improve things...

Hear, hear. Most republics in Europe that function fairly well, such as Germany, Finland and Iceland, have a ceremonial president that has little to do with the daily running of the country, as is the case in constitutional monarchies. There is very little need to replace a hereditary sovereign, who is neutral politically and trained at their job from early years, with someone who must be elected and can never achieve neutrality like a sovereign, just for the sake of doing so. Executive republics, like the U.S and Russia, can never function as well as a parliamentary republic, because too much power is gathered in the hands of one person, and power corrupts, always, so you always end up with a flawed presidency in one way or another.

In the case of Spain, which is the topic of this thread, the monarchy is in my book fairly secure, and the sovereign is seen by most supporters as the glue that holds a union of often very different regions and old lands together. I cannot see a scenario on the horizon that could upset the monarchy in a fundamental way.
 
Last edited:
Hear, hear. Most republics in Europe that function fairly well, such as Germany, Finland and Iceland, have a ceremonial president that has little to do with the daily running of the country, as is the case in constitutional monarchies. There is very little need to replace a hereditary sovereign, who is neutral politically and trained at their job from early years, with someone who must be elected and can never achieve neutrality like a sovereign, just for the sake of doing so. Executive republics, like the U.S and Russia, can never function as well as a parliamentary republic, because too much power is gathered in the hands of one person, and power corrupts, always, so you always end up with a flawed presidency in one way or another.

In the case of Spain, which is the topic of this thread, the monarchy is in my book fairly secure, and the sovereign is seen by most supporters as the glue that holds a union of often very different regions and old lands together. I cannot see a scenario on the horizon that could upset the monarchy in a fundamental way.
Yes very true, in Germany we have a president (Head of State) but if you ask people on the street, I doubt half of the people know his name (Steinmeier at the moment) while everybody knows Merkel, the Chancellor.
USA is different, with Trump having more or less the powers of both combined.

Felipe hasn't put a foot wrong, why should Spain want to get rid of him, apart from extremists. He's not as good with people as Juan Carlos was (in my opinion), but time and society have changed.
I don't think his job is too pleasant and I think that both Felipe and Letizia will have a million worries for their daughters, especially Leonor, how she will cope in this environment in the future, living under a microscope between all these rocks and hard places, as a woman, in addition to having to find a husband and have children. There will be a lot on her shoulders, and it will be even more difficult in a more extremist environment than today, even if the silent majority of Spaniards want to keep the institution.

This may be an advantage of a republic, that you can get rid of a Head of State if you feel he or she has run the course, or the Head of State is glad to return to normal life after 5/10 years, but as a King or Queen you have to hang in there and dedicate your life to it, including the perks but also the difficulties and abuse.
 
you have to hang in there and dedicate your life to it,

Actually I think that one of Juan Carlos' [manifest] gifts to the Monarchy was to 'normalise' Abdication. Now it won't be 'unprecedented' if a subsequent Monarch needs to do the same..
 
Actually I think that one of Juan Carlos' [manifest] gifts to the Monarchy was to 'normalise' Abdication. Now it won't be 'unprecedented' if a subsequent Monarch needs to do the same..

There were serious reasons for JC's abdication, poor health, scandals, losing the moral authority that is essential for the job ... its not that he walked away because he wanted to retire like an average Spaniard.
 
serious reasons for JC's abdication

Indeed so, but nevertheless a precedent now exists, where one didn't before...
 
I think the first precedent was already set by Pope Benedict, not only a Head of State but also Leader of the Catholic Church, who retired because of old age in 2013. After that, anything became possible.
 
Yes, Duke of Marmalade. In my book you are 100% correct. Once a Pope retired the game changed. Anyone can now abdicate without a feeling of guilt in any form if the head of the Catholic Church stepped down stating age, although still quite well 5 years later. Not our business why; age, internal changes, new slant to modernize. The fact that he did and the world didn't stop turning, even though some of the old faithful are still in shock, means anything possible and people will almost take for granted. Times change and so do traditions and rules.
 
True times change. and I think as people live to be older MOnarchs are now less likely to feel they have to stay with the job till they die.. even if they are very old and frail. They will problaby abdicate when they feel that they are getting too old to do the job well, or want some private time.. as have the Dutch, Belgian and Spanish sovereigns...
 
