Former King of Spain flees Spain

[Vivolkha]

I guess it's because the Catalan movement is too closely tied to the Spanish Republic. Perhaps they could be reminded of Catalans relative freedoms under the monarchy long before the Spanish Civil War.

I really don't understand what are you trying to explain here.

[SD_Film Artists]

I guess it's because the Catalan movement is too closely tied to the Spanish Republic. Perhaps they could be reminded of Catalans relative freedoms under the monarchy long before the Spanish Civil War.

I really don't understand what are you trying to explain here.

As to why they're more republican. Even today the Spanish Republic flag is flown in some places of Catalonia; like a left-wing version of the Confederate flag.

[Vivolkha]

I really don't understand what are you trying to explain here.

As to why they're more republican. Even today the Spanish Republic flag is flown in some places of Catalonia; like a left-wing version of the Confederate flag.

Can't compare. The Second Spanish Republic wasn't a state founded on white supremacism and racism and only degenerated into a criminal state during the Civil War.

What kind of "relative freedoms" did we have under the monarchy? Since Catalans lost independence the periods with most relative freedom are today and during the Second Spanish Republic (except under the right-wing republican government). From the Republic up to today, Catalonia has gained more economic competences, and in exchange lost autonomy in judicial matters.

[SD_Film Artists]

As to why they're more republican. Even today the Spanish Republic flag is flown in some places of Catalonia; like a left-wing version of the Confederate flag.

Can't compare. The Second Spanish Republic wasn't a state founded on white supremacism and racism and only degenerated into a criminal state during the Civil War.

But it does represent a controversial faction which lost a civil war and yet is still openly celebrated today despite it being the losing faction.

What kind of "relative freedoms" did we have under the monarchy? Since Catalans lost independence the periods with most relative freedom are today and during the Second Spanish Republic (except under the right-wing republican government). From the Republic up to today, Catalonia has gained more economic competences, and in exchange lost autonomy in judicial matters.

The Archregimancy would know more as IIRC (it could have been someone else) he mentioned that subject earlier in this thread, but I remember from a documentary that Catalonia's identity was more official whereas the Franco and post-Franco years have tried to suppress Catalonian identity.

Edit: It was you!

Many places, such as India or Indonesia is an ethnically diverse nation and thus takes form as a republic, because everyone has a chance to become the head of state. Crowning a king from a specific family, who came from a specific ethnicity, would be a disastrous disaster. This might be even why Catalans are the most opposed to the monarchy. I myself will reject if a foreign Dutch king from far away claims that I am his subject.

The relationship is far more complex. For example, in the 19th century, there were no less than three civil wars (the Spanish Civil War isn't the only one, just the latest, most important and most destructive) were Catalans and especially the Basques asked for the return to an absolute monarchy, because ironically the state was less centralized under an absolute monarch than after 1833 where it shifted to a centralized constitutional monarchy based on the French model.

[The Archregimancy]

Many places, such as India or Indonesia is an ethnically diverse nation and thus takes form as a republic, because everyone has a chance to become the head of state. Crowning a king from a specific family, who came from a specific ethnicity, would be a disastrous disaster. This might be even why Catalans are the most opposed to the monarchy. I myself will reject if a foreign Dutch king from far away claims that I am his subject.

The relationship is far more complex. For example, in the 19th century, there were no less than three civil wars (the Spanish Civil War isn't the only one, just the latest, most important and most destructive) were Catalans and especially the Basques asked for the return to an absolute monarchy, because ironically the state was less centralized under an absolute monarch than after 1833 where it shifted to a centralized constitutional monarchy based on the French model.

This is more of a point of clarification than a point of debate - you are quite right to highlight the instability of the Spanish state during the 19th century as a result of the three Carlist Wars (and indeed some Carlists saw the Spanish Civil War as an extension of the earlier conflicts), and an earlier post of mine in the thread further highlights the instability of the Spanish monarchy from the early 19th century onwards - but the process of centralisation under French influence arguably began more than a century earlier.

