Does Spain need a Royal Family?

Now that Juan Carlos is abdicating, does Spain need a Royal Family? 

There was even a demonstration in Cardiff (!) yesterday by Spaniards calling for a referendum on the issue.

[Actually, I think this could be a good poll for Mac to do - if you're reading this Mac]

In this the 21st century, does any country actually need a Royal Family?

Given the incessant gaffes made by our lot, particularly the males, aren't they more of an embarrassment than an asset?

More and more it seems to me that a Royal Family just serves to highlight the differences between the 'haves' and the 'have nots.'

As ever, the 'likes' and 'dislikes' ticked are interesting. Why would two people dislike the fact that I even raised the issue? (Considering 57% of young Spaniards are Republicans - almost the exact same proportion of them who are unemployed?)

Monarchy in the twenty first century is an anachronism. A hang over from the past when inequality between peoples was an intricate and deliberate part of European political philosophy.

It has similarities to how religion was enforced by monks and clergy who were an educated elite. The majority then were kept in calculated, deliberate ignorance.

Modern monarchy serves no useful purpose except to relieve the elected politicians with the burden of participation in ceremony. The exception is the US and French presidents who carry the burden of a duel role. However at least they are the people’s choice.

Monarchy also serves to attract tourism rather like attractive old buildings that once served a useful purpose.

I don’t believe a nation has fully grown up and left it’s imperial past behind until they finally rid themselves of monarchy. The British still believe they have an empire and possess real influence and power in the world. One consequence would be the inevitable separation of church and state.

I believe a secular nation is a true demonstration of a societies true political maturity.

Monarchy and religion have historically been the cause of so much unnecessary death and destruction. Yet losing it completely is unthinkable to many who convince themselves it actually has meaning. They believe it would be like losing their national identity.  That in the modern world indicates deep insecurity.

If you look at Spanish history, they've been a republic twice, and both republics were short lived and came to a very sticky end. I don't know why people are so keen to re-run that experiment. Juan Carlos on the other hand was a stabilizing force during the transition to democracy. Without him, Spain would have quickly marched down the road of a banana republic in the post Franco period, rather like the various South American republics did, rolling from one military coup to the next.

But if we're going to discuss abolishing monarchies, why not go the whole hog and abolish the state? All forms of state sponsored power are a vestige of past era. The transition from absolutist monarchy to constitutional monarchy was just the old guys clinging onto power while giving some semblance of participation the masses. A republic is just the same thing with the monarch replaced by another out of touch rich guy. Theoretically any citizen could become that rich guy, but in reality the system is rigged so the bank always wins. More and more people in the world today are understanding that we should not choose between good government and bad government, as there is no such thing as good government but just slightly less bad government. It is the state itself is past its sell by date and we need to think about alternatives to the state, not alternative forms of state.  

I would agree Juan Carlos played a useful role in the early part of the transition of Spain from dictatorship to democracy. However the existence of monarchy has done very little for stability since. The EU can claim some of the credit for that. The Spanish people thmeselves have done the rest.

Monarchy represents militarism and the enforcement arm of the established church. Monarchy has nothing whatever to do with democratic values. It is the embodiment of a strict hierarchical class system. It sends a message, we are here and you are there. We are different and special; you the people belong on a lower tier of society.

Mario Rajoy said this week in response to demonstrations for a republic; if you want rid of the monarchy change the Spanish constitution. He was in effect saying monarchy is Spain.

Very depressing, it was that kind of intransigence that brought about civil war.

The European Union is actually doing it's level best to abolish statehood in Europe. That's what federalisim is. It was Francios Mitterrand who once said 'nationalism means war'. 

The European Union is actually doing it's level best to abolish statehood in Europe. That's what federalisim is. It was Francios Mitterrand who once said 'nationalism means war'.

The European Union is not at all seeking to move beyond statehood. It is just replacing nation states by a Euro super state.

I have yet to see one example of any point where the EU has abolished any national law and said, from now on, this is going to be a matter of personal choice for each and every person. No it has always been a tit for tate abolition of national sovereignties to replace them with Euro sovereignties.

