Off with her head! :menace:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/07/22211844-spains-princess-cristina-charged-with-tax-fraud-money-laundering?lite
QuoteSpain's Princess Cristina charged with tax fraud, money-laundering
By Fiona Ortiz, Reuters
MADRID - A Spanish judge has charged Princess Cristina - younger daughter of King Juan Carlos - with tax fraud and money laundering, possibly paving the way to an unprecedented trial of a member of the royal family, Spanish media reported on Tuesday.
Jose Castro, an examining magistrate in Palma de Mallorca said in a 200-page ruling there was evidence that Cristina, 48, had committed crimes and cited her to declare on March 8, said El Pais newspaper.
Cristina's husband, former Olympic handball player Inaki Urdangarin, has been charged with embezzlement and other crimes related to his non-profit Noos Foundation, which won public contracts to put on conferences on sports and business.
It was a matter of time, anyway it's not really a full charge, but a suspicion. She'll have to declare in a couple of months and then she will be charged for real or not. The judge already tried to do this last year but every single judicial body bent over backwards to prevent it, I guess that the second time is the charm.
She's not a princess. Only the royal heir is the prince.
Pet peeve of mine.
Quote from: celedhring on January 07, 2014, 11:20:40 AM
She's not a princess. Only the royal heir is the prince.
Pet peeve of mine.
That may be true in Spanish, but in English any daughter or grand-daughter of the king is a princess, as is the wife of any prince. Any son or grandson of the king is a prince, but I think (someone with better knowledge may correct me here) that only the husband of then monarch herself becomes a prince by marriage.
In English, the term you are looking for when referring to the toyal heir is "crown prince" or "crown princess" (though the latter, I believe, also refers to the wife of a crown prince).
So, your pet peeve isn't a peeve at all on an English-language forum. Doesn't that make you happy? :P
Spanish is one of the few languages that still uses the word "prince" ("first") properly when refering to royalty, I shall not surrender to anglosaxon barbarity :P
Anyway, we'll see if the accusation sticks this time. To be honest it would be better for the Spanish monarchy if she testified and then was cleared than all the bending over going around so she doesn't have to go in front of a judge.
Are they direct descendants from Isabel of Castilla and Fernando of Aragon?
Quote from: Siege on January 07, 2014, 02:05:29 PM
Are they direct descendants from Isabel of Castilla and Fernando of Aragon?
Probably. But then so are a lot of Europeans.
They are a different dynasty though.
And how rich is Spanish royal family? Never heard them mentioned next to the British or the Holfenfucks.
Not much. As opposed to - say - the British monarchy, most of the palaces, lands, etc... used by the royal family belong to the state and not the royals themselves.
Their stipend is €8m a year, iirc.
Quote from: celedhring on January 07, 2014, 02:24:05 PM
Not much. As opposed to - say - the British monarchy, most of the palaces, lands, etc... used by the royal family belong to the state and not the royals themselves.
Their stipend is €8m a year, iirc.
Considering that Urdangarin only had to show up and snap his fingers to get politicians to drop millions of euros at him for no good reason at all imagine the pull that the King must have. That stipend is the tip of the iceberg.
Well, I suppose Siege was just asking for pure net worth. The King still wields important factual power, despite having little legal one.
Quote from: celedhring on January 07, 2014, 01:15:21 PM
Spanish is one of the few languages that still uses the word "prince" ("first") properly when refering to royalty, I shall not surrender to anglosaxon barbarity :P
Okay, you have convinced me. She isn't a princess. :cool:
Quote from: Siege on January 07, 2014, 02:05:29 PM
Are they direct descendants from Isabel of Castilla and Fernando of Aragon?
Direct? No. They were of the House of Trastamara. The current Monarchy is the House of Bourbon.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2014, 04:09:23 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 07, 2014, 02:05:29 PM
Are they direct descendants from Isabel of Castilla and Fernando of Aragon?
Direct? No. They were of the House of Trastamara. The current Monarchy is the House of Bourbon.
In fact, they *both* were Trastámaras, starting a long honored tradition of inbreeding.
What kind of name is Undangarin?
I would have said it sounded turkish, but it's apparently basque if wiki is to be believed.
I think I saw a King of Navarre named Inaki in CK2 as the Duchy of Barcelona once.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2014, 04:09:23 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 07, 2014, 02:05:29 PM
Are they direct descendants from Isabel of Castilla and Fernando of Aragon?
Direct? No. They were of the House of Trastamara. The current Monarchy is the House of Bourbon.
I'd be really surprised if the House of Bourbon had less than four marriages in to Hapsburgs who were direct descendants of the Catholic Monarchs.
