5 ms·

You may want to remember the moment when the King of Spain successfully preserved the democracy of the country by shutting down a military coup just 40 years ag

You may want to remember the moment when the King of Spain successfully preserved the democracy of the country by shutting down a military coup just 40 years ago. "[...]the King of Spain appeared live on television, wearing the uniform of the Captain General of the Armed Forces (Capitán General de los Ejércitos), the highest Spanish military rank, to oppose the coup and its instigators, defend the Spanish Constitution and disavow the authority of Milans del Bosch. He declared: I address the Spanish people with brevity and concision: In the face of these exceptional circumstances, I ask for your serenity and trust, and I hereby inform you that I have given the Captains General of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force the following order: Given the events taking place in the Palace of Congress, and to avoid any possible confusion, I hereby confirm that I have ordered the Civil Authorities and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take any and all necessary measures to uphold constitutional order within the limits of 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, symbol of the permanence and unity of the nation, will not tolerate, in any degree whatsoever, the actions or behavior of anyone attempting, through use of force, to interrupt the democratic process of the Constitution, which the Spanish People approved by vote in referendum. From that moment on, the coup was understood to be a failure[...]" Monarchs still have the same function they always had. The represent a direct connection between the nation and the people, and in times of crisis they can stabilize the nation or put an end to political brinkmanship, even if they only hold symbolic functions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Spanish_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt#Juan_Carlos's_repudiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Spanish_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hulitu 5y ago
And before that ? When Franco was in power ? What did he do ?
- evgen 5y ago
  The failed coup attempt was in 1981. Franco died in '75. Is history really this hard for some people?
  - LAC-Tech 5y ago
    If there's anything HN threads that deal with history tells us it's - yes, yes it is. Nevertheless people will weigh in with their incredibly strong opinions they have based off of (I presume) hollywood movies. Maybe a lot of people just got finished watching that one where Leonardo di Caprio was Louis XIV, or maybe it was Braveheart.
  - ravi-delia 5y ago
    Clearly the person you responded to wasn't asking what Franco did for that particular coup. Having ceded that one king did one useful thing, they pointed out that another was...perhaps less helpful.
    - bonzini 5y ago
      Spain had been a republic for almost 10 years when Franco took power. For most of the years when Franco was in power the king had no real powers even though Spain was again formerly a monarchy. Once Juan Carlos was named heir to the throne, he publicly supported Franco while secretly planning the return of exiled politicians and resumption of democracy. He was pretty badass overall. Maybe you're confusing it with Italy?
      - ravi-delia 5y ago
        I was using "king" as a catch-all term for rule by a single individual. Probably lazy in a discussion about actual aristocracy, but in my defense any sole person in charge of a nation could claim to represent a direct connection between the nation and the people.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > Is history really this hard for some people? No harder than civility is for others.
- bonzini 5y ago
  He met secretly with exiled politicians and planned their return.
nahuel0x 5y ago
The same monarchy who supported the Franco fascist coup against the Republic, starting the civil war? Yes, very democratic.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Also note the King of Denmark's role in opposing the Nazi occupation. And even in England, in A Man Called Intrepid, William Stevenson notes that it was important that the secret services swore their oath to the king rather than the prime minister. That way, if Germany had conquered England and replaced the prime minister, the secret services could have continued fighting without feeling like traitors.
- jhbadger 5y ago
  But couldn't Germany replace the king as well? Maybe with the abdicated Edward VIII, who was known to be sympathetic to them.
  - jltsiren 5y ago
    Replacing a king is much harder than replacing a prime minister, especially if the old king is still alive and disagrees. Public officials can be easily replaced against their will – the system is designed for that. A king, on the other hand, remains a king until they die or abdicate. When that happens, the throne passes on according to an established line of succession. Any other king installed by a conqueror would be an illegitimate pretender. The conqueror could in principle force the parliament to alter the line of succession. But because the UK is a common law state without a written constitution, it's far from obvious if the parliament can actually do that under such circumstances without consent from the monarch and their heirs.
dathinab 5y ago
They also can to the opposite, i.e. actively destabilizing the country, preventing needed reforms, call for coups etc. In difference to politicians you can't as simply remove their authority on misbehavior because royalty is not something you are elected to. The fundamental flaw of monarchies is that they raise or fall with the character and competency of a single person (or very small group). (This also applies to system where a single person hold a lot of power mostly unchecked, like e.g. a democratically elected president with way to much power). Anyway the role they still play differs hugely depending on country. In some it's close to none, in some they still have a bit of old money in some they still have some political influence. In the end Spain 1981 was lucky, lucky in that the King respected the choice of the people which had removed most of his families power from them. If the King instead would have wanted to reestablish royal power things probably would have ended pretty bad.
- pyuser583 5y ago
  I mean things did end pretty bad for the King.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

