The joy in the monarch’s house does not last long. Every day a shock worse than the previous one, the straightest path to the death of an institution whose useful life depends on its ability to generate certainty and stability, not to undermine the credibility of others. The Public Treasury, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Judicial Power, the Legislative Power or the Executive Power … one after another, because of the real scandals, all the State institutions have had and have to take decisions that are difficult to defend, but are compromised by responsibility. to preserve our institutional system.
There is no firewall that can withstand such pressure. First the abdication, then the exile, then the yenka of tax regularizations and now the investigation for four crimes – money laundering, bribery, influence peddling and tax crime – which can carry up to 16 years in prison. The Iñaki Urdagarín thing was a walk in the park compared to the letter of the rogatory commission of the prosecution to the Swiss authorities. What will be the next? It is the only wise thing to ask. The answer is that only heaven knows. If the prosecution formalizes their charges, the result can be a prison sentence for a king. If you archive them, it will be easy to feed the cover-up theory. This is how the institutional deterioration suffered by our system is paid for.
The emeritus alleges that his presumption of innocence is disregarded. He is not without reason. But it was Juan Carlos I who first despised her when he fled instead of staying to assume his responsibility, or to start executing tax adjustments with the classic strategy of Uncle Gilito: to see if I can save a few euros as long as they don’t catch me.
The defenders of the current monarch, Felipe VI, allege to disconnect him from the cluster bomb that his father has become, that the person must be separated from the institution. But then we would be a republic, not a monarchy and Felipe VI would be there by choice, not by bearing a surname and being the son of his father. In addition, the argument has a good chance of ending up being a worse remedy than the disease. The few surveys Reliable ones that are made in Spain about the monarchy do not lie. The valuation of the monarchy barely holds on to the appreciation of pre-80s generations; it stands on the father, not on the son. Each new generation understands, appreciates and values less an institution perceived as superfluous.
They also allege the exemplarity of the son to distance him from the father. But it is difficult to see the exemplarity in counting, through a statement issued the day after the first state of alarm, that a year before the scandal began to explode, his majesty went to a notary in private to leave in writing that he did not know how to renounce an inheritance which he can only renounce when the deceased dies. Or in the accounts of a Royal House where all of its costs are not included. Or in something as childish as skipping the sanitary regulations so that the whole family, plus the photographer, dismiss the heiress at the same Barajas boarding gate.
In the eighties, the golden years of Juancarlismo, a brilliant comedy by the great Richard Benjamin triumphed: This house is a ruin. It narrated the misadventures of a couple when they moved to a mansion that seemed like a bargain, but little by little it falls apart in ruin while eating their savings and their patience. It seems like a premonition of how much is happening to the current Royal House; with the differences that, neither Felipe VI is Tom Hanks, nor Letizia is Shelley Long, and we will never see here that legendary plane of the operators arriving on their Harley Davidsons.