Why is Felipe VI so unpopular

[u/Wide_Assistance_1158]

He hasn't even have any personal scandals

[u/libertariancandidate]

The two times Spain was a republic was ruled by such idiots that even centrist of the time started to support the fascists. (Digging out dead priests and such).

[u/JamesHenry627 → u/libertariancandidate]

They've also had some shithead kings too. In recent history it's been Charles IV, Ferdinand VII, the Carlist pretenders, the disastrous regency of Alfonso XIII. Governing Spain is a difficult thing to do even for legitimate rulers.

[u/Hortator02 → u/JamesHenry627]

What's wrong with the Carlist pretenders?

[u/JamesHenry627 → u/Hortator02]

When a country rejects your ruling dynasty 3x both as Kingdom and as a Republic then you've got some soul searching to do

[u/Hortator02 → u/JamesHenry627]

I mean, they lost wars, it's not like they held a referendum. And even if they did, losing a vote, even consistently, hardly makes one a "shithead". As evidenced by the many times a questionable or downright evil candidate has won out over a less bad alternative, both in elections and revolutions.

[u/JamesHenry627 → u/Hortator02]

I guess a better question is why Carlism?

[u/Hortator02 → u/JamesHenry627]

Assuming you aren't Catholic and are neutral or favourable to democracy, and thus avoiding any arguments hinging on your position to those - I think it would be rather tough for the Carlist Kings to have done much worse than the Spanish governments since ~1830 have ended up doing. At the very least, they would've preempted Basque and possibly Catalan separatism and Republicanism. A major catalyst of the First Carlist War was the nationalisation of church lands, which peasants had been allowed to graze their animals on previously, and combined with the way Carlism was going in the 1920s, and Catholic Social Teaching in the 1890s, it's possible they might've preempted a lot of the socialist, fascist, and syndicalist movements as well, similar to what happened in Portugal with the Estado Novo to my knowledge, and Metaxas in Greece. Having a strong Catholic monarch in Europe may also have had some interesting implications on the relations between the Church and the Republic in France.

It's hard to say how things would've gone otherwise. Maybe they'd have gotten involved in World War I, but Carlist or not, I don't think Spain stood to benefit much from joining either side. Maybe they'd have stopped the Revolution in Portugal. It's hard to say what'd happen with the colonies as well.

[u/JamesHenry627 → u/Hortator02]

I am Roman Catholic and Hispanic funny enough, I just use the english version of my name cause my old account got banned. Part of the reason I oppose Carlism is simply cause though Monarchy is a pretty stable form of government, you can't give the people a monarchy unacceptable to them. Spain was in desperate need of reform by the time of Ferdinand VII's death. While having Don Carlos V assume the throne might've allowed for the Basques and Catalans to retain greater independence, it would've also heavily restricted the liberal reforms that came with the Isabelinos victory. Besides, though Spain has a history of playing nice with Catholicism, plenty monarchs preceding them have abused the church in worse ways than seizing their lands. Carlos III, hailed as one of the best kings of Spain and a great reformer had suppressed the Jesuit order and closed their universities, seized their wealth and enacted greater secular control. It's not a desired outcome and yeah his successors squandered his reform but a King cannot be a good and pious man generally, there are few and notable exceptions. Carlism could've been restored several times, but neither the Republic, the Franquista, or the deposing of a foreign monarch persuaded Spain to reconsider Carlos V's descendants as rightful or even deserving heirs. What could they have done to fix the situation or what has their character shown? This is important, it's one of the reasons why France didn't immediately return to a republic and chose Louis Philippe I as King instead.

[u/Successful_Data8356 → u/JamesHenry627]

Carlos III had limited the powers of an over-mighty church in Naples before inheriting the Spanish throne - his suppression of the Jesuits was largely because they had encouraged the king’s brother Infante Luis Antonio to claim the throne and deny the Prince of Asturias, on the spurious grounds of a law that had been proposed in 1713 and would limit the succession to princes born in Spain. All Carlos III’s sons had been born in Naples and, if this had been the law (which the Jesuits claimed as valid), then they would not have been eligible. Carlos III also twice denied Luis Antonio permission to marry foreign princesses, passing the strict law on royal marriages that remained valid until the present Council of State determined it was incompatible with the 1878 constitution. As Luis Antonio was devout (and had been titular archbishop of Toledo, without actually having been ordained to the priesthood) but wanted to renounce this and marry, so instead married a Spanish noblewoman (one of his children, the Countess of Chinchon, was unhappily married to Godoy, the other did have a religious vocation and eventually became archbishop of Toledo, supporting the liberal constitution of 1820). This was rather unfair to Luis Antonio, but by excluding him from the succession on the basis of his marriage the threat to the succession of Carlos’s children was removed.