Spanish King Juan Carlos abdicates at 76, Prince Felipe(45) to take over the throne - Polidicks

[QUOTE]King Juan Carlos, who is 76, has ruled since 1975. His son Prince Felipe, 45, will take over the throne.For much of his reign, Juan Carlos was seen as one of the world's most popular monarchs. But recently many Spaniards have lost confidence in him, mainly because of a long-running corruption investigation into his daughter and her husband.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27662301"]SOURCE[/URL] Just announced, so nothing else for now.

Did not know Spain had a monarch

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;44976658]Did not know Spain had a monarch[/QUOTE] There are about 10 monarchies at this moment in Europe. EDIT: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchies_in_Europe]12, to be precise.[/url]

¿Por que no te callas?

I did not know they had a monarchy, that's so weird, but then I didn't know if they had a prime minister or president or something either

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;44976518](can't edit title, so can't edit his age error)[/QUOTE] Fixed. I didn't realise there is a Spanish monarchy. Shows how much I know...

Was he the one that told the Francoists to stand down after the attempted coup or was it his predecessor? [editline]2nd June 2014[/editline] oh he did, badass [QUOTE=Wikipedia]"Addressing all Spaniards, with brevity and conciseness, in the extraordinary circumstances that we are currently experiencing, I ask of everyone the greatest serenity and confidence and I inform you all that I have given the Captains General of the military, the navy, and the air force the following order: "Given the situation created by the events that took place in the Palace of Congress and to avoid any possible confusion, I confirm that I have ordered Civil Authorities and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take all necessary measures to maintain constitutional order, within the law. "Should any measure of a military nature need to be taken, it must be approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "The Crown, the symbol of the permanence and unity of the nation, cannot tolerate, in any form, actions or attitudes of people attempting by force to interrupt the democratic process. A process which the Constitution, voted for by the Spanish people, determined by referendum."[/QUOTE]

Well, seeing how all he's been doing all this time was leeching off the state funds to kill elephants, fuck whores and get new shiny spare hip replacements, good to see him go. Hoping we don't get to see his son getting crowned. After the whole corruption mess, they ought to get the fuck away.

[QUOTE=Eriorguez;44977241]Well, seeing how all he's been doing all this time was leeching off the state funds to kill elephants, fuck whores and get new shiny spare hip replacements, good to see him go. Hoping we don't get to see his son getting crowned. After the whole corruption mess, they ought to get the fuck away.[/QUOTE] isn't that what a lot of monarchs do anyway?

Most monarchs weren't designated as heads of states by fascists dictators. Most politicians resort to resigning if they are caught red handed. Spain is different. Also, this guy: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%C3%B1aki_Urdangarin,_Duke_of_Palma_de_Mallorca[/url] [editline]2nd June 2014[/editline] Also, for the February 23rd stuff... Well, lets say his image is not that clear, Google "Operación Palace" to see the shitstorm a mockumentary whipped up.

Good

Felipe should dissolve parliament and withdraw from the EU before unfurling a banner that flutters in the wind bearing the words "IN HOC SIGNO VINCES". He should then reconquer the entire Spanish Empire.

I wish we'd get rid of our monarch for good.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44977648]Felipe should dissolve parliament and withdraw from the EU before unfurling a banner that flutters in the wind bearing the words "IN HOC SIGNO VINCES". He should then reconquer the entire Spanish Empire.[/QUOTE] I think he'd have enough with clearing her own sister's name, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanta_Cristina,_Duchess_of_Palma_de_Mallorca#Corruption_inquiry"]Cristina[/URL], from a case of corruption and fraud using public funds (yeah, from that country undergoing crisis).

[QUOTE=Hamsteronfire;44977232]Was he the one that told the Francoists to stand down after the attempted coup or was it his predecessor? [editline]2nd June 2014[/editline] oh he did, badass[/QUOTE] that was a façade, or at least his hand was tied in that matter, he does what he is told, before and after Franco

A lot of people are hoping for a third republic. I don't mind it but I think it's quite impossible.