To say "nationalism means war" is a very short signted reading of history. Not all wars were started by nation states. At one time the whole of India was owned by a private corporation, the East India Company. Corporations can start wars, federations can start wars, nation states can start wars. Even crackpots with Kalaschnikows living in caves can start wars. What Francois Mitterand said was b***

No it has always been a tit for tate abolition of national sovereignties to replace them with Euro sovereignties.

Think that concedes my point. When did the populations of Europe ever give their consent for that?

The European Union is attempting to move Europe towards postnationalisim which is the process or trend by which national states and national identities lose their importance relative to global economic and political entities.

However the problem for them is Europe’s population stubbornly prefer allegiances to their national identity not some obscure monolithic in Brussels. The image of monarchy contributes an integral part of that. It has had it’s day.

The question was, "Does Spain need a Royal Family", but the thread has been highjacked by anti UK royalists .

I served Queen and country for 25 years, I really cannot imagine serving President and country. They are here today and gone tomorrow. Consider Putin for a minute or any of the South American despots. As for emphasising the difference between the haves and have nots, has an unemployed 50 year old or someone on average salary ever made president or even prime minister for that matter, money talks!!

As for the so called gaffs by the DoE, yes, I don't mind saying who we are talking about, as an ex-serviceman his sense of humour, like mine, comes from a more honest and even dark angle, used to get you through the tough times, because of this he is generally mis-understood and of course the press have a field day as it fills pages with their usual rubbish, all taken out of context. Even the prime minister and presidents fall foul of this type of treatment.

These days prime ministers and presidents send men and women to war for their own grandisment and egos, disguised as saving the democratic world from terror and dictatorship.

Royality, until it can replaced with something better, is a stabilising and continous influence, far better to serve than a here today gone tomorrow fly-by-night and it may even stop the "federalist" creating a dictorial president.

This message was last edited by SailorBert on 07/06/2014.

Does any country need a monarchy?

We as a race need leadership of some form or another whether it is the captain of a local pub darts team, mayor, councilor, president, prime minister, religous etc.

However when we elect these leaders we throw shed loads of cash at them and they become greedy and power crazy then we relect them

Why do we need national identities - another human invention pushed on us by leaders and media.

Any form of group identity be it religous, politcal, national or even sport causes problems because we are told (sometimes we think) we are better and we want more or do not like losing or being told we are wrong.

We are all born the same and have the same basic needs but we are educated / brainwashed / forced into believing the views of leaders, poltcians, religions, media etc then even fight, kill and die for these beliefs!!!!!

The question was, "Does Spain need a Royal Family", but the thread has been highjacked by anti UK royalists 

I am anti-monarchy wherever they happen to be. However I would not be so presumptuous as to advise the Spanish if they should have a King or not. I write of the principal of monarchy versus elected heads of state which seem to work well in the many democratic republics around the world.

The UK has been fortunate to have a decent monarch in Elizabeth 2 but equally it’s had many duds in the past, is likely to have again and cannot be rid of them. Juan Carlos has served Spain in the transmission period but there is a sizable section of the population who seem in favour of returning to a republic but have no mechanisim in which to do it. Changing the constitution I suspect it virtually impossible.

France has a constitution whereby the President whilst being head of state is also the head of government. Church and state are separate and religious teaching is banned in schools. I don’t see the French in need of a monarch. They can change their head of state every five years and whoever it happens to be is the people’s choice. That’s democratic, fair and a desirable situation in my view.

Hi Eggcup

I'll keep your comment in mind :-) about the poll.

Recent opion poll in Spain revealed 62% of those surveyed want a referendum for a republic. 

What I read was that 62% wanted the right to choose. Not that they specifically wanted a Republic. 

Yes could have worded it better. Right to choose a republic or right to stay a monarchy, although it's uncertain that's not what they actually intend. How's that?

The stumbling block is the change to the constitution which requires almost unanimity.. I cannot see that happening in my lifetime.

Well, thats just it. The wording of the question in these survey is very misleading sometimes.

From what I understand is that the question asked was more in the lines of "do you want the right to choose how the country's government is set up" 

ie. Who would be the head of state.

And the data is being interpreted as "do you want a republic"

A big difference.

I don't really see much difference between having the right to choose your head of state and being a republic.

If the monarchy were elected or approved by an election it wouldn't really be a monarchy any more, but just an ex-monarch turned president.