Leaving aside that much of Spanish history after the marriage of Fernando and Isabel and the fall of Granada is an ongoing push for centralising the nascent Spanish state, the modernisation of a centralised Spain accelerates following the War of the Spanish Succession and the accession of the French Bourbon Felipe V. The 18th-century Bourbon Reforms/Reformas Borbónicas were far-reaching, including the abolition of much of the residual autonomy of the former Kingdom of Aragon via the Nueva Planta decrees/Decretos de Nueva Planta of 1707-1716, and significant reorganisation of the Spanish colonial empire (which is more where my interest in the subject lies; I've worked in Venezuela, Argentina, and Chile, and am currently trying to start up a project in Paraguay). Navarre/the Basque Country was not initially included in the process of centralisation due to the region's support for Felipe as the legitimate successor to the former Navarrese throne. Reduction of the latter's autonomy would then be one of the primary catalysts of the First Carlist War (1833-40), alongside the dispute between supporters of the reactionary arch-conservative absolutist Carlos, the heir presumptive to his brother Fernando VII for much of the latter's reign, and the reformist relatively liberal constitutionalist regency governing for Carlos three year old niece (and Fernando's daughter) Isabel II. It was only following the Third Carlist War (1872-1876) that the centralisation of the Spanish state was finalised; the Carlist pretender in the third conflict explicitly called for the restoration of the Aragonese, Valencian, and Catalan charters abolished by Felipe V via the Nueva Planta decrees, and the defeat of the Carlists meant that the ongoing process of centralisation won out over any conservative support for restoration of pre-Bourbon regional autonomy.

Even that's an oversimplification (we've glossed over the Second Carlist War, the exile of Isabel II, the bizarre interlude of Amadeo I, and the collapse of the First Republic), but it helps to outline for how long regional issues have been of profound constitutional importance in Spain, as well as a source of ongoing instability for both crown and state.


But you know all of that already; that's more for the benefit of the rest of the thread.

[Novus America]

Sure, in some cases there something better. Obviously the clothes just fit the climate. But surely you recognize there are subjective matters too?! Like what clothes an Indian wears at a traditional Indian wedding are different than what a Chinese would wear at a traditional Chinese wedding? Wearing a Sari or qipao is not a matter of one being better. Saying Indians should wear qipao or Chinese sari at their weddings because one is better is stupid.

And saying Indians not usually wearing qipao at traditional Indian weddings are bigoted is stupid.

See a cultural ceremony is not a simple matter of “this is better”.

The Chinese clothes was already a hypothetical scenario extended from a hypothetical scenario and now we're onto weddings? I've already said what I've said.

And given their inability to actually use their powers in most cases, European style monarchs are largely just a cultural ceremony.

Oversimplification and more speculation.

Thus saying other cultures should reject their cultures in favor of yours because your culture is objectively better is absurd. In fact that would be you making the big gored argument, not them.

It would be if I actually said that which, like many things you claim, I never did.

Actually yes the long term stability of the monarchy in an increasingly multiethnic society could be a problem. For example the UK monarchs changed their family name to Windsor because it sounded too German before. They needed to sound British, and as the meaning of what being British is changes they too must change or perish. if But that is for another thread.
But yes monarchies can have problems in multiethnic societies if they seem to favor one over the other.

Sure marriage could partially address that if it is relatively simple, such as the Jordanian King marrying a Palestinian but that is not applicable everywhere.

But why try to do that in Indonesia when it is trying to fix a problem that does not currently exist? The easiest way to address it in Indonesia is to not have a monarchy at all!
Making a problem and then trying to fix it is silly when you could just not make it.

But that does not fix the equal opportunity thing. If a culture thinks equal opportunity is good, that everyone should have a chance to be head of state convincing them equal opportunity is bad when it comes to the head of state is going to be a problem. A problem you can beat avoid by not trying to change it in the first place!

If Indonesia has the race relations of a US prison then I think they have much, much bigger problems than whether they can have a Japanese style emperor or not.

Now back on Spain. Right now more disapprove of the monarchy than approve according to recent polls. This is not because they are stupid or bigoted, but because they have legitimate problems with it.

Yes if Catalonia left It would change things, but given that Catalonia is still part of Spain, how to accommodate Catalonia’s republican culture is an issue.

I guess it's because the Catalan movement is too closely tied to the Spanish Republic. Perhaps they could be reminded of Catalans relative freedoms under the monarchy long before the Spanish Civil War.

I'm also still wondering about where North Korea went, and...

Perhaps the unmanagabilty is causing you to mistake me for a different poster, as in my previous posts I said-
Please quote where I said X
I never said X
Please show where I claimed X
Again I didn't say X

Those questions weren't rhetorical, I really do wonder where you got that nonsense from.