The Spanish monarchy, at the moment, is stable and more popular. King Philip VI is popular and is doing a good job.
 
Hear, hear. Most republics in Europe that function fairly well, such as Germany, Finland and Iceland, have a ceremonial president that has little to do with the daily running of the country, as is the case in constitutional monarchies. There is very little need to replace a hereditary sovereign, who is neutral politically and trained at their job from early years, with someone who must be elected and can never achieve neutrality like a sovereign, just for the sake of doing so. Executive republics, like the U.S and Russia, can never function as well as a parliamentary republic, because too much power is gathered in the hands of one person, and power corrupts, always, so you always end up with a flawed presidency in one way or another.

In the case of Spain, which is the topic of this thread, the monarchy is in my book fairly secure, and the sovereign is seen by most supporters as the glue that holds a union of often very different regions and old lands together. I cannot see a scenario on the horizon that could upset the monarchy in a fundamental way.
Also the US has had great President. Seems like your view on republics is very one sided. I love monarchies and like you said it’s better than republics in some countries. I wish the monarchy was brought back in Greece and Italy and France but it won’t happen. In Spain I disagree that the monarchy is secure. It actually isn’t. No wonder they have to toe the line.
 
The Spanish monarchy, at the moment, is stable and more popular. King Philip VI is popular and is doing a good job.

Short term yes but long term I disagree. Anything is possible yes and the monarchy should stay but I believe Spain won’t have a strong monarchy in the long term. You have your opinions and I have mine.
 
Don't know what youmean by "they have to toe the line". All constitutional monarchs have to actin accordance with their government's wishes, otherwise they would be veering into a more autocratic form of monarchy. The Govt is elected and has a mandate from the people so the King or queen has to follow its wishes and policies.
And I thin you said that you thoguth the Spanish monarchy was very secure..
 
Also the US has had great President

It seems to me that 50% ish thinks one US President is 'great' whilst the other thinks he is APPALLING. Certainly that is the case with the present incumbent,and [judging by the BILE written about the previous occupant of the White House], it was true of him too.

That is the real virtue of non-Political Heads of State [especially a crowned head], people of very different political persuasions can [and do] unite around them..
 
The Citizens Party, known as Ciudadanos in Spanish, is an increasingly popular party in Spain that advocates for Spanish Unionism but at the same time a good portion of the leadership of the party advocates for a referendum on the monarchy and said advocators are republicans themselves. So what do Spanish monarchists do if they come to power?

The political parties' long-standing policy is of support for allowing the firstborn, whether female or male, to inherit the throne, but the political leaders have deferred the elimination of male preference in article 57.1 of the Constitution for the reason that the necessary referendum could instigate a debate about the Constitution and the monarchy.

Similarly, I think unionist republicans will remain reticent about calling a referendum on the monarchy, since debate about modifications to other articles in the constitution would obtrude on the procedure.

It could very well be that Letizia would have held the same ideas as her aunt had she not married the now king... She lived in Barcelona and was according to many a republican as well.

I imagine she was not republican anymore when she became the Princess of Asturias, since most sufficiently affluent people would not take a position in an institution which they were politically opposed to.

There were serious reasons for JC's abdication, poor health, scandals, losing the moral authority that is essential for the job ... its not that he walked away because he wanted to retire like an average Spaniard.

The reality that the first and (then) only monarch since its restoration was forced in effect to abdicate seems to display that the Spanish monarchy so far has not been established as securely as the other nine European hereditary monarchies – none of their monarchs have been deposed since the abdication of Leopold III of Belgium in 1951.

\and so are most constitutional monarchies, I don't understand your point....

Kitty1224 was addressing the belief that constitutional monarchies are better than republics.
 
Don't know what youmean by "they have to toe the line". All constitutional monarchs have to actin accordance with their government's wishes, otherwise they would be veering into a more autocratic form of monarchy. The Govt is elected and has a mandate from the people so the King or queen has to follow its wishes and policies.
And I thin you said that you thoguth the Spanish monarchy was very secure..

