European monarchies, in free fall

BarcelonaIf throughout the 20th century many European monarchies could be politically justified as guarantors of democratic values – for example, for not having cooperated with fascism during the world wars –, now this situation has changed. The refinement of the meaning of democracy in the minds of European citizens means that the thrones that have reached our days have become misaligned with the concept of democracy that large segments of society now hold. This society demands that the representatives of its highest institutions not only formally adhere to democratic values, but also live a life consistent with those values. A tangible adherence. Adapting to this new phase is infinitely more complex for monarchies than any previous reform, since these institutions are intrinsically contrary to what meritocracy and equality mean, the two essential pillars upon which a democracy is indefectibly built today.

In this context of greater political demand from citizens, the monarchies that remain in Europe – about a dozen – have repeatedly shown in recent times clear symptoms of not having understood this latent social message. Or worse: of having understood it but not respected it. Facts accredited by all sorts of sources have shown members of these institutions going beyond what they should ethically be able to afford if they lived according to the values that the people associate with democracy. This has caused a notable disaffection for the members of these royal houses, who do not count on the popular affection of their predecessors despite practically enjoying the same privileges.

Respect for the law?

The long shadow of the pedophile magnate Jeffrey Epstein over various European crowns has highlighted the moral distance between citizens' demands and the real lives of the members of these families. For decades, Epstein had woven an international network of contacts with the world's most powerful men, with whom he sought to ingratiate himself by allegedly facilitating the option of practicing pedophilia to try to build a complicity that would later serve him to obtain advantages for his businesses and interests. This macabre plan had Prince Andrew of York as one of its main protagonists. The intimate relationship of Queen Elizabeth II's favorite son with Epstein has served to illustrate to the press how low the level of moral demand is within these institutions, as while it has exposed the impermissible acts of some of their members, it has also pointed to the complicit silence of all the others.

Currently stripped of this title, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor embodies the most extreme version of what society cannot tolerate from its royal families: the almost total absence of personal merit combined with an enormous amount of privileges which, moreover, are exercised in an environment of impunity. Epstein's archives, which the US government made public this year, reveal that Andrew allegedly engaged in business with the American pedophile, with privileged information being the main asset. This information was obtained by Queen Elizabeth II's son through his role as special representative for international trade for the United Kingdom – funded with public money – or through his network of contacts within the elites, among whom he had moved since birth. These alleged illicit businesses, moreover, were simultaneous with the meetings that Epstein and Andrew had with minors, whom the aristocrat allegedly sexually abused.

Royal satellites

The revelation of Epstein's archives also portrays the misdeeds of Andrew's ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, who confesses to the tycoon in an email that she has publicly criticized him to save her own image but doesn't believe the pedophile deserves the criticism she has leveled at him, for which she servilely apologizes before calling him a "supreme friend". Ferguson's email shows that not only those born into monarchies but also those who join through marriage pose serious challenges to democratic rigor. Princess Sofia of Sweden, daughter-in-law of King Carl Gustaf, or Mette-Marit of Norway, daughter-in-law of King Harald and wife of the future King Haakon, have also been implicated by Epstein's archives. The former encountered him on several occasions when she wanted to make a fortune in the entertainment world in the United States, and the latter became involved with him to an unknown degree of intimacy (but quite a bit, given the closeness shown in the emails they exchanged) while already married to the heir to the throne. In fact, she went to see him at his home in Florida, a place where the then Dukes of York also went with their two daughters while he was serving a house arrest. What exemplary person would consciously take their daughters to the home of a pedophile with a public, firm sentence?

If what these archives have revealed casts doubt on the moral integrity of some members, the management of the reputational crisis that all this has caused in the royal houses has also left a poor image of their heads. In other words, it extends the shadow of doubt from a specific member to the entire institution. Statements that arrived late, that did not answer the questions citizens were asking, and that made claims that were later discovered to be false – or only partially true – have put the monarchs who now lead these old dynasties in a very bad position, unable to put the institution at the service of the people when they have to choose between protecting a member or fulfilling the duty of transparency that the democratic system requires of them.

Set aside (but with a mansion)

One of the most flagrant cases of royal indulgence with an immoral member of the family has been staged by Charles III with his brother Andrew, who since 2019 had been stripped of royal honours and removed from the official Buckingham agenda, but it has not been until this 2026 that King Charles has expelled him from the 30-bedroom mansion within Windsor Castle Park where he lived. 7 years ago he scandalised British society with a BBC interview in which he lied shamelessly to the public to save himself. But the royal punishment has not arrived until now. A soft landing that many Britons must not understand and which has granted King Charles a popularity ten points lower than that of his sister Anne, who has a minuscule part of the media impact he has. Nor could they have understood that Prince Andrew was saved from a pedophilia trial in the US also thanks to the money his family has accumulated after centuries of privilege. To his victim, Virginia Giuffre – whom he had abused three times when she was a minor, according to her testimony –, the late Queen Elizabeth II paid her – according to various media – 16 million euros to spare her son – and her own institution...– the ordeal of the trial, which was to take place in the US.

