Former King of Spain flees Spain

[The Alma Mater]

I myself will reject if a foreign Dutch king from far away claims that I am his subject.

Sidenote: The Netherlands used to be a Republic. It decided that that was pathetic and became a monarchy instead
This may or may not have included some chopping of penises.

[The Archregimancy]

One of the paradoxes of the current situation is that, with Catalonia such a centre of republican sentiment, Catalan independence would make the abolition of the Spanish monarchy less likely.

As described earlier, amendment of Part II of the Spanish Constitution, or replacement of the existing constitution with a new constitution, in order to abolish the monarchy would require a two-thirds vote by both houses of the Cortes, a new election, a second two-thirds vote by both houses, and then majority approval in a referendum.

That would likely be a lot harder without Catalonia's republicans.

If Catalans get independence, they wouldn't care in the slightest about the Spanish king. So, for Catalonia, problem solved.

I think you perhaps misunderstand my point. No doubt it was inelegantly phrased.

I'm fully aware that most Catalans (or at least Catalan nationalists) wouldn't care about the Spanish monarchy should there be an independent Catalonia. I merely note that the secession of Catalonia would leave republicans in the rest of Spain in a difficult spot.

Since republicans are presumably mostly left of centre, and since left of centre opinion is somewhat more sympathetic to Catalonia than right of centre opinion, this potentially leaves republicans outside of Catalonia in a minor pickle. Given the phrasing of Part X of the Spanish constitution, abolition of the monarchy becomes much, much harder without Catalonia.

[-Astoria-]

I myself will reject if a foreign Dutch king from far away claims that I am his subject.

Sidenote: The Netherlands used to be a Republic. It decided that that was pathetic and became a monarchy instead
This may or may not have included some chopping of penises.

[The Alma Mater]

Sidenote: The Netherlands used to be a Republic. It decided that that was pathetic and became a monarchy instead
This may or may not have included some chopping of penises.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_de_Witt

Aside from the lynching and cannibalism, several of his organs were removed and put on display for years - including his penis.

Nobody ever said royal families were nice.

[Godular]

I myself will reject if a foreign Dutch king from far away claims that I am his subject.

Seemed to work out fine for England.

[Novus America]

“Marianne is a glorified mascot, not a monarch. Try again.”
European Monarchs are glorified mascots too. Try again.

Except that, as previously explained, stable countries like Britain don't require any dramatic intervention from the Crown so natually their use of power is rare and on the occasion that they do use it the republicans loose their shit and immediately accuse them of being a "dictator". ...Whereas Marianne actually is just a glorified mascot. Do you have anything else to contribute to this other than "is so!!" ?

And okay yeah sure I know the British like their national Waifu and silly robes and whatever.
Fine, YKINMK.
Works for you maybe but not for me.

I'm talking about what a monarchy is capable of doing which a republic cannot. Whether you personally like it or not is beside the point.

NIMBYISM is about land use.

Yes, and a government can place things on land and decide what to do with the land. If the government decides to use a particular village for a pilot scheme and the locals reject it for no better reason than "it's close to us and we're not used to it" then that's still NIMBYism even if it's not a material object.

Saying a monarchy is not best fit all places is not a “Red Scare” because it is not about concern over Soviet (or other Communist) spies.

I was talking about the act of dismissing a government system out of hand because of cultural bias rather than genuine practical concerns. A good example is how America views 'big pharma' as a boogyman yet simultaneously refuses to do anything to stop it as moving towards national healthcare would be "socialism" and thus bad without any further qualification, hense 'red scare'. And yes the Red Scare was about more than just spies.

"Though the climate of fear and repression began to ease in the late 1950s, the Red Scare has continued to influence political debate in the decades since. It is often cited as an example of how unfounded fears can compromise civil liberties."
https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/red-scare

And what do Luddites have to do with anything? Not wanting a monarchy is not opposing automation or technology. I mean really? This is like it was written on drugs or something.

First of all, it doesn't have to be about the monarchy; it could apply to any system which could better the lives of its citizens yet is rejected for no better reason than it being new to the area. But of course I don't need to say this as it was your idea to talk about general forms of government rather than monarchy specifically,

remember?

"How is the best system different from place to place? Obviously yes culture plays a role. A form of governance alien to a people’s culture and in opposition to it is going to earn resentment, not loyalty.
People want a government suited to their history, traditions and culture. Because if people have no cultural loyalty a government it is probably not going to be an effective one."