The North Korean thing was simply to show it is not always an easy line to draw, something you acknowledged. That is why it was not worth pushing further. And again I do not have time for a Gish Gallop.

Again monarchy is a CULTURAL SYMBOL and CULTURAL CEREMONY thus that saying you style monarchy is superior and should be imposed on a republican culture is trying to erase part of that culture and replace it with your own. Thus claiming your culture is superior.
Same goes if I said all places should be republics. But I do not.

Sure a Monarchy can have additional political functions beyond cultural and ceremonial ones. But in Europe it generally does not, the monarch having no real political power.
Thus reducing them to merely a matter of cultural ceremony.

Thus making their applicability a cultural matter.

Now sure Indonesian issues with ethnicity and race are more complicated than just monarchy vs republic, and maybe need to be improved BUT that does not change the fact a monarchy would make those matters WORSE, and harder to fix, so is a bad idea. Whereas this is less an issue in the ethno nationalist and far more homogeneous Japan. Japan’s monarch is particular to Japan, its religion, history, culture and ethnic identity, and thus not something that necessarily works well elsewhere, especially if that place has a very different historical religious, cultural and ethnic composition. It is quite simple, neither monarch nor republic, which is not always a simple black v white distinction is “better” universally. It depends on the SUBJECTIVE CULTURAL VALUES one holds as to which is “better”. I fail to see why this is so controversial or difficult to understand.

Now with that crap out of the way, on Spain Catalonia has a long list of grievances with the Bourbon monarch which from the begin of its rule tried to force French style centralism on Spain’s historical confederation of kingdoms with their own identities.

Although true since the restoration after Franco government has been more decentralized than the earlier Bourbon era, but still there is massive dispute over the matter, the Monarchy being seen as making statements opposing more decentralization at times.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/25/so ... n-the-way/
So no, saying the new post Franco system might be less bad for them than Franco on the matter is still unlikely to make them have any love be for being ruled by the Bourbons.

So actually it is much more complicated than just ties to the Second Republic but a conflict with the Bourbon monarch going back some three centuries as well.

Remember it was Felipe V that is still hated by many in places like Catalonia and Valencia, why would they love a Felipe VI?

[SD_Film Artists]

Again monarchy is a CULTURAL SYMBOL and CULTURAL CEREMONY thus that saying you style monarchy is superior and should be imposed on a republican culture is trying to erase part of that culture and replace it with your own. Thus claiming your culture is superior.

Except that, like a lot of things you claim, I never said that. I did go along with your Japan-Indonesia thing but other than that I've been going by your original hypothetical which involved a non-descript government rather than it having to be monarchy. I even added caveats that the government "may or may not be a monarchy". Was this not clear enough?

But let's entertain that anyway; what are "republican cultures"? And why can't they be changed? The US was a monarchist culture before it changed to a republican one, so was France, while England and Germany had republican cultures for a while, returning in Germany's case. Is nostalgia the only thing stopping new governments from arrising? Is it only the threat of racial gang violance stopping Indonesia from becomming a monarchy?

Sure a Monarchy can have additional political functions beyond cultural and ceremonial ones. But [snip]

But yes. I've explained how.

Now sure Indonesian issues with ethnicity and race are more complicated than just monarchy vs republic, and maybe need to be improved BUT that does not change the fact a monarchy would make those matters WORSE, and harder to fix, so is a bad idea. Whereas this is less an issue in the ethno nationalist and far more homogeneous Japan. Japan’s monarch is particular to Japan, its religion, history, culture and ethnic identity, and thus not something that necessarily works well elsewhere, especially if that place has a very different historical religious, cultural and ethnic composition. It is quite simple, neither monarch nor republic, which is not always a simple black v white distinction is “better” universally. It depends on the SUBJECTIVE CULTURAL VALUES one holds as to which is “better”. I fail to see why this is so controversial or difficult to understand.

You could say the same thing about capitalism vs socialism; maybe there is a perfect place to draw the line, but if there is a perfect government then the person proposing it is either a genius or a zelot. That doesn't mean that we can't stop trying just because one place is a 'communist culture'.

Now with that crap out of the way, on Spain Catalonia has a long list of grievances with the Bourbon monarch which from the begin of its rule tried to force French style centralism on Spain’s historical confederation of kingdoms with their own identities.

