Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy

[Somebody]

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.

[lula]

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.

[Kitty1224]

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.

[Kitty1224]

Originally Posted by camelot23ca

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.

[Kitty1224]

Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY

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.

[Lee-Z]

Originally Posted by Kitty1224

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...

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Lee-Z

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.

[Duke of Marmalade]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

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.

[wyevale]

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..

[Duke of Marmalade]

Originally Posted by wyevale

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.

[wyevale]

serious reasons for JC's abdication

Indeed so, but nevertheless a precedent now exists, where one didn't before...

[Duke of Marmalade]

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.

[Winnie]

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.

[Denville]

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...

[Blog Real]

The Spanish monarchy, at the moment, is stable and more popular. King Philip VI is popular and is doing a good job.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Kitty1224

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

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

[Kitty1224]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

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.

[Kitty1224]

Originally Posted by Blog Real

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.

[Denville]

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..

[wyevale]

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..