More to the point, I mentioned ludites as it ties in with NIMBYism and the red scare; rejecting something simply because it's new and represents change rather than having objective reasons to dislike it. Note that the modern use of being a 'ludite' can simply refer to being slow to pick up new technology due to nostalgia or other reasons not related to the actual quality of the product, rather than being strictly about automation in the job market. Really you seem to struggle with the idea that terms can have a broader meaning beyond their literal origin. I don't see how this means that I'm, as you put it.... "on drugs or something."

And why would a “monarchy is best if you are not France, Greece or Italy” follow at all? I mean sure those countries find a republic fits them better, but so do a lot of other places.

You said that a system of government should fit the country's history. Those are the countries which founded forms of republicanism.

And no a monarchy does not equal unity, nor a republic disunity.

You know the whole point of declaring independence from Spain, Britain etc was to become less united with them.

Spain is the topic, and they are not unified

Okay? I don't see what this has to do with anything I said as I never claimed that Spain is perfectly united. I'm well aware of Spain's issues with seperatism.

they are very divided despite being a monarchy.

Please quote where I said that monarchies have a 100% success rate of stopping secession movements. I really don't see what you're trying to prove with this. Indeed I've already given examples in this same post of how monachies have lost land from secession movements.

And you cannot just hand wave away things that simply. Sure you can debate over what is a monarchy and sagar is not, and what is a valid one an not, but the point is it is not a bright line objective matter, there is room for dispute in certain cases.

So this was a mess.

North Korea is quite clearly not a contitutional monarchy. I don't see how there's any ambiguity in that. Please demonstrate where your logic is; are you saying that North Korea is a real democracy? Or are you saying that it has similar aspects to Saudi Arabia? Neither of those are contitutional monarchies.

North Korea is obviously not a Europeans style crowned republic/constitutional monarchy, but it is more similar to the Saudi Monarchy (which yes is not a European style crowned republic/constitutional monarchy) than it is to most republics. That is the point. It is not a simple black vs white distinction between monarch and republic. It is complicated.

I mean a republic could do 1600s LARPing too, but I acknowledge 1600s LARPing is something monarchies generally do better. But given it is mostly silly (to me at least)that is not a reason In favor of monarchy when there’s is more serious work to be done, that is not and argument in favor of monarchy for me. But you know a republic can some times have some people wear historical costumes to entertain a visiting head of state, although it is generally true they spend less money on it.

But the people in the UK like their silliness, (or what I find completely silly) which is fine.
Again what one person or culture finds aesthetically pleasing or entertaining is not the same as another. Why is that so hard to understand?

Although in theory some monarchs have some powers, really few Europeans monarchs can use them, the 1975 thing if repeated would probably result in Australia booting the monarchy so... yes it is now just a glorified mascot as it cannot realistically use its powers, because a monarch using powers is contrary to democratic principles and would likely spark massive backlash and the fall of the monarchy. As such the monarch is usually LESS effective at checks in balances than a republic in most Europeans countries.

And yes you can sometimes use terms to mean something more than the stricter original meaning, but you are using the terms completely nonsensically. Saying “maybe you like a monarch but we do not want one” is nothing to do with Red Scare, Luddites or whatever non sequitur epithets you throw at it.

Why are you trying to force your aesthetics on us? This is like saying “all Indians should wear traditional Chinese clothes and and any Indian who objects is a NIMBY Luddite pushing a Red Scare”. It is just a silly argument. None of those terms are remotely applicable.
I am not even sure what you are trying to say? Every Republic (besides France, Greece and Italy) should be a Monarchy? Or are Luddites? That makes no sense at all.

In case you are aware, there are more than those three countries that have a history and tradition of republicanism. Or a culture that objects to some silly populous rich person getting a glorified symbolic political position because the were born into it (as this goes against the values of many countries).
Each country is different. What one finds absurdly silly another might not.

Things like aesthetics, values, culture and history are not always objectively better or worse. Their can be reasonable disagreement. Why is that so hard to understand?

Not everyone who has a different view with you on such things is wrong.

And if a monarch causes disunity, then a monarch is harming the country, and thus not a good thing. A monarch can help unify a place, but also might not. Again this is not one size fits all. As an Indonesian here said, it would not work for them, because a monarch would be seen as choosing one ethnic group over another, thus causing ethnic conflict. Thus a monarch would be bad for them and cause disunity. But not all countries have the same ethnic makeup and ethnic relations as Indonesia. Japan is very different for example, it actually helps unify them. Japan is not Indonesia.