Although true since the restoration after Franco government has been more decentralized than the earlier Bourbon era, but still there is massive dispute over the matter, the Monarchy being seen as making statements opposing more decentralization at times.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/25/so ... n-the-way/
So no, saying the new post Franco system might be less bad for them than Franco on the matter is still unlikely to make them have any love be for being ruled by the Bourbons.

So actually it is much more complicated than just ties to the Second Republic but a conflict with the Bourbon monarch going back some three centuries as well.

Remember it was Felipe V that is still hated by many in places like Catalonia and Valencia, why would they love a Felipe VI?

I specifically said that both the Franco and post-Franco eras have been hard on the Catalans. See..

whereas the Franco and post-Franco years have tried to suppress Catalonian identity.

[Novus America]

Again monarchy is a CULTURAL SYMBOL and CULTURAL CEREMONY thus that saying you style monarchy is superior and should be imposed on a republican culture is trying to erase part of that culture and replace it with your own. Thus claiming your culture is superior.

Except that, like a lot of things you claim, I never said that. I did go along with your Japan-Indonesia thing but other than that I've been going by your original hypothetical which involved a non-descript government rather than it having to be monarchy. I even added caveats that the government "may or may not be a monarchy". Was this not clear enough?

But let's entertain that anyway; what are "republican cultures"? And why can't they be changed? The US was a monarchist culture before it changed to a republican one, so was France, while England and Germany had republican cultures for a while, returning in Germany's case. Is nostalgia the only thing stopping new governments from arrising? Is it only the threat of racial gang violance stopping Indonesia from becomming a monarchy?

Sure a Monarchy can have additional political functions beyond cultural and ceremonial ones. But [snip]

But yes. I've explained how.

Now sure Indonesian issues with ethnicity and race are more complicated than just monarchy vs republic, and maybe need to be improved BUT that does not change the fact a monarchy would make those matters WORSE, and harder to fix, so is a bad idea. Whereas this is less an issue in the ethno nationalist and far more homogeneous Japan. Japan’s monarch is particular to Japan, its religion, history, culture and ethnic identity, and thus not something that necessarily works well elsewhere, especially if that place has a very different historical religious, cultural and ethnic composition. It is quite simple, neither monarch nor republic, which is not always a simple black v white distinction is “better” universally. It depends on the SUBJECTIVE CULTURAL VALUES one holds as to which is “better”. I fail to see why this is so controversial or difficult to understand.

You could say the same thing about capitalism vs socialism; maybe there is a perfect place to draw the line, but if there is a perfect government then the person proposing it is either a genius or a zelot. That doesn't mean that we can't stop trying just because one place is a 'communist culture'.

Now with that crap out of the way, on Spain Catalonia has a long list of grievances with the Bourbon monarch which from the begin of its rule tried to force French style centralism on Spain’s historical confederation of kingdoms with their own identities.

Although true since the restoration after Franco government has been more decentralized than the earlier Bourbon era, but still there is massive dispute over the matter, the Monarchy being seen as making statements opposing more decentralization at times.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/25/so ... n-the-way/
So no, saying the new post Franco system might be less bad for them than Franco on the matter is still unlikely to make them have any love be for being ruled by the Bourbons.

So actually it is much more complicated than just ties to the Second Republic but a conflict with the Bourbon monarch going back some three centuries as well.

Remember it was Felipe V that is still hated by many in places like Catalonia and Valencia, why would they love a Felipe VI?

I specifically said that both the Franco and post-Franco eras have been hard on the Catalans. See..

whereas the Franco and post-Franco years have tried to suppress Catalonian identity.

Culture can change sure, and if it does the best government for a place can change.
But if it has not changed, then opposing a government model on it that is rejected by the people is not going to work or be good. Culture is not the only reason to not want a monarchy, but it is one reason.

There is no perfect government because it involves SUBJECTIVE VALUES!

Sure if there was one objectively perfect government yes it would be silly to reject I but that is an absurdly silly hypothetical.

In the real world we can have valid disagreements on subjective things without either being right or wrong. Again why is that so controversial?

Sure we can try to make our governments subjectively better, (but what you and I think is better might be different) but that does not require we adopt a certain set of subjective values.

And okay, then given you know the Bourbon Dynasty is still hated by many in Catalonia and Valencia for dissolving the Crown of Aragon, burning their cities and countless things since, introducing a French model of centralization they dislike and still seeming to support it to some degree how exactly is the Bourbon Dynasty not going to be an impediment to Spanish unity?
Especially when it is plagued by corruption scandals as well?

