"Will the Spanish people ever forgive me for my straying?"
—Juan Carlos I, Reconciliation
If we were to adapt Tolstoy's idea to monarchy, we could formulate it thus: all stable monarchies are similar; each monarchy in crisis is so in its own way.
Although monarchical law has no democratic rationality, more or less useful monarchies share the same pillars: effective political neutrality, exemplary personal conduct by their members, financial transparency, and a solid symbolic relationship with society. When these elements coincide, the institution is discreet, predictable, and guarantees continuity. But when a monarchy enters into crisis, the fracture is usually unique, each in its own way. It can be due to financial scandals, private conduct that erodes public legitimacy, a poorly managed conflict, or a generational change that fails to connect with society. In the Spanish case, the figure of Juan Carlos I descends into hell due to a combination of corruption and arrogance, which he himself calls "losses"For believing himself above the law, enriching himself fraudulently, not paying taxes, and installing yet another lover and partner at the Zarzuela Palace before parting ways, and for the commissions.
The controlled publication of the 23-F documents, which have consolidated the official version, King. Exactly, when Sabino Fernández Campo prevented Armada's entry into the Zarzuela Palace, thus disassociating the Crown from the coup. The monarch's advice to his father about the need to transfer his tax residence to Spain demonstrates that the current king knows that the institution is threatened and that Spanish public opinion has not been completely subjugated by the image operation of his daughter parading in the uniforms of the various branches of the Army. October 3. In fact, it is an anomaly that the figure of the monarch enjoys the constitutional privileges of article 56.3, which consider him "inviolable and not subject to responsibility," and that in practice the cases lapse when he no longer reigns due to the prolongation of The deadlines. Zarzuela Palace. If he doesn't keep his money abroad, he should explain its origin to avoid being investigated for money laundering. His memoirs reveal how isolated he is from reality and how his own family has banished him to prevent the institution's collapse. ReconciliationThe emeritus king defends these ties as part of an intense personal diplomacy that allegedly secured strategic contracts for Spanish companies, especially in infrastructure, citing the Medina-Mecca high-speed rail line as the prime example. His account presents his friendships with kings like Abdullah and Salman as a tool of statecraft: personal proximity facilitated negotiations in environments where direct trust is key. Within this framework, the transfer of $100 million from Saudi Arabia—which was investigated and ultimately dismissed in Spain—is described as a personal "gift" unrelated to any contractual obligations. A substantial portion of that money ended up being transferred to Corinna Larsen, amplifying the public and political scandal. Juan Carlos defends his institutional role. But relations with Saudi Arabia cannot be separated from the structural problem of impunity that characterized the Spanish Transition. As early as 1977, Juan Carlos I wrote a letter to Shah Mohamed Reza Pahlavi requesting financial support. The king was not merely a diplomatic facilitator, but a central figure in a system where the boundaries between public interest and private business are deliberately blurred. The episodes involving foundations abroad, opaque transfers, and the fact that the money ended up in Corinna Larsen's hands were not anomalies, but rather symptoms of a political model that shielded the Crown from ordinary scrutiny. The normalization of a power culture based on personal relationships with authoritarian regimes and a lack of accountability persists to this day.