The king works as a public relations person tho, even better with the new king, as he has a lot of studies and careers.

Hopefully the Spanish people refuse to recognize the continuance of such a worthless and lecherous institution as a monarchy, and that this spreads throughout the rest of the continent. I hope to see all monarchies gone from the world before the end of my life.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44978462]Hopefully the Spanish people refuse to recognize the continuance of such a worthless and lecherous institution as a monarchy, and that this spreads throughout the rest of the continent. I hope to see all monarchies gone from the world before the end of my life.[/QUOTE] I concur.

[QUOTE=Satansick;44977683]I wish we'd get rid of our monarch for good.[/QUOTE] And his wife.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44978462]Hopefully the Spanish people refuse to recognize the continuance of such a worthless and lecherous institution as a monarchy, and that this spreads throughout the rest of the continent. I hope to see all monarchies gone from the world before the end of my life.[/QUOTE] I bet you want Christmas banned as well

Should be a Hapsburg on that throne.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44980513]Should be a Hapsburg on that throne.[/QUOTE] Get out of here you papist.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44978462]Hopefully the Spanish people refuse to recognize the continuance of such a worthless and lecherous institution as a monarchy, and that this spreads throughout the rest of the continent. I hope to see all monarchies gone from the world before the end of my life.[/QUOTE] Constitutional monarchies are empirically more stable and prosperous than republics. Plus look what happened the last two times Spain tried out a republic ...

[QUOTE=Boku no Haram;44982067]Constitutional monarchies are empirically more stable and prosperous than republics.Plus look what happened the last two times Spain tried out a republic ...[/QUOTE]I'd like you to explain this supposed empirical truth to me.The last time Spain tried a republic it was destroyed and hijacked by a pseudo-king with the support of various other pseudo-kings. Are you seriously suggesting that Spain cannot go without a monarch? That certain families are simply more qualified to rule than others due to birthright?

[QUOTE=Explosions;44982114]I'd like you to explain this supposed empirical truth to me.The last time Spain tried a republic it was destroyed and hijacked by a pseudo-king with the support of various other pseudo-kings. Are you seriously suggesting that Spain cannot go without a monarch? That certain families are simply more qualified to rule than others due to birthright?[/QUOTE] Well it's not like Spain has had the most stable of republics. The first two ones collapsed due to infighting. The legacy of Napoleon and the various Spanish substates lives long.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44982114]I'd like you to explain this supposed empirical truth to me.The last time Spain tried a republic it was destroyed and hijacked by a pseudo-king with the support of various other pseudo-kings. Are you seriously suggesting that Spain cannot go without a monarch? That certain families are simply more qualified to rule than others due to birthright?[/QUOTE] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Government_constitutional_monarchy.svg/1000px-Government_constitutional_monarchy.svg.png[/img] You could go into the nitty gritty and compare HDI or whatever, but clearly just from eyeballing this map there's only one or two exceptions to the general rule that constitutional monarchies are more pleasant places to live. As for theoretical justifications for monarchies, they fill a power vacuum. If the King is seen as the natural head of state ([I]even if that justification is based on something nonsensical like "royal blood"[/I]), then it means some upstart general has a much harder time convincing the people and the world that he is now the legit representative of the state. There are other justifications too, and you should at least research them.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44982164]Well it's not like Spain has had the most stable of republics. The first two ones collapsed due to infighting. The legacy of Napoleon and the various Spanish substates lives long.[/QUOTE] Right but this dude's implying that there's something about republics that's inherently unstable, a ridiculous claim. What's so unstable about the U.S.? Germany? Italy? How are these nations any less stable than the U.K., a nation that may well be torn apart into separate states very soon. The exact same scenario applies to Spain with regards to Catalonia. Some stability.[editline]2nd June 2014[/editline][QUOTE=Boku no Haram;44982197][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Government_constitutional_monarchy.svg/1000px-Government_constitutional_monarchy.svg.png[/img]You could go into the nitty gritty and compare HDI or whatever, but clearly just from eyeballing this map there's only one or two exceptions to the general rule that constitutional monarchies are more pleasant places to live.As for theoretical justifications for monarchies, they fill a power vacuum. If the King is seen as the natural head of state ([I]even if that justification is based on something nonsensical like "royal blood"[/I]), then it means some upstart general has a much harder time convincing the people and the world that he is now the legit representative of the state.[/QUOTE] Please explain to me how the nature of monarchy has anything to do with the "stability" and "pleasantness" of those nations? I'm assuming that you're only paying attention to places like Sweden and Norway and the like. Yet on the very map you presented, Thailand and Cambodia are highlighted. You want to talk about stability? Give me a break. As for the prevention of coups you seem to believe in, it hasn't worked in the least bit throughout history.