[-Astoria-]

Update: he's apparently in the UAE.

[Vivolkha]

I didn't expect him to flee there, but I guess it makes sense, considering it is an ally of Saudi Arabia and how he apparently has contacts all over the Middle East.

[Baltenstein]

Update: he's apparently in the UAE.

Here's hoping he will have a decent supply of booze, cocain and hookers to drown his sorrows.

[-Astoria-]

Update: he's apparently in the UAE.

Here's hoping he will have a decent supply of booze, cocain and hookers to drown his sorrows.

I dunno 'bout that.

[Vivolkha]

Update: he's apparently in the UAE.

Here's hoping he will have a decent supply of booze, cocain and hookers to drown his sorrows.

Or he could have a heat stroke next summer. The UAE's climate isn't that friendly to 80-year-old people.

[Bear Stearns]

I really don't understand what are you trying to explain here.

As to why they're more republican. Even today the Spanish Republic flag is flown in some places of Catalonia; like a left-wing version of the Confederate flag.

Why are they flying the flag of TRAITOROUS LOSERS WHO LOST LMAO

[Kowani]

Here's hoping he will have a decent supply of booze, cocain and hookers to drown his sorrows.

Or he could have a heat stroke next summer. The UAE's climate isn't that friendly to 80-year-old people.

French Revolution: Desert Edition.

[Vivolkha]

As to why they're more republican. Even today the Spanish Republic flag is flown in some places of Catalonia; like a left-wing version of the Confederate flag.

Why are they flying the flag of TRAITOROUS LOSERS WHO LOST LMAO

To be honest, pretty much the only flags you see in Catalonia if you go outside Barcelona are the Catalan senyera (official Catalan flag) and the Catalan estelada (pro-independence flag), with the Spanish flag in general being reduced to its mandatory official uses only. I have seen at most one or two republican flags. It is flown in cities like Eibar (Basque Country) every 14th of April though.

[Celritannia]

Unless the people wholly support removing the Monarchy, I see no reason for the Monarchy to be removed.
I do however believe Spain should be a Federation State, albeit maintaining a strong central government.

Or you could compromise and have an Elected Monarchy.
Have a long established citizen become the elected life-term appointed Constitutional Monarch, along side a Parliamentary Committee reviewing the incumbent's actions every decade.

[Kedri]

Bring down the monarchy, once and for all. He may not be the king any more, but it is time we moved beyond long useless institutions.

While I as a republican agree, I think it should be up to referendum and let democracy decide it like in Italy. There are many countries where everyone takes pride in their monarch such as the UK or Japan

Yep. I'm not a fan of monarchies, even constitutional ones, but I still think it is better for some countries to retain their monarchies (like Japan, which you mentioned) and the will of the people should he respected in this matter either way.

[Tombradyonia]

While I as a republican agree, I think it should be up to referendum and let democracy decide it like in Italy. There are many countries where everyone takes pride in their monarch such as the UK or Japan

Yep. I'm not a fan of monarchies, even constitutional ones, but I still think it is better for some countries to retain their monarchies (like Japan, which you mentioned) and the will of the people should he respected in this matter either way.

Monarchy, being as it is a system of inherit discrimination, is basically only legitimate if support is unanimous.
In other cases, why could someone else not be the head of state? Because they weren't born in the right family? One family is better than the rest?

Take Spain's case, the previous "king" was chosen by fascist dictator and mass murderer Francisco Franco, how can that possibly be considered legitimate? Should they not have restored the Republic that the treasonous generals overthrew?

[Kedri]

Yep. I'm not a fan of monarchies, even constitutional ones, but I still think it is better for some countries to retain their monarchies (like Japan, which you mentioned) and the will of the people should he respected in this matter either way.

Monarchy, being as it is a system of inherit discrimination, is basically only legitimate if support is unanimous.
In other cases, why could someone else not be the head of state? Because they weren't born in the right family? One family is better than the rest?

Take Spain's case, the previous "king" was chosen by fascist dictator and mass murderer Francisco Franco, how can that possibly be considered legitimate? Should they not have restored the Republic that the treasonous generals overthrew?

Sure, but I don't know enough about Spain's political situation to say whether or not they should get rid of it. I am vaguely aware that Franco had a role in restoring the monarchy, but that's about it.

The common answer to why they are kept around seems to be for the sake of tradition and that since the majority of modern countries are republics (if we are using the loosest definition), then having a monarchy might help a nation stand out more or seem more unique.