And not everyone wants to be part of another place, choosing independence is not simply “choosing disunity over unity”, their are a wide variety of reasons why people might support independence. Opposition to a monarch may be one such reason but is not the only one. But explaining the complexities of why each place that did declare independence from the UK or Spain to become in independent country is beyond the topic.

Which is specifically about the Monarchy in Spain today.
The monarchy is Spain today is causing serious issues, so it, at least in its current form is not working so well for them today.

[Rio Cana]

In the end, Spain will follow its former territories in the Americas in adapting a Republican form of government. The mother will learn from its children.

[Aureumterra]

In the end, Spain will follow its former territories in the Americas in adapting a Republican form of government. The mother will learn from its children.

Wait when was that decided?

[Ansarre]

so Franco should of installed someone else as King i guess ?

Yeah, Juan de Borbón. It would've been better for Franco to have set up a better line of succession so the dictatorship could've continued, to be honest. The current Spanish government is made up of socialists and communists. Very worrying.

[Novus America]

so Franco should of installed someone else as King i guess ?

Yeah, Juan de Borbón. It would've been better for Franco to have set up a better line of succession so the dictatorship could've continued, to be honest. The current Spanish government is made up of socialists and communists. Very worrying.

I disagree that a dictatorship continuing is necessarily better.

But even so you lost me at Bourbon. They have a horrible record.

[Ansarre]

Yeah, Juan de Borbón. It would've been better for Franco to have set up a better line of succession so the dictatorship could've continued, to be honest. The current Spanish government is made up of socialists and communists. Very worrying.

I disagree that a dictatorship continuing is necessarily better.

But even so you lost me at Bourbon. They have a horrible record.

A pro-western, conservative dictatorship is better than a government of communists. I don't care that the Soviet Union is gone, communists can be never trusted.

[-Astoria-]

I disagree that a dictatorship continuing is necessarily better.

But even so you lost me at Bourbon. They have a horrible record.

A pro-western, conservative dictatorship is better than a government of communists. I don't care that the Soviet Union is gone, communists can be never trusted.

The red scare was 60 years ago.

[Ansarre]

A pro-western, conservative dictatorship is better than a government of communists. I don't care that the Soviet Union is gone, communists can be never trusted.

The red scare was 60 years ago.

Shouldn't be though, given that leftists have infiltrated and conquered institutions across the west, especially academia and civil society. Their aim is the destruction of western civilization so I will continue the crusade against communism that Francisco Franco began.

[-Astoria-]

Shouldn't be though, given that leftists have infiltrated and conquered institutions across the west, especially academia and civil society. Their aim is the destruction of western civilization so I will continue the crusade against communism that Francisco Franco began.

:thonk:

[Ansarre]

Shouldn't be though, given that leftists have infiltrated and conquered institutions across the west, especially academia and civil society. Their aim is the destruction of western civilization so I will continue the crusade against communism that Francisco Franco began.

:thonk:

ok

[Upper Sierra]

It seems somewhat of an irrelevant grievance that the king wasn’t elected when that is the case for head’s of state across Europe. Given that they wield virtually no political power, it doesn’t really matter that they are appointed rather than elected.

[Reutoa]

I disagree that a dictatorship continuing is necessarily better.

But even so you lost me at Bourbon. They have a horrible record.

A pro-western, conservative dictatorship is better than a government of communists. I don't care that the Soviet Union is gone, communists can be never trusted.

Dictatorships are Dictatorships, regardless of Ideology and must be stopped in order to preserve Human Freedom.

[Jedi Council]

I disagree that a dictatorship continuing is necessarily better.

But even so you lost me at Bourbon. They have a horrible record.

A pro-western, conservative dictatorship is better than a government of communists. I don't care that the Soviet Union is gone, communists can be never trusted.

So dictatorial assholes are fine, provided they are friendly towards you.

Seems like a great moral compass ya have there

[Rusozak]

It seems somewhat of an irrelevant grievance that the king wasn’t elected when that is the case for head’s of state across Europe. Given that they wield virtually no political power, it doesn’t really matter that they are appointed rather than elected.

I think it's more that this particular king was hand picked by Spain's old dictator, Francisco Franco. A fascist dictator that was an ally of Hitler and Mussolini. Now he may have been instrumental in dismantling the Francoist dictatorship after succeeding Franco and restoring democracy, but he was still picked by Franco from the exiled royal family as the person Franco thought was best suited to carry on his legacy. It's like if Hitler named an heir and that heir went on to be the next Kaiser of a restored monarchy.

