Talk:Monarchy of Spain
Monarchy of Spain received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
History of the Spanish monarchy
[edit]If someone had the inclination, patience, and judgment, I would suggest fleshing out the History of the Spanish Monarchy in its own page. Much is necessarily glossed over in this section as there simply is not enough room (on the page as a whole) to give due weight to the subject.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 18:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Change in Succession Law
[edit]What's this proposed change in the law of succession? This would be a huge break from the hundred years of the tradition of the Castillian male-preference primogeniture... The current royal house is very prestigious, as it belongs to the Capetian dynasty, the oldest royal house in Europe... That would all change if a female succeeds to the throne... Emerson 07 (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Zapatero stated that it is his government's intention to amend the constitution for full and equal absolute primogeniture, where the first-born inherits the throne regardless of gender, and the oppositional People's Party agrees. Also, the king and Prince of Asturias seem to agree as well. The king already changed the default succession laws for noble titles from male preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture. Whether or not this affects "the prestige" of the royal family is a matter of debate, I do not think it will matter to anyone really but the family members concerned. Any children of the future Queen Leonor may in fact chose to continue to use the Borbon dynasty name, or not. Legally it is their personal choice. It’s a personal matter for them I suppose. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
head of military household
[edit]This section needs to edited for inacuracy. It states the the head of the military household does not advise the king on military affairs, this is not the case. He is the highest ranking officer in the royal household and as such advises the the king on any and all military matters that the king puts to him. He is also the main channel of communication between the King and the Defense Ministry, parliamentary acts,royal decrees and appointments relating to the military are presented for the king's consent by this officer. The Commander of the royal guard takes his orders from the head of the military household. --Marked4life (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Assessment comment
[edit]The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Monarchy of Spain/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
This text:
The ensuing Spanish Civil War began in 1936 and ended in 1 April 1939 with the Carlist General Francisco Franco victorious. General Franco ruled Spain through the fascist Falange political party until his death in 1975. Despite Franco’s Carlist sympathies, Franco appointed as his successor King Juan Carlos I de Borbón, who is credited with presiding over Spain’s transition from fascism to democracy by fully endorsing the liberal Spanish Constitution of 1978, and the reconciliation of the two factions. The constitution asserts Juan-Carlos' right to the Crown of Spain is by dynastic succession in the Borbón tradition, "the legitimate heir of the historic dynasty" ("La Corona de España es hereditaria en los sucesores de S. M. Don Juan Carlos I de Borbón, legítimo heredero de la dinastía histórica"), rather than as the designated successor of Franco, an important distinction.[1][7] This text is not quite accurate. Franco was not a Carlist, either in the sense of supporting any of the Carlist lines of succession to the Crown or as a backer of the Carlist ideology and political party. He had his own idiosyncratic form of reactionary conservatism. He wanted all elements of the right to back him and did include the Carlists as a major part of his army and later movement, but tried hard to marginalize their leaders as a means to dominate them. He effectively succeeded in doing so even before the end of the war. Carlists served in his postwar government but never set the agenda for it. This is how Franco dealt with all the political parties and mass movements that backed him. Even the military cannot be said to have run his government as a military regime. Franco's government might be described as one in which all his supporters were both empowered and marginalized in perfect balance to each other. This is also how he dealt with Spanish Fascism, strictly defined. The Falange never fully recovered from the death of its leader Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. It backed the Nationalist Junta in the war, to the hilt, but it too was well on the road to becoming just a tool of a broader regime by the time the war ended. Like the Carlists, the army and everyone else, it shared in power under Franco without becoming anything like a ruling movement in and of itself. As a result, it is also inaccurate to say that Franco ruled "through the fascist Falange political party". Franco created an umbrella movement, more like a bureaucratic talent pool and information and patronage clearing house than a ruling party, which was called the "Falange Espanola Tradicionalista de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Syndicalista" or "FET de las JONS" for short, or "Movimiento Nacional" for even shorter. This entity at once incorporated/rewarded/neutered the actual Fascists (Falange Espanola), Carlists (Comunion Tradicionalista) and National Syndicalists. Franco may have had "Carlist sympathies" but this neither fully explains nor contradicts his choice of successor. From one point of view within Carlism (a minority point of view, less consistent with the ideology Carlism had developed but more consistent with its original dynastic claims), the Carlist succession had reunited with the main royal line in 1936, in the person of Alfonso XIII, after he had already left Spain for exile. Opposition to Alfonso within Carlism was powerful, but depended on placing ideological purity ahead of dynastic legitimacy, the original point of Carlism. Or it relied on scurrilous gossip about Alfonso's parentage. From a legitimist