[quote]What's so unstable about the U.S.?[/quote] Tell me there's anything keeping the states together beyond an overwhelmingly large federal government and military ... [quote]Germany?[/quote] Because 1848 and 1918 didn't happen right? [quote]Italy?[/quote] Where the separate regions are [I]screaming[/I] for independence because of the inefficient bureaucrats in Rome. [quote]How are these nations any less stable than the U.K., a nation that may well be torn apart into separate states very soon.[/quote] Scotland won't vote for independence, and even if they did, they'd keep the Queen. Besides, if they do leave, it will be on amicable terms, of which the same cannot be said for Cataluña, Veneto or California. [editline]2nd June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;44982205]Right but this dude's implying that there's something about republics that's inherently unstable, a ridiculous claim. What's so unstable about the U.S.? Germany? Italy? How are these nations any less stable than the U.K., a nation that may well be torn apart into separate states very soon. The exact same scenario applies to Spain with regards to Catalonia. Some stability.[editline]2nd June 2014[/editline] Please explain to me how the nature of monarchy has anything to do with the "stability" and "pleasantness" of those nations? I'm assuming that you're only paying attention to places like Sweden and Norway and the like. Yet on the very map you presented, Thailand and Cambodia are highlighted. You want to talk about stability? Give me a break. As for the prevention of coups you seem to believe in, it hasn't worked in the least bit throughout history.[/QUOTE] The Cambodians welcomed the King back with open arms after the horrors of the Khmer Rouge. Thailand is the only major exception. Now open up a list of republics on wikipedia and count the number that have had coups or civil wars or "free and fair elections". What will be the percentage, I wonder?

[quote]Tell me there's anything keeping the states together beyond an overwhelmingly large federal government and military ...[/quote] Extreme economic interdependence, identical culture and language, shared history, highly amiable relations between all states. Honestly, if you think that the U.S. is some fragmented state that's only being held together by military might and centralization, you have a very warped and wrong view of the country. But even if the U.S. was only held together by force, what does that have to do with republicanism? Where is the connection? [quote]Because 1848 and 1918 didn't happen right?[/quote] How was Germany republican during either of those eras? During the Revolution of '48, any attempts at democracy were crushed by the monarchists. I'm not sure why you brought this up, as it runs completely contrary to your point. [quote]Where the separate regions are screaming for independence because of the inefficient bureaucrats in Rome.[/quote] Which is identical to the situation in Spain and similar to the U.K. These things have nothing to do with monarchy or republicanism. It's a non-factor. [quote]Scotland won't vote for independence, and even if they did, they'd keep the Queen. Besides, if they do leave, it will be on amicable terms, of which the same cannot be said for Cataluña, Veneto or California.[/quote] Once again, how does this help with your whole "constitutional monarchy means stability" argument? [editline]2nd June 2014[/editline] [quote]The Cambodians welcomed the King back with open arms after the horrors of the Khmer Rouge. Thailand is the only major exception. Now open up a list of republics on wikipedia and count the number that have had coups or civil wars or "free and fair elections". What will be the percentage, I wonder?[/quote] I would bet that if I went [b]all[/b] the way back in time, I could find more unstable monarchies than republics. Haha! You're really going about this in a juvenile way. Point out the connection between monarchy and stability and republicanism and instability, and maybe you'll start making sense.