We read in the ARA that Juan Carlos I "has decided to sue his ex-lover Corinna Larsen" ten days after suing "the former president of Cantabria, Miguel Ángel Revilla." Throw a piece in the pot.
Let's see. The Spanish Constitution says that the king "is inviolable." Being inviolable is something very, very serious and very, very medieval: it means going unpunished for committing any kind of crime. The king, being "inviolable," could or has been able to "violate," and would not be punished like Dani Alves. (Sorry, maybe that's not the best example.) If he can commit crimes and won't be tried, the minimum consideration he should have would be not to accuse commoners without immunity of crimes.
Let's imagine that Corinna goes to trial because of the emeritus lawsuit. And in that trial, she explains that the emeritus committed crimes. And that these crimes can be proven. It would be of no use, because the emeritus is inviolable. How should you defend yourself, Corinna, then? Any monarch "of the 21st century, etc.," with a minimum of decency would renounce inviolability, because they wouldn't need to, certain as they would be of not wanting to commit any crime. The reasons for the lawsuit, let me say, are quite curious. The emeritus accuses the former lover (the woman who made possible the photo of the emeritus in shorts grilling meat on a barbecue bought at the same supermarket as you) of keeping money that he "gave" her "for safekeeping." The ex-lover says the money "is a gift" and doesn't intend to return it. Both are strange. If I want to save money, I don't give it to the lover, but to the bank, where it will be audited. If I'm the lover, I don't accept money as a gift, because it means they're tax-free, that is, black.