hulitu 5y ago

And before that ? When Franco was in power ? What did he do ?

evgen 5y ago
The failed coup attempt was in 1981. Franco died in '75. Is history really this hard for some people?
- LAC-Tech 5y ago
  If there's anything HN threads that deal with history tells us it's - yes, yes it is. Nevertheless people will weigh in with their incredibly strong opinions they have based off of (I presume) hollywood movies. Maybe a lot of people just got finished watching that one where Leonardo di Caprio was Louis XIV, or maybe it was Braveheart.
- ravi-delia 5y ago
  Clearly the person you responded to wasn't asking what Franco did for that particular coup. Having ceded that one king did one useful thing, they pointed out that another was...perhaps less helpful.
  - bonzini 5y ago
    Spain had been a republic for almost 10 years when Franco took power. For most of the years when Franco was in power the king had no real powers even though Spain was again formerly a monarchy. Once Juan Carlos was named heir to the throne, he publicly supported Franco while secretly planning the return of exiled politicians and resumption of democracy. He was pretty badass overall. Maybe you're confusing it with Italy?
    - ravi-delia 5y ago
      I was using "king" as a catch-all term for rule by a single individual. Probably lazy in a discussion about actual aristocracy, but in my defense any sole person in charge of a nation could claim to represent a direct connection between the nation and the people.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > Is history really this hard for some people? No harder than civility is for others.
bonzini 5y ago
He met secretly with exiled politicians and planned their return.

nahuel0x 5y ago

The same monarchy who supported the Franco fascist coup against the Republic, starting the civil war? Yes, very democratic.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

Also note the King of Denmark's role in opposing the Nazi occupation. And even in England, in A Man Called Intrepid, William Stevenson notes that it was important that the secret services swore their oath to the king rather than the prime minister. That way, if Germany had conquered England and replaced the prime minister, the secret services could have continued fighting without feeling like traitors.

jhbadger 5y ago
But couldn't Germany replace the king as well? Maybe with the abdicated Edward VIII, who was known to be sympathetic to them.
- jltsiren 5y ago
  Replacing a king is much harder than replacing a prime minister, especially if the old king is still alive and disagrees. Public officials can be easily replaced against their will – the system is designed for that. A king, on the other hand, remains a king until they die or abdicate. When that happens, the throne passes on according to an established line of succession. Any other king installed by a conqueror would be an illegitimate pretender. The conqueror could in principle force the parliament to alter the line of succession. But because the UK is a common law state without a written constitution, it's far from obvious if the parliament can actually do that under such circumstances without consent from the monarch and their heirs.

dathinab 5y ago

They also can to the opposite, i.e. actively destabilizing the country, preventing needed reforms, call for coups etc. In difference to politicians you can't as simply remove their authority on misbehavior because royalty is not something you are elected to. The fundamental flaw of monarchies is that they raise or fall with the character and competency of a single person (or very small group). (This also applies to system where a single person hold a lot of power mostly unchecked, like e.g. a democratically elected president with way to much power). Anyway the role they still play differs hugely depending on country. In some it's close to none, in some they still have a bit of old money in some they still have some political influence. In the end Spain 1981 was lucky, lucky in that the King respected the choice of the people which had removed most of his families power from them. If the King instead would have wanted to reestablish royal power things probably would have ended pretty bad.

pyuser583 5y ago
I mean things did end pretty bad for the King.