[Upper Sierra]

It seems somewhat of an irrelevant grievance that the king wasn’t elected when that is the case for head’s of state across Europe. Given that they wield virtually no political power, it doesn’t really matter that they are appointed rather than elected.

I think it's more that this particular king was hand picked by Spain's old dictator, Francisco Franco. A fascist dictator that was an ally of Hitler and Mussolini. Now he may have been instrumental in dismantling the Francoist dictatorship after succeeding Franco and restoring democracy, but he was still picked by Franco from the exiled royal family as the person Franco thought was best suited to carry on his legacy. It's like if Hitler named an heir and that heir went on to be the next Kaiser of a restored monarchy.

Right, but if he was instrumental in restoring democracy then he clearly was not carrying on Franco’s work. He’s also not even King. So it seems like a non-issue.

[Vivolkha]

If Catalans get independence, they wouldn't care in the slightest about the Spanish king. So, for Catalonia, problem solved.

I think you perhaps misunderstand my point. No doubt it was inelegantly phrased.

I'm fully aware that most Catalans (or at least Catalan nationalists) wouldn't care about the Spanish monarchy should there be an independent Catalonia. I merely note that the secession of Catalonia would leave republicans in the rest of Spain in a difficult spot.

Since republicans are presumably mostly left of centre, and since left of centre opinion is somewhat more sympathetic to Catalonia than right of centre opinion, this potentially leaves republicans outside of Catalonia in a minor pickle. Given the phrasing of Part X of the Spanish constitution, abolition of the monarchy becomes much, much harder without Catalonia.

Oh, I was just pointing the point of view of Catalonia, nothing else. And yes, the vast majority of republicans in Spain are left-wing, which can get confusing for Americans

I think it's more that this particular king was hand picked by Spain's old dictator, Francisco Franco. A fascist dictator that was an ally of Hitler and Mussolini. Now he may have been instrumental in dismantling the Francoist dictatorship after succeeding Franco and restoring democracy, but he was still picked by Franco from the exiled royal family as the person Franco thought was best suited to carry on his legacy. It's like if Hitler named an heir and that heir went on to be the next Kaiser of a restored monarchy.

Right, but if he was instrumental in restoring democracy then he clearly was not carrying on Franco’s work. He’s also not even King. So it seems like a non-issue.

He must be recognized for his skillful transition to democracy, but he himself is to blame for destroying the monarchy's popularity that the restoration of demcoracy itself brought. And, increasingly, especially since Felipe VI was crowned, the monarchy has been focused almost exclusively in preserving themselves in power, even if it comes at the cost of Spain's increasingly fragile democratic health.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

Constitutional monarchies that are not irredeemably corrupt, unaccountable, and ought not to be abolished should instead be privatized. The Royal Families can pay for their own upkeep. It's all about drawing in those tourists after all. I don't believe any of the European monarchies have reached that point of no return yet. Asian monarchies on the other hand...

[Rio Cana]

In the end, Spain will follow its former territories in the Americas in adapting a Republican form of government. The mother will learn from its children.

Wait when was that decided?

Hopefully, in the near future. In reality, a United States of Spain might do them wonders. Just like in Germany. But in Germany there is a North - South rivalry. Religion is one of them. The South of Germany is Catholic while the North tends not to be. But at least Spain does not have this problem with religion.

[The Archregimancy]

It seems somewhat of an irrelevant grievance that the king wasn’t elected when that is the case for head’s of state across Europe. Given that they wield virtually no political power, it doesn’t really matter that they are appointed rather than elected.

I think it's more that this particular king was hand picked by Spain's old dictator, Francisco Franco. A fascist dictator that was an ally of Hitler and Mussolini. Now he may have been instrumental in dismantling the Francoist dictatorship after succeeding Franco and restoring democracy, but he was still picked by Franco from the exiled royal family as the person Franco thought was best suited to carry on his legacy. It's like if Hitler named an heir and that heir went on to be the next Kaiser of a restored monarchy.

No, it's more as if Hitler had restored the monarchy a decade or so after winning the war, named Crown Prince Wilhelm as his heir, and on Hitler's death the new Kaiser Wilhelm III had then played a personal role in dismantling the structures of the Nazi state, legalising banned left of centre parties, and facilitating a new democratic constitution, before going on to order the army to stand down during an attempted coup by disaffected far-right elements, establishing the democratic legitimacy of the restored monarchy in the process.