Think about it, one wrong move and the Spanish monarchy is finished. I’ve changed my mine about the security of the monarchy since reading this forum. I like Felipe and Letizia and admire what they are trying to do with the monarchy, but I would not be shocked if there is no throne for Leonor to inherit or if they do away with the monarchy in the future before that. Of course all monarchies have to toe the line but compare the Spanish monarchy to the British one and the British one is much more secure.
 
It seems to me that 50% ish thinks one US President is 'great' whilst the other thinks he is APPALLING. Certainly that is the case with the present incumbent,and [judging by the BILE written about the previous occupant of the White House], it was true of him too.

That is the real virtue of non-Political Heads of State [especially a crowned head], people of very different political persuasions can [and do] unite around them..
Wasn’t talking about Trump. Talking about all presidents in the US. There have many great presidents and bad one. Same can be said about monarchs. America is great without a monarchy. Each country is different.
 
Violent revolutions like the American, French or Russian revolutions are out of question in modern European countries. The only way to abolish the monarchy in those countries then is to go through the normal democratic process to amend the constitution.

In Spain, in particular, amending the constitution is quite difficult because it requires the support of 3/5 of the House and the Senate, or 2/3 of the House and over 50 % of the Senate. On top of that, upon request by only one tenth of the members of either chamber, the proposed amendment has to be submitted to ratification in a national popular referendum.

As of now, three major national parties (PP, PSOE and Ciudadanos) support the continuation of the monarchy. Podemos is the only major national party that openly supports a republic and I don't see them either leading a national government or, more significantly, achieving the necessary qualified majority in the Spanish parliament to pass a constitutional amendment to abolish the monarchy. Furthermore, popular support for the monarchy as an institution seems to hover around 60 % while personal support for Felipe VI is slightly higher than that. Even if a republican amendment were passed in Parliament, it would be still uncertain that it would win majority support in a national referendum. So I think the monarchy is pretty safe for now, unless another major national party, e.g. PSOE, changes its position and embraces republicanism.

As I said , the main challenge to the Spanish monarchy today is still Catalan separatism. However, even in Catalonia, there is not a clear popular majority for independence or a republic, even though the separatist parties have a majority in the regional parliament (as we have seen in Scotland and Quebec, those two are not equivalent propositions !). If Madrid had agreed to a non-binding, free and fair referendum in Catalonia, the matter would probably have been settled by now. Instead, the Spanish authorities (government and courts) chose instead to suspend the regional Catalan government and now prosecute the (non-violent) Catalan government leaders, not only for misuse of public funds or calling an illegal referendum (of which, to be fair, they are guilty), but also for sedition/ treason, which, seen from outside, does make them look a lot like political prisoners (I apologize to the Spanish posters for saying that) and only strengthens the hand of the separatists and the republicans.
 
Last edited:
Violent revolutions like the American, French or Russian revolutions are out of question in modern European countries. The only way to abolish the monarchy in those countries then is to go through the normal democratic process to amend the constitution.

In Spain, in particular, amending the constitution is quite difficult because it requires the support of 3/5 of the House and the Senate, or 2/3 of the House and over 50 % of the Senate. On top of that, upon request by only one tenth of the members of either chamber, the proposed amendment has to be submitted to ratification in a national popular referendum.

As of now, three major national parties (PP, PSOE and Ciudadanos) support the continuation of the monarchy. Podemos is the only major national party that openly supports a republic and I don't see them either leading a national government or, more significantly, achieving the necessary qualified majority in the Spanish parliament to pass a constitutional amendment to abolish the monarchy. Furthermore, popular support for the monarchy as an institution seems to hover around 60 % while personal support for Felipe VI is slightly higher than that. Even if a republican amendment were passed in Parliament, it would be still uncertain that it would win majority support in a national referendum. So I think the monarchy is pretty safe for now, unless another major national party, e.g. PSOE, changes its position and embraces republicanism.

As I said , the main challenge to the Spanish monarchy today is still Catalan separatism. However, even in Catalonia, there is not a clear popular majority for independence or a republic, even though the separatist parties have a majority in the regional parliament (as we have seen in Scotland and Quebec, those two are not equivalent propositions !). If Madrid had agreed to a non-binding, free and fair referendum in Catalonia, the matter would probably have been settled by now. Instead, the Spanish authorities (government and courts) chose instead to suspend the regional Catalan government and now prosecute the (non-violent) Catalan government leaders, not only for misuse of public funds or calling an illegal referendum (of which, to be fair, they are guilty), but also for sedition/ treason, which, seen from outside, does make them look a lot like political prisoners (I apologize to the Spanish posters for saying that) and only strengthens the hand of the separatists and the republicans.