They might not see much of point in abolishing something that doesn't have that much of an impact on their daily lives.

[Atheris]

I guess it is not always

Good to be the king.

And, really, there should be a King of Spain. The world would be less interesting if there wasn't. I suppose, if the Spanish people decide to get rid of the monarchy, the family could fall back on one of their other titles, like, say, King of Jerusalem.

Or Roman Emperor.

Send the Inquisition to conduct the extradition, and when they're in position, commence the requisition.

But what about the opposition?

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH OPPOSITION

[Forsher]

Yep. I'm not a fan of monarchies, even constitutional ones, but I still think it is better for some countries to retain their monarchies (like Japan, which you mentioned) and the will of the people should he respected in this matter either way.

Monarchy, being as it is a system of inherit discrimination, is basically only legitimate if support is unanimous.
In other cases, why could someone else not be the head of state? Because they weren't born in the right family? One family is better than the rest?

Take Spain's case, the previous "king" was chosen by fascist dictator and mass murderer Francisco Franco, how can that possibly be considered legitimate? Should they not have restored the Republic that the treasonous generals overthrew?

Franco was nominally a monarchist whose victory would mean a return to the old system. In practice, obviously, Franco didn't let go of power but held on to it. Meanwhile, the son of the best candidate (following the pre-Republic monarchy) was seen as being closer to Franco than the best candidate himself, so Franco decides that the son should be on the throne when he (Fraco) dies. Franco then proceeds to die and the new King turns out to be very much not a Francoist and is generally credited with helping to dismantles Franco's legacy.

(If you're wondering what happened with daddy dearest? Turns out he was a bit peeved at not being king so his son gives him some lesser title that he'd also always wanted.)

So... imagine the Queen is deposed tomorrow, a civil war ensues, lasts for a week and some random general wins, in two weeks time the Queen drops dead, three weeks after that the general dies and instead of saying Charles will be the new King, decides to move on to William... who then proceeds to be remembered for the rest of his life as helping to dismantle Some Random Generalist UK before abdicating and fleeing to the UAE in his eighties under a corruption related cloud.

I guess if they had continued in the Francoist vein, Spain probably would consider the current monarchy illegitimate but possession is 9 tenths of the law and the other tenth is "people are upset". Also a quick look at the Second Spanish Republic makes me hesitant to describe it as "legitimate". It's certainly not any more legitimate than the present Spanish state (with its Francoist origins) in that it really just appears to be "what happens when no-one had any particular problems with a new status quo" (although, obviously, the Second Spanish Republic struggled to avoid the "no particular problems" bit since there was a Civil War not that long after).

[Vivolkha]

Yep. I'm not a fan of monarchies, even constitutional ones, but I still think it is better for some countries to retain their monarchies (like Japan, which you mentioned) and the will of the people should he respected in this matter either way.

Monarchy, being as it is a system of inherit discrimination, is basically only legitimate if support is unanimous.
In other cases, why could someone else not be the head of state? Because they weren't born in the right family? One family is better than the rest?

Take Spain's case, the previous "king" was chosen by fascist dictator and mass murderer Francisco Franco, how can that possibly be considered legitimate? Should they not have restored the Republic that the treasonous generals overthrew?

He is not, but then again there is a significant degree of support for the monarchy still. And, as I said before, the previous republic failed because it never built wide societal consensus, it imposed it instead. Which is the mistake both monarchists and republicans risk making again.

Monarchy, being as it is a system of inherit discrimination, is basically only legitimate if support is unanimous.
In other cases, why could someone else not be the head of state? Because they weren't born in the right family? One family is better than the rest?

Take Spain's case, the previous "king" was chosen by fascist dictator and mass murderer Francisco Franco, how can that possibly be considered legitimate? Should they not have restored the Republic that the treasonous generals overthrew?

Franco was nominally a monarchist whose victory would mean a return to the old system. In practice, obviously, Franco didn't let go of power but held on to it. Meanwhile, the son of the best candidate (following the pre-Republic monarchy) was seen as being closer to Franco than the best candidate himself, so Franco decides that the son should be on the throne when he (Fraco) dies. Franco then proceeds to die and the new King turns out to be very much not a Francoist and is generally credited with helping to dismantles Franco's legacy.

What Franco intended to do with the monarchy is unclear. He had other plans for succession, but they kind of blew up.