Really, Juan Carlos proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that he was no Francoist puppet; and if Franco genuinely thought Juan Carlos would carry on his legacy, that only proves that A) Franco was blinded by traditionalism or B) that Juan Carlos was very good at hiding his true feelings. As has been said multiple times in this thread, we can't and shouldn't ignore the modern scandals that led to Juan Carlos's abdication, and which have seriously tarnished his legacy, but to dismiss the important central role he played in restoring democracy to Spain is unhelpful.

As to Franco being an ally of Hitler and Mussolini, that's a bit more complex. I tend to see Franco as a repressive authoritarian right wing arch-traditionalist dictator rather than a doctrinaire fascist; if nothing else, he was much more pro-Catholic and pro-clerical than either Hitler or Mussolini. He certainly benefited from support from the latter during the Spanish Civil War, and definitely sympathised with Rome and Berlin over the Western Allies; at one point he seemed to have made a not wholly sincere offer to enter the war. But unlike fascist flunkies in Central and Eastern Europe, he remained neutral throughout the conflict. His motives for doing so were not straightforward, and to some extent he seems to have been cleverly playing both sides off against each other, but he point-blank refused German permission to use Spain for an attack on Gibraltar, and stationed troops across the Pyrenees to defend against a German invasion. The only meeting between Franco and Hitler was an unmitigated disaster, with Hitler detesting his Spanish counterpart, and Spain's demands for entering the war so unrealistic that Hitler (of all people) felt he no option but to turn Franco down; which may have been the whole point (though it's difficult to separate truth and propaganda here). In any case, while it's certainly fair to describe Franco as a a violent repressive arch-traditionalist dictator, calling him a fascist ally of Hitler and Mussolini rather oversimplifies the historical record.

But that's realistically quibbling around the margins. The key issue with Juan Carlos isn't so much who appointed him but rather how he governed after achieving power.

[Ethel mermania]

I think it's more that this particular king was hand picked by Spain's old dictator, Francisco Franco. A fascist dictator that was an ally of Hitler and Mussolini. Now he may have been instrumental in dismantling the Francoist dictatorship after succeeding Franco and restoring democracy, but he was still picked by Franco from the exiled royal family as the person Franco thought was best suited to carry on his legacy. It's like if Hitler named an heir and that heir went on to be the next Kaiser of a restored monarchy.

No, it's more as if Hitler had restored the monarchy a decade or so after winning the war, named Crown Prince Wilhelm as his heir, and on Hitler's death the new Kaiser Wilhelm III had then played a personal role in dismantling the structures of the Nazi state, legalising banned left of centre parties, and facilitating a new democratic constitution, before going on to order the army to stand down during an attempted coup by disaffected far-right elements, establishing the democratic legitimacy of the restored monarchy in the process.

Really, Juan Carlos proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that he was no Francoist puppet; and if Franco genuinely thought Juan Carlos would carry on his legacy, that only proves that A) Franco was blinded by traditionalism or B) that Juan Carlos was very good at hiding his true feelings. As has been said multiple times in this thread, we can't ignore the modern scandals that led to Juan Carlos's abdication, but to ignore the genuine central role he played in restoring democracy to Spain is likewise unhelpful.

As to Franco being an ally of Hitler and Mussolini, that's a bit more complex. I tend to see Franco as a repressive authoritarian right wing arch-traditionalist dictator rather than a doctrinaire fascist; if nothing else, he was much more pro-Catholic and pro-clerical than either Hitler or Mussolini. He certainly benefited from support from the latter during the Spanish Civil War, and definitely sympathised with Rome and Berlin over the Western Allies; at one point he seemed to have made a not wholly sincere offer to enter the war. But unlike fascist flunkies in Central and Eastern Europe, he remained neutral throughout the conflict. His motives for doing so were not straightforward, and to some extent he seems to have been cleverly playing both sides off against each other, but he point-blank refused German permission to use Spain for an attack on Gibraltar, and stationed troops across the Pyrenees to defend against a German invasion. The only meeting between Franco and Hitler was an unmitigated disaster, with Hitler detesting his Spanish counterpart, and Spain's demands for entering the war so unrealistic that Hitler (of all people) felt he no option but to turn Franco down; which may have been the whole point (though it's difficult to separate truth and propaganda here). In any case, while it's certainly fair to describe Franco as a a violent repressive arch-traditionalist dictator, calling him a fascist ally of Hitler and Mussolini rather oversimplifies the historical record.

But that's realistically quibbling around the margins. The key issue with Juan Carlos isn't so much who appointed him but rather how he governed after achieving power.

He did well for himself and his people.


What dr. Jones said only in a much less elegant and detailed fashion.