- Joined
- Aug 21, 2017
- Messages
- 10,190
- City
- BC
- Country
- Canada
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.
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.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.
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.
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...
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.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.
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..
serious reasons for JC's abdication
I believe the US is doing very well as a republic.
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.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.
The Spanish monarchy, at the moment, is stable and more popular. King Philip VI is popular and is doing a good job.
Also the US has had great President
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?
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.
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.
\and so are most constitutional monarchies, I don't understand your point....
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..
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.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..
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.
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.
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.