With regard to the monarchy, Spanish society has also learned a great deal recently, witnessing how decades of using public resources to cover up a double life of Juan Carlos de Borbón have been uncovered. In the economic sphere, various reports have indicated that the emeritus king was not the man that the laws he sanctioned obliged him to be. In the family sphere, he was also not the father and husband one could expect from a religiously married man. But there was no evidence of all this until he abdicated after 39 years of enjoying a life that had little to do with what the people he claimed to represent knew. Political, patrimonial, financial, and media privileges have come to light in recent times, with testimonies of all kinds evidencing that he had allegedly made lucrative personal deals while supposedly representing Spain's commercial interests with the complicity of opaque media and enormously permissive political parties.

Living off public resources without contributing

For example, Joan Carles paid around 678,000 euros in December 2020 after having used opaque cards, as some media outlets revealed. A year later, in February 2021, he made another regularization. In that case, of about 4.4 million and related to private flights and other expenses financed by third parties. These updates of his situation with the Spanish tax authorities avoided him foreseeable criminal responsibilities for alleged tax crimes. The regularization did not occur until various media reports pointed out his undeclared activities. Other activities of the monarch carried out when he had not yet abdicated went unpunished due to his constitutional inviolability, a privilege that was then interpreted in the most generous way possible, as some specialists considered that this legal protection should only apply to the exercise of his office and not to all matters of his life. A direct blow to the principle of equality in institutions that 21st-century citizens expect.

Several media outlets have also accredited with numerous sources that the Spanish State would have used its reserved funds to finance the silence of his mistresses on several occasions. After these truths were discovered, the monarch, who had always been sold to the media as the bearer of democracy in Spain, has found refuge in Abu Dhabi, a fierce dictatorship in which taxes are almost nil and from which large fortunes regularly operate.

In that enclave where any democrat would feel very uncomfortable, Joan Carles has settled with his grandson Froilà, who at 27 years old has spent a decade providing all sorts of headlines to the press due to his low exemplariness. The informational opacity of the emirate where he resides has been a good formula to quell this reputational bleeding for him and, in turn, for the Spanish royal family. They have not done the same with his granddaughter Victòria Frederica, who despite having all the necessary resources to be educated and send a message of solvency from the members of the royal family to the citizens, at her 25 years old does not have any completed regulated higher education and dedicates herself to living off her inherited fame as the granddaughter of the emeritus king on both social media and in the media.

Corruption in capital letters

Exemplarity has not prevailed either in the case of Infanta Cristina and her ex-husband, Iñaki Urdangarin, who plunged the Spanish Crown into an unparalleled crisis with the Nóos Case. He, as director of the non-profit Institute Nóos, received public money that he diverted to cover personal expenses through companies created ad hoc. For these acts he was sentenced in 2017 to 5 years and 10 months in prison. She, acquitted of criminal offense, was ordered to pay a fine –for her civil liability– of approximately 265,000 euros.

However, monarchies have not only shown a low level of respect for public money but also a low level of their supposed sense of duty. This is perfectly exemplified by the lack of exemplary behavior shown during the pandemic by King Willem of the Netherlands, his wife Màxima and their daughters

, who broke confinement to travel to their mansion in Kranidi, on the Greek peninsula of the Peloponnese. These events highlighted the fine line separating private life from public responsibility in the representatives of royal houses. A line that citizens place in one place and, judging by their behavior, monarchs in a very different one.

Responsibility and empathy

Before the pandemic, William of the Netherlands had a popularity of 76% – according to a study by the Dutch public television program Nieuwsuur– and a year later this figure had dropped to 47%. The citizens did not forgive him that during 2020, while they were going through uncertainties of all kinds, their monarch bought a boat for two million euros and, above all, went on vacation to Greece after the Dutch government had asked the population not to travel unless strictly necessary to avoid covid-19 infections. The Orange returned home a few hours after landing in Greece – on the official plane – due to the social impact their trip had caused. It was their second mistake during the pandemic, as that same August they had been photographed ignoring the recommended one and a half meter safety distance while taking photos with a restaurant owner. The uproar was such that they had to apologize for everything in a televised message.

In terms of empathy, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in the hands of the Nassau-Weilburg family since 1890, also failed spectacularly. In 2019, the Luxembourg government commissioned Jeannot Waringo to prepare a report on the functioning of the Grand Ducal court. The results of his audit shook the foundations of the Luxembourg monarchy when they were made public in 2020. The protagonist of the controversy was Maria Teresa, wife of the Grand Duke. The Waringo report pointed to an unbreathable work environment within the palace, governed by a "culture of fear", "anxiety" and even cases of "physical" and psychological "mistreatment". The Grand Duchess consort, who made decisions personally in an institution lacking organizational criteria and pre-established procedures, was accused of being a "tyrant". Empirical data indicated that these conclusions were difficult to dispute, as there was evidence that between 2014 and 2019, more than 50 people left the court, voluntarily or dismissed. Grand Duke Henry publicly sided with his wife.

Thanks to the fact that there are more democratic controls and the omnipotence of social networks, the palace walls are increasingly cracked. The reality of the families that inhabit them and that can be seen through the cracks does not align with what is politically acceptable for a society that increasingly has problems maintaining its standard of living and that feels the pressure from the states very close to being exemplary citizens. Clinging to old privileges and far from a lifestyle that is comparable to that of a modern public servant, the only alternative for current monarchs will be the generation of their heirs. If they have any throne left to inherit.