Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

TODOI

Commoner
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13
is tha Spanish Monarchy stable I was reading a post below and some were saying that the spanish people want to get rid of the Monarchy and the Royal Family are not very well liked, is this true?.... I always thought the spanish Monarchy was one of the most popular ones in Europe
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that Juan Carlos, Sophia and Felipe have worked very hard to make Spain more stable and to restore the monarchy. I don't think you can discredit all they've done for spain.
 
You are right Firewever, the king and queen have done alot to restore the monarchy. But I have been on many spanish MB adn they seem to be loyal to juan carlos. I think that is why the monarchy is the way it is. Felipe is popular in spain, but it looks like a large number of his fans are females, because he is good looking. I'm not spanish but that is what drew me to him. I dont have a lot of faith that Feilpe's regin will be a long one . I hope i'm very, very wrong.
 
I think you are right - the newspapers here in the UK echo that same sentiment - are the Spanish avowed monarchists are they just grateful for the leadership the King showed for the transition into a peaceful and prosperous democracy with entry into the EU. Felipes choice of wife will not help the survival of monarchy in my opinion just as much as here in the UK when the Queen dies theres a chance the UK could become a republic unless Charles abdicates in favour of William. All royal institutions will have to face the issue of- in a democracy where supposedly all men are created equal how can a monarchical institution which thus claims that all men are made equal but some are more equal than others remain viable particularly when its the subjects that have to pay for the institution of monarchy. Having said that does anyone know what the role of monarchy is within a united Europe? Does anyone know what their role is within the constitution that never was? Don't expect the republican countries of France and German (the main drivers of an integrated Europe) alongside Greece,Austria and the other republican coutnries which out number monarchic kingdoms to be screaming for the status of Monarchy to be respected. And funnily enough when the futrue crown princes of Europe ascend to the throne might just coincide with when Europe becomes integrated.
 
Ironically, I think monarchies will become even more important to their respective countries in a more intergrated Europe. The institution will provide for national identity and cultural continuity.

No, the monarchies will survive economic integration. They will kind of be like kingdoms within a greater (economic and political) empire (if that makes any sense). Altough they won't have political power at the EU level, they will have quite a bit of power -- cultural and, to a lesser extent, political -- intra-nationally.

S
 
Sean, thats an interesting point that you make about national identity. What is National Identity? for example in the Uk - Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own cultures and identity and don't see themselves as English, but British and the British Royal Family, funnily enough because of its history is seen as an English Institution not a British Institution thats why you find more republicans in Scotland. I think the same dynamics play out in Spain. And besides with globalization and an increasingly multicultural society that we live -especially in the Uk and France (re - the whole debate on secularity and integration thats playing out across Europe) Spain I believe is a much more homogenous society the Royal Family's begin to look like an outdated institution thats for a minority of the citizens of a particular country. Its not a coincidence that in the UK the most ardent pro Europeans come from Scotland, Wales and tend to also be republicans -a lmost as though they want the EU to rescue them from the institution. 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.
 
Sean, thats an interesting point that you make about national identity. What is National Identity?

National idendity comprises of the common language, history, and culture of people residing in a given territory (they may or may not have their own state or independent government). As there is a move towards greater regionalization and harmonization within Europe people will, I think, look to their historical institutions for cultural continuity. It's kind of like looking for comfort in a fast changing world.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own cultures and identity and don't see themselves as English, but British and the British Royal Family,
Now you're confusing the issue. The divide between England and the rest of the UK was there long before the inception of the EU.

with globalization and an increasingly multicultural society that we live

If you do your research, you will note that "globalization" (I'm a bit of a global skeptic myself) has increased nationalism and self-determination movements, not decreased it. People will want to hold on to their national identities -- these things don't just die -- and people will, IMO, see a ceremonial monarchy as one of the ways to achieve this. I'm not making an argument for or against monarchy, as I don't think the institution is always a good thing. I am, however, telling you just what I think.

