1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
vladimir2022 [97]
3 years ago
13

Explain the erosion of Monarchial Power and the transition to democracy.

History
1 answer:
marin [14]3 years ago
6 0

I read up on this and I did not copy any links, But here is what  I got copied and pasted...


This is what happens when a crisis drags on and on, adversely affecting everyone's expectations of the future: ideas that used to be thought of as carping criticism, the hobbyhorses of cranks and trolls, begin to seem like reasonable propositions. Such is the case of republicanism. The monarchy has been losing the confidence the Spanish public used to feel in it. The Crown now gets about three out of 10 in the opinion polls, when its average used to be 7.5.

What happened? Well, aside from the rivers of pious ink that have flowed on the subject, the case can be stated briefly enough: the king inherited a Crown that - for anyone of modern views - was illegitimate. A quaint relic of the Middle Ages, fallen further into disrepute by its complicity with the extreme right for a century and a half, and in particular with the Franco regime. But by scrupulously correct behavior, in line with constitutional principles, Don Juan Carlos redeemed that essential illegitimacy.

In practical terms: as the dictator's demise drew nigh in the late 1960s, the extreme left (the Communists) at last accepted the deal - first made in exile in 1947 between the various monarchist groups and the moderate left (the Socialists) - that any transition to democracy would have to take place under a king or regent.

The fact that the king, and the government he appointed, carried out a substantial part of the opposition's wishes, explains why the legitimacy of the monarchy had so much to do with the person of Don Juan Carlos. It is commonplace that, without being exactly monarchists, a probable majority of the Spanish public were, at least, "Juan-Carlists."

For similar reasons, once democracy had been consolidated, a majority might well cease to be Juan-Carlists, at the least circumstance that produced a feeling of disaffection, drifting into overt hostility toward the monarchy. Such a drift is perceptible in the increasing numbers of republican banners seen in recent demonstrations by the left against government policies on matters as sensitive as healthcare, education, evictions and abortion. This is the chief danger of the monarchy's close connection with the person of the king: lack of confidence in one brings the other into discredit.

This is just what we have seen since 2008, in a process inversely parallel to what happened in the 1970s. If then the king's decisions gave legitimacy to the monarchy, now the conduct of several people, not only of the king but mainly of his daughter and son-in-law, have put public confidence in the monarchy under unbearable strain. And if in those days the legitimacy conferred on the institution by the king's actions made the monarchy/republic question seem irrelevant, it can now come as no surprise that the loss of confidence in the Royal Household has done great damage to the monarchy, and may make a republic look once more like a reasonable option.

To take serious note of this drift of opinion is the same as to suggest that perhaps the time has come to disconnect the person from the institution. The time of belief in the divine origin of royal power is long past, and no one now believes in Mother Nature as a code of conduct. Nothing is quite divine, and nothing entirely natural. The monarchy that now exists is there thanks to a deal struck 40 years ago. It would not be at odds with the essence of that institution if the Crown were held as a public office until a certain age, such as 75; after which the king would need only concern himself with the ceremony to invest his replacement as head of state. Like the pope, who, though owing his office to the inscrutable designs of Providence, is apparently enjoying a happy retiremeny


You might be interested in
What did Ida B. Wells do to show equality at the women’s right march in Washington, D.C.?
KiRa [710]

Ida Bell Wells-Barnett (July 16, 1862 – March 25, 1931) was an American investigative journalist, educator, and early leader in the civil rights movement. She was one of the founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).[1] Over the course of a lifetime dedicated to combating prejudice and violence, and the fight for African-American equality, especially that of women, Wells arguably became the most famous Black woman in the United States.[2]

3 0
2 years ago
In what way was the Ohio River Valley a factor in the French and Indian War?
nordsb [41]
Question:
In what way was the Ohio River Valley a factor in the French and Indian War?

The Ohio River Valley in the French and Indian War
The French and Indian War was fought primarily in North America between the French and the Native American tribes who allied with them, and the British and the British-American colonists. It lasted from 1756 to 1763, and is also known as the Seven Years' War.
4 0
3 years ago
Which of the following best describes a reservation?
malfutka [58]

Answer: the government confines American Indians to a specific area, and they are prohibited from leaving

Explanation: took the quiz

5 0
3 years ago
33. The states have the power to establish public schools
iragen [17]

Answer: federalism because I got it right on my test

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
In what way did General Sheridan alleviate an issue affecting the Cheyenne
german

Answer:

He had cattle removed from Cheyenne territory to prevent confrontations.

Explanation:

The conflict started when cattle companies in Cheyenne started to kill other settlers in that area. They did this because The settlers existence took out a lot of land that the company use for cattle distribution.

To stop this conflict General Sheridan removed cattles from Cheyenne territory. Regarding Interstate Cattle transfer, General Sheridan banned Texas cattle forbidden to cross the Cheyenne and Arapaho lands. This force the companies to find other route for the cattle distribution and stop the conflict.

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which colony was the first to move into the pro-declaration camp after a victory against the loyalists? If you could answer this
    8·1 answer
  • Which statement best describes the way Romans viewed education?
    6·2 answers
  • Describe the problem created by the European nations when they divided Africa.
    13·1 answer
  • What did the colonists do during the 1st continental war?
    11·1 answer
  • A newly formed volcanic island can trigger which process in an ocean ecosystem? Primary succession Secondary succession Converge
    15·2 answers
  • How were the rulers of mercantilism used to the country's power?
    10·1 answer
  • In 1800, the land beyond the Mississippi River, called the ____-_______, were controlled by Spain, Great Britain, and Russia.​
    13·1 answer
  • 1. What is most closely the meaning of the word weatherd in the line below?
    10·1 answer
  • 16. What aspect of the League of Nations made it ineffectual? O A. The insistence upon decolonization O B. The requirement for u
    9·2 answers
  • 1
    5·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!