perspective, one that likely appealed to Franco, the heirs of Alfonso XIII were the proper Carlist heirs after 1936. There was only one proper line of succession and no longer any separate, real "carlist heir". Franco's options in 1969 were both from Alfonso's sons' lines. The elder surviving son Jaime Duke of Segovia had renounced his claims before the war only to revive them after WW2 and call himself the "Carlist" claimant. THis was popular with Carlists but a tad bogus, since he was in fact the senior heir of the Crown by any definition. He later reinstated his renunciation at the request of his own heir Alfonso, in favour of his younger brother Juan Count of Barcelona's line. When the House of Bourbon Legitimists are claiming the Crown of France, they must operate under French "common law" traditions of the Crown. One is that the Crown is inalienable and always belongs to the senior male heir of the senior line of unbroken male descent from Louis Capet, crowned 987. From that point of view, Luis Duke of Anjou (Louis XX of France) is the undoubted head of the Bourbon House and Pretender of France. He is the heir of the Duke of Segovia's line. But Spain does not operate under French law. The original Carlists objected to the succession of a daughter, perhaps a bogus move considering past instances in Spain's succession. But even if one ignores evidence that Spanish law permitted female succession, and succession of males in female line, it is harder even from a Carlist point of view to challenge renunciation of the Crown in favour of a junior male line in unbroken male descent. Unlike France, renunciation is acceptable in Spain. All of which amounts to the conclusion that the post 1936 "Carlist" succession was not explicitly a true Carlist line, arguments in favour of its succession would not actually have been Carlist arguments, and Franco's consideration of appointing Alfonso of Segovia his heir would not have been a substantively Carlist decision. And his final decision in favour of the son of the Count of Barcelona was well in keeping with Spanish law and tradition's possibilities. I might add that this calls into the question the tone of the second selected paragraph. The "important distinction" it mentions is indeed important. The King is Franco's successor in practice and by Franco's will, but he is also the true and legitimate dynastic heir as the Constitution says. But these things are in fact inseparable. The King is not the true dynastic heir just because the Constitution asserts it. In practice Spain has some things in common with other monarchies in which the monarch is decided by the Constitution's terms. But he is also like the British monarchy. He is King because he is the true heir in fact, even if the Constitution had never been written. But why? Because the senior line renounced its rights, as in Spain it could do. And why did they do that? For many reasons, not least that Franco was leaning toward the Barcelona line from which the King comes. So in the end, the King is not made King by the Constitution. He is recognized as already the legitimate King in the Constitution. He is the legitimate King because of a lawful renunciation by his kinsmen, which they could have made without Franco and perhaps to some extent did. But they also did it because Franco made the final call. So the King is King because he is the true heir, due to a process in which Franco made a crucial decision, and is recognized as such by the Constitution. OK. I will leave it at that and with apologies for both length and any infelicity of style or clarity. I am a new wikipedian and may never make many contributions but I hope this one is helpful. Horatio182 (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
Last edited at 22:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 00:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
See Also section
[edit]There has been some controversy surrounding what to keep in the See Also section, apparently it's too long for some people, or has some articles that shouldn't be there.
Can we discuss it here?
My suggestions:
- Monarch - Content of the article covered and article already linked, I say we drop it.
- List of Spanish monarchs - It's probably the best list, and it's not linked in the article. I say wee keep it.
- Monarchs of Spain family tree - Not as good as the other list and redundant. I say we drop it.
- List of Spanish consorts - Better than the family tree, content not included in either, we could keep it but whatever.
- List of titles and honours of the Spanish Crown - Content of the article covered and article already linked. I say we drop it.
- Line of succession to the Spanish throne - Content of the article covered and article already linked. I say we drop it.
- Politics of Spain - Content of the article covered and article already linked. I say we drop it.
- Abolition of monarchy - Spoken about in the article, not linked, very relevant since it has happened already twice and it's a very debated subject nowadays. Should be kept.
- Carlism - Very important subject in the history of the spanish monarchy not covered by the article or linked on it. Should be kept.
Please don't edit the section anymore and discuss it here first, let's try to listen to each other and reach a consensus. --Metalpotato - ✉ 12:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- In general, I support your views on what to remove and what to keep. I have seen that the main conflict is "Abolition of monarchy". To avoid problems, I suggest to replace that with "republicanism in Spain" which is not generic and fully related with the debate monarchy-republic. TheRichic (Messages here) 12:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I consider that option to be as good as Abolition of Monarchy, I don't care which one is kept, I just consider the topic should be mentioned one way or another in that section. Thanks for your input. --Metalpotato - ✉ 13:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Image: Tree of kings from Visigoths until present
[edit]It is full of fake facts, must be provided by the royal house itself. Most hilarious one must be "King Pelayo". 139.47.16.169 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)