Spain I believe is a much more homogenous society the Royal Family's begin to look like an outdated institution thats for a minority of the citizens of a particular country.
Not really a homogenous society. There are ethnic divisions. Or are you not familiar with the Basques? And I don't think that the Spanish people see it as an institution for the minority. After all, the European monarchies are not prebandal dictatorshiops. Indeed, without without Juan Carlos, Spain would be the Serbia of the Iberian Penninsula. If you want to talk about institutions that serve the interests of a minority, look at some of the republics and the allegation and charges of corruption, conflict of interest, and patron-client relationships that they are dogged by (Hmmm. Mexico,Russia, and even the US comes immediately to mind).



Its not a coincidence that in the UK the most ardent pro Europeans come from Scotland, Wales and tend to also be republicans -a lmost as though they want the EU to rescue them from the institution.
I think that is too simplistic. It has to do more with being subordinate to England (a hinterland -metropolis relationship) than the monarchy. They see more equality and economic opportunities for them within the EU. It has nothing, IMO, to do with the monarchy (besides the fact that it is an instituion which reminds them of subordinate relationship).

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.
 
I agree Sean. Personally, I just don't see any of the European monarchies ending for a while. I think the EU, if it gets itself together, will only make monarchies across the continent stronger including Spain's. Each country is connected to it's monarchy for different reasons, some more than others.
 
"Each country is connected to it's monarchy for different reasons" :p :p :p :p :p :p

There isn't that "connection" in Spain.

Millions of spaniards hate the royal family,maybe latinoamericans love spanish royals :innocent: :innocent: :innocent: :innocent: :innocent: :innocent: ...¡HERE WE HATE THEM! :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:
 
Originally posted by electrivicki@Jan 29th, 2004 - 10:42 pm
"Each country is connected to it's monarchy for different reasons" :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p

There isn't that "connection" in Spain.

Millions of spaniards hate the royal family,maybe latinoamericans love spanish royals :innocent:  :innocent:  :innocent:  :innocent:  :innocent:  :innocent: ...¡HERE WE HATE THEM! :angry:  :angry:  :angry:  :angry:  :angry:  :angry:
Everything I know indicates otherwise. Can you back-up your assertion with some published facts and figures, especially since you purport to speak for millions of Spaniards?

Sean
 
While this discussion started off with a bit of a negative reply in answer to a sincere question, in subsequent posts it has spun off into a very interesting discussion that applies to not just the Spanish royal family but other royal families in Continental Europe as well.

I would hate for some negative posts by one or two members to result in the closing of this thread and ruining it for everyone else, as I am finding it quite interesting and educational myself.

I would encourage that everyone, whether you agree with the view points being expressed or not, to at least be civil in their replies. And if you disagree with a viewpoint or a fact stated, please feel free to post countering evidence or proof that the information posted is inaccurate. But please do not negate facts because of personal feelings.
 
¿Proofs?

There isn't freedom of expression in Spain.The spanish monarchy works as a dictadure....

The british newspapers can opine against british royals...HERE,THAT'S IMPOSIBLE

¿Do you understand me?....my english is bad,but I think you can understand me...
 
There is no way that information like that wouldn't be leaked. People fleeing the country for example, other European nations would be less the willing to interact with Spain, etc.
 
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 am not trying to incite another controversial issue, but take for example Iraq under Saddam Hussein's rule. I would certainly say that that was a dictatorship and numerous dissenting opinions about the country and its leader were often published in very credible media sources, whether it be television, radio, newspapers, magazines or online publications.

And certainly even with the consideration that (now King) Juan Carlos was "groomed" by the dictator Fraco as a young adult, I would hardly describe the King as a dictator. So certainly, if dissenting, negative stories about Saddam Hussein could be published, then any negative ones about the King and the rest of the royal family would be, too.
 
Originally posted by electrivicki@Jan 29th, 2004 - 11:10 pm
¿Proofs?

There isn't freedom of expression in Spain.The spanish monarchy works as a dictadure....

The  british newspapers can opine against british royals...HERE,THAT'S IMPOSIBLE

¿Do you understand me?....my english is bad,but I think you can understand me...
I understand you. If you want to write to me in Spanish (via PM), I can understand that too. I just have a problem with arguments by assertion. You claim that millions of Spaniards hate the monarchy. I can see that being the case with Basque separatists, but not with the rest of Spain (and I follow world politics very closely). Thus perhaps you can provide links to articles, published polls, discussion forums on the subject, etc. in order to back-up your argument.

mucho gracias,

Sean

ps. that's a very interesting sig. you have
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom