Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Could Spain become a republic again?

  • 03-08-2020 7:25pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,798 ✭✭✭


    The former king of Spain, Juan Carlos, has tonight announced that he will go into exile, largely due to the financial scandals that have surrounded both him and the House of Bourbon in recent years. He had already been forced to abdicate in 2014 due to public reaction to an elephant safari in Botswana at a time of government austerity, while his daughter was also being investigated for embezzlement. Now, secret donations from Saudi Arabia have led to the initiation of a formal investigation, leading to the decision to leave the country, partly to relieve pressure on the current King Felipe. Of course, neither Catalonia nor the Basque Country have ever been bastions of support for the current monarchy, but if the current process causes the central government to withdraw its support, a referendum on the head of the state could yet follow:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/03/spains-scandal-hit-former-king-juan-carlos-to-move-abroad


«1

Comments

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,288 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    Hopefully. It beggars belief that in the modern age there are still countries with this kind of archaic backward social policy of classes. You often hear the caste system in India being criticised (and rightly so) but a country that determines that a class of people is 'better' than another just by an accident of birth is just as bad imo.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,330 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    Hopefully. It beggars belief that in the modern age there are still countries with this kind of archaic backward social policy of classes. You often hear the caste system in India being criticised (and rightly so) but a country that determines that a class of people is 'better' than another just by an accident of birth is just as bad imo.

    Is that not the very basis of racism?


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,288 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    Is that not the very basis of racism?

    Definitely comes from the same place alright


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,308 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    The problem with minor royalty is that they have comparatively little money yet feel that they were born to live the high life and never have to do a day's work. As prime examples, you have Prince Andrew and his daughters in the UK and in Spain, the entire royal family. The lustre of royalty means that for 'friends', these people attract dubious hangers-on who's only qualifications are that they have loads of money.

    A lot of them are people of questionable reputation and background who are simply looking to bolster their public image by literally brushing shoulders with royalty. It's pretty similar to money laundering but with these people, it's reputation laundering.

    Look no further than Andy's mate Jeffrey Epstein (no regrets) and (ex) King Juan Carlos' friends - people who's idea of a jolly weekend is to go to Botswana to shoot elephants for fun.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    coylemj wrote: »
    The problem with minor royalty is that they have comparatively little money yet feel that they were born to live the high life and never have to do a day's work. As prime examples, you have Prince Andrew and his daughters in the UK and in Spain, the entire royal family. The lustre of royalty means that for 'friends', these people attract dubious hangers-on who's only qualifications are that they have loads of money.

    A lot of them are people of questionable reputation and background who are simply looking to bolster their public image by literally brushing shoulders with royalty. It's pretty similar to money laundering but with these people, it's reputation laundering.

    Look no further than Andy's mate Jeffrey Epstein (no regrets) and (ex) King Juan Carlos' friends - people who's idea of a jolly weekend is to go to Botswana to shoot elephants for fun.

    A King of Spain isn’t “minor royalty”. And nor are their immediate family.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,288 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    View wrote: »
    A King of Spain isn’t “minor royalty”. And nor are their immediate family.

    Depends on definition really. If you consider Julius Caeser major then king Juan Carlos or whatever his son is called would be pretty minor.


  • Registered Users Posts: 427 ✭✭chrisd2019


    View wrote: »
    A King of Spain isn’t “minor royalty”. And nor are their immediate family.

    He is no royalty, just the son of general hand picked by a dictator as a token head of state.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,288 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    chrisd2019 wrote: »
    He is no royalty, just the son of general hand picked by a dictator as a token head of state.

    What makes someone royal other than a person handpicked at some stage on the past who gets given or takes a title??


  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,268 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    chrisd2019 wrote: »
    He is no royalty, just the son of general hand picked by a dictator as a token head of state.

    He's the grandson of Alfonso XIII, the last king of Spain before Franco took over, so he's not just some randomer.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,405 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    chrisd2019 wrote: »
    He is no royalty, just the son of general hand picked by a dictator as a token head of state.

    The former king is the grandson of the last Spanish king before it was dissolved so he wasn't hand picked at random.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,707 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    What makes someone royal other than a person handpicked at some stage on the past who gets given or takes a title??

    The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king!

    Alternatively, kill the previous incumbent.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    This lad fled to S.America with likely milions of funny money (inc Swiss accounts), and during ongoing corruption investigations.
    Seems the Elite make their own rules, ah well.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,659 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    One hope not. Given the schismatic forces that were unleased all through the 19th century and leading to the 1930s civil war, a monarchy at least provdes stability. Overturning centuries of traditional rule in the name of political theory has not previous worked out so well and only recommended to watch from a distance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,099 ✭✭✭paul71


    
    
    chrisd2019 wrote: »
    He is no royalty, just the son of general hand picked by a dictator as a token head of state.

    He is house of Bourbon. Probably the oldest existing Royal house remaining in Europe. 2 branches of The Bourbons were Kings of Spain and France before the French revolution.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,000 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Myself, I come from a long line of republican soldiers. So, yeah, it's entirely the business of the people of Spain, but I won't be urging them to cling to monarchy.

    But what the Spanish monarchy has going for it is the role that it - and, indeed, Juan Carlos personally - played in ensuring the transition to democracy after Franco's death, and in defending democracy against challenges from the right. I'm old enough to remember this as it unfolded, and Juan Carlos was quite the darling of the liberals then. And, if I'm honest, there was some justification for this.

    But I've got the sense over the last decade or so that the monarchy has pretty much burned through the credit they earned at that time. Plus, for most people in Spain that's history; they don't remember it. Even though they're aware of it, it has much less traction with them that it might with the declining minority of crumblies of my age.

    So, yeah. The present guy has to turn things around pretty dramatically and set a new tone, and get his family on board with the project. A monarchy associated with entitlement, corruption, sleaze and seediness has nothing to offer Spain, and won't survive for long.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,047 ✭✭✭HalloweenJack


    Hopefully so.

    Considering the financial trouble Spain has had, I can't understand why they pay for a royal family who do nothing and has several members involved in corruption scandals. They represent something from the past and I'd wager that the majority of their support comes from the elderly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,405 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    I know this is about Spanish royalty but from just reading a bit about the other royal families of Europe they do seem not as liked as the others. The Scandinavian royal families of Norway, Sweden and especially Denmark seem well liked by those countries populations and the Dutch one seem liked and the Belgian one kind of. The Spanish not so much as the current Spanish king I seem to recall him weighting in a bit heavy for a constitutional monarch in regards to the Catalonia independence issue a couple of years ago.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,798 ✭✭✭An Ciarraioch


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    I know this is about Spanish royalty but from just reading a bit about the other royal families of Europe they do seem not as liked as the others. The Scandinavian royal families of Norway, Sweden and especially Denmark seem well liked by those countries populations and the Dutch one seem liked and the Belgian one kind of. The Spanish not so much as the current Spanish king I seem to recall him weighting in a bit heavy for a constitutional monarch in regards to the Catalonia independence issue a couple of years ago.

    Yes, the Bourbons do tend to take more direct involvement in constitutional issues, as you say Felipe was given TV air time to intervene at the height of the Catalan crisis, where by analogy Queen Elizabeth remained silent during the Scottish independence referendum. There was a recent online survey about the Spanish monarchy, and the regional differences were striking, with 80% for a republic in the Basque Country, compared to pro-royal majorities in Madrid and both Castiles:

    https://electomania.es/epmonarquia2a20/


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,795 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    Manach wrote: »
    One hope not. Given the schismatic forces that were unleased all through the 19th century and leading to the 1930s civil war, a monarchy at least provdes stability. Overturning centuries of traditional rule in the name of political theory has not previous worked out so well and only recommended to watch from a distance.

    This sounds like something someone would come up with to defend the Confederate States of America or the Catholic Church effectively running Ireland. Republics are hardly "political theory" either. Dozens of countries have dumped monarchs in order to become republics, and few if any have ever reverted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,834 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    This sounds like something someone would come up with to defend the Confederate States of America or the Catholic Church effectively running Ireland. Republics are hardly "political theory" either. Dozens of countries have dumped monarchs in order to become republics, and few if any have ever reverted.

    Those damned liberal commoners, if only they accepted the will of the First and Second Estates.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 26,000 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Manach wrote: »
    One hope not. Given the schismatic forces that were unleased all through the 19th century and leading to the 1930s civil war, a monarchy at least provdes stability. Overturning centuries of traditional rule in the name of political theory has not previous worked out so well and only recommended to watch from a distance.
    I dunno. It has worked very well for us, for example.

    And the thesis that "monarchies provide stability" doesn't hold up to examination well. The surviving monarchies exemplify stability precisely because they are the surviving monarchies. But all you're doing there is excluding all the monarchies that have collapsed. This is a bit like pointing at people who have survived liver cancer to prove that liver cancer is not a fatal disease. It's all the people who have died of liver cancer that tell you how fatal the disease is.

    I doubt myself that monarchy either causes stability or causes instability. The causation is more likely the other way around; the surviving monarchies have survived because their countries were stable; the (much larger number of) abolished monarchies were abolished because their countries were not stable.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,514 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    And the thesis that "monarchies provide stability" doesn't hold up to examination well. The surviving monarchies exemplify stability precisely because they are the surviving monarchies. But all you're doing there is excluding all the monarchies that have collapsed. This is a bit like pointing at people who have survived liver cancer to prove that liver cancer is not a fatal disease. It's all the people who have died of liver cancer that tell you how fatal the disease is.

    Basically the same as the sort-of survival bias that people apply to consumer goods when they see the rare outliers like a 1950s fridge that's still working. "They don't build them like they used to!" is only right because they're built better now.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,297 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    L1011 wrote: »
    Basically the same as the sort-of survival bias that people apply to consumer goods when they see the rare outliers like a 1950s fridge that's still working. "They don't build them like they used to!" is only right because they're built better now.

    Is it not the case though that things aren't actually built like they used to be?

    We live in a throw away society where very few commodities are built to last, many things are discarded before they've broken down, and when things do break the cost of repair is often more than the cost of replacement.

    And perhaps that is why monarchy seems such an anachronism to today's society where most things have such a short shelf life.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,000 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Hermy wrote: »
    Is it not the case though that things aren't actually built like they used to be?

    We live in a throw away society where very few commodities are built to last, many things are discarded before they've broken down, and when things do break the cost of repair is often more than the cost of replacement.

    And perhaps that is why monarchy seems such an anachronism to today's society where most things have such a short shelf life.
    I don't think that's the reason why monarchy appears such an anachronism in today's society.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,297 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I don't think that's the reason why monarch appears such an anachronism in today's society.

    I was just trying to bring my point back on topic.:)

    And while the longevity might be somewhat anachronistic I suppose that's probably also part of it's appeal.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,514 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Hermy wrote: »
    Is it not the case though that things aren't actually built like they used to be?

    We live in a throw away society where very few commodities are built to last, many things are discarded before they've broken down, and when things do break the cost of repair is often more than the cost of replacement.

    And perhaps that is why monarchy seems such an anachronism to today's society where most things have such a short shelf life.

    Nope, build quality now is vastly, vastly higher than the past. Mechanisation, automation, quality control etc have hugely improved reliability.

    When was the last time you had to call for an appliance repair? Its not that things have become unrepairable/uneconomic to repair; its that things just don't need repair anymore.

    The TV at home was off to the repair shop at least once a year. The TV I bought when I moved out in 2011 is still in daily use (back in my parents house - I've upgraded it size-wise a few times since) with zero failures.

    My dishwasher is 20 years old and its needed one replacement hose.

    20 years ago, a 20 year old car was a rusted wreck. Not the case now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,000 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    L1011 wrote: »
    Nope, build quality now is vastly, vastly higher than the past. Mechanisation, automation, quality control etc have hugely improved reliability.

    When was the last time you had to call for an appliance repair? Its not that things have become unrepairable/uneconomic to repair; its that things just don't need repair anymore.

    The TV at home was off to the repair shop at least once a year. The TV I bought when I moved out in 2011 is still in daily use (back in my parents house - I've upgraded it size-wise a few times since) with zero failures.

    My dishwasher is 20 years old and its needed one replacement hose.

    20 years ago, a 20 year old car was a rusted wreck. Not the case now.
    This, plus things are much cheaper than they used to be.

    A modern TV, for example, is vastly more reliable than one you would have bought 50 years ago.

    But it's also vastly cheaper, in real terms. If it does break down, the reason why it gets junked is not so much because repairs are expensive as because a replacement is cheap.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    I think there can be an advantage to monarchy,( well a constitutional monarchy,with a figurehead monarch ) ,
    It's not having to select a new figurehead during turbulent times , especially in a polarised political environment ..
    In Ireland ,we tend to lurch from centre left to centre right politics so no major party has (so far ) been too distant politically from the president , who's supposed to be apolitical anyway and "above"party politics ... I can't imagine it being like that in Spain .

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,099 ✭✭✭paul71


    This sounds like something someone would come up with to defend the Confederate States of America or the Catholic Church effectively running Ireland. Republics are hardly "political theory" either. Dozens of countries have dumped monarchs in order to become republics, and few if any have ever reverted.

    Funnily enough one that did was The United Kingdom.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,099 ✭✭✭paul71


    paul71 wrote: »
    Funnily enough one that did was The United Kingdom.

    Correction on myself, it was prior to The Act of Union so was not The United Kingdon at that time.


Advertisement