I abeee it’s pretty safe for now but I’m thinking long term.
 
Juan Carlos was the victim of his personal mistakes and the institutional crisis of the country ... a difficult combination, which perhaps he could have overcome if the disease and the successive operations had not soured his character and made him an absent king when he was most necessary for the country. His own health did not allow him to solve things better.

Mbruno, the independence of Catalonia is unconstitutional, therefore no Spanish government can call a referendum about something unconstitutional, without changing the Constitution beforehand and for that it needs a majority of votes from the Spaniards.

Two million Catalans can not decide the state model shared by 47 million Spaniards and approved by a large majority of Catalans and Spaniards in the Constitution. If a government unilaterally gave them that right, they would be taking away their democratic rights from millions of Spaniards.

The Catalan separatists have prepared and financed with public money, an international campaign to sell their version ... the Spanish government has done a very bad job to counter that. But one thing is social networks, the opinions of journalists and the fake news ... and another the reality and the laws.

The Catalan independence push: a catalogue of violence

https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/04/02/inenglish/1522669225_617960.html

Madrid sends more bodyguards to protect judges and politicians in Catalonia

https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/03/29/inenglish/1522308698_348057.html?rel=mas
 
The problem for me is not only the origin." She is commoner the jealous because she and not me". The problem is that the Letizia does not have this charisma to come into contact with the people and wins. She seem like a distant cold to think itself and not the other "I'm not a commoner anymore I'm your queen".

From videos I've seen she seems lovely? Maybe I'm wrong since I do not live in spain.
 
From videos I've seen she seems lovely? Maybe I'm wrong since I do not live in spain.

What can you tell about someone from videos.. Interviews, reading books and articles... yes but unless it is a very long video interview, I don't know if you can tell very much....
 
Mbruno, the independence of Catalonia is unconstitutional, therefore no Spanish government can call a referendum about something unconstitutional, without changing the Constitution beforehand and for that it needs a majority of votes from the Spaniards.

Lula, I think we are talking about two different things.

The unilateral independence of Catalonia, or Catalonia becoming independent following a local referendum are indeed unconstitutional propositions. A different question is whether it is impossible for any Spanish region to ever break out from the Kingdom of Spain under the current constitution. Although the constitution says that it is based on " [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards" , [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]I still believe that it is possible for a region to leave the kingdom by an appropriate revision of the constitution, even if that required a 2/3 majority twice in both chambers of parliament with a general election in between, and ratification in a national referendum.

What I was suggesting was a non-binding referendum, which would basically be just a poll to ascertain the desire of the Catalan preople to leave Spain. Like the 1995 Quebec referendum and the 2015 Scottish referendum, a hypothetical 'Yes' vote would not change the constitutional status of Catalonia, but rather would be simply an invitation extended to the national government and the national parliament to begin discussions that might end up in a negotiated breakup within the proper constitutional framework.

Of course, it is possible to take the hardline position that a consented, non-binding referendum is also legally impossible (even though the Canadians and the Brits thought otherwise), or even assume that, based on the Preliminary Title of the constitution, Spain is indivisible and that the question of secession is not even passible of discussion. Politically, however, I don't think that is the smartest position to take. As I said, I strongly believe the 'No' side would have won a non-binding referendum two or three years ago, settling this issue at least for a generation.
[/FONT]
 
I don't think that Letizia is decisive for the future of the monarchy, her role is not important for the institution. She seems to polarize, there is a lot of negativity in the tabloid media but I guess most people don't really care.
She's not a charismatic people's person like Maxima, who put the anti-monarchy movement back to the stone age in her country, maybe this not what the Spanish society is asking for anyway, but I don't think she makes Felipe shine either.
For me there has been a lack of authenticity because from the beginning Letizia was not allowed to be who she is, what makes her look controlled and stiff.
 
Back
Top Bottom