Iñaki Urdangarín is as Basque as a name can get.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 07, 2014, 05:58:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2014, 04:09:23 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 07, 2014, 02:05:29 PM
Are they direct descendants from Isabel of Castilla and Fernando of Aragon?
Direct? No. They were of the House of Trastamara. The current Monarchy is the House of Bourbon.
I'd be really surprised if the House of Bourbon had less than four marriages in to Hapsburgs who were direct descendants of the Catholic Monarchs.
Louis XIV married one, for starters. And there are others; they didn't have a myriad of royal infantes and infantas for nothing. Wedlock diplomacy with your neighbors was the sign of the times.
Wasn't the entire War of the Spanish Succession a result of marriage ties between the Hapsburgs (read Haspburg-Valois Burgundy-Trastamara) and the Bourbons because Charles II was an inbred monstrosity? The Bourbons also had roots in Navarre.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 07, 2014, 07:27:24 PM
Wasn't the entire War of the Spanish Succession a result of marriage ties between the Hapsburgs (read Haspburg-Valois Burgundy-Trastamara) and the Bourbons because Charles II was an inbred monstrosity?
Yup, Louis XIV's first wife was Carlos II's aunt, María Teresa, so when Carlos died he theoretically should have been succeeded by Louis XIV and María Teresa's son, Louis, the Grand Dauphin, but he was passed over because he could potentially inherit France afterwards and the whole balance of power would go bonkers just by the chance of it happening. Because of this, both Louis and his older son were overlooked and Carlos' will stated that he should be succeeded by Phillippe (eventually Felipe V), the Dauphin's second son and Carlos' nephew-grandson.
It's a shame Britain was never a contestant in one of those wars of succession, someone go back in time and whack Geroge the II please.
Why?
*takes a drink*
If you are going to take a drink every time Tim says something stupid you'll be shitfaced within an hour.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2014, 10:04:26 PM
It's a shame Britain was never a contestant in one of those wars of succession, someone go back in time and whack Geroge the II please.
Huh?
How do you think Britain got Gibraltar?
Quote from: Iormlund on January 07, 2014, 11:36:34 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2014, 10:04:26 PM
It's a shame Britain was never a contestant in one of those wars of succession, someone go back in time and whack Geroge the II please.
Huh?
How do you think Britain got Gibraltar?
Britain fought in the war, but the British monarch wasn't a candidate for the Spanish throne.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2014, 10:04:26 PM
It's a shame Britain was never a contestant in one of those wars of succession, someone go back in time and whack Geroge the II please.
Scotland and Hannover?
Yo Spaniards,
Is there any goodwill left over for the Monarchy from the transition to Democracy? Juan Carlos is maybe the only European monarch of the later half of the 20th Century who ever did anyone any good.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 08, 2014, 02:31:10 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2014, 10:04:26 PM
It's a shame Britain was never a contestant in one of those wars of succession, someone go back in time and whack Geroge the II please.
Scotland and Hannover?
Hanover and Prussia.
That was straight-up annexation.
PUs suck. Way better to just annex a bitch.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 08, 2014, 02:37:36 AMJuan Carlos is maybe the only European monarch of the later half of the 20th Century who ever did anyone any good.
If you're going to say that sort of thing you need to change your profile pic :contract:
I don't have anything against Elizabeth, I just think her primary role today is ceremonial and cultural. Juan Carlos made the Spanish transition to Democracy a lot easier, something Elizabeth's German forbears did not by choice but by incompetence.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 08, 2014, 02:45:09 AM
That was straight-up annexation.
:huh:
If George II dies without heirs, or his heirs die with him in an outbreak of fever or the pox or what have you, then his sister Sophia, the Queen in Prussia inherits the throne of Great Britain. Her son Fredrick the Great will stand in line to inherit Great Britain and Prussia. IIRC Hanover would be inline for a couple of elderly and childless relations, but I imagine that Sophia (and her husband especially) would want to keep it. Obviously Austria (among others) would object to the prospect of a Prussian-Hanoverian-British union.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 08, 2014, 02:37:36 AM
Yo Spaniards,
Is there any goodwill left over for the Monarchy from the transition to Democracy? Juan Carlos is maybe the only European monarch of the later half of the 20th Century who ever did anyone any good.
It's more goodwill for Juan Carlos than goodwill for the monarchy at large. Unlike the British, the Spanish monarchy isn't particularly ostentous or pompous - they never use crown or throne for example - which has helped their popularity even among the left wing. The scandals have eroded their popularity, and the younger generations born in the democracy don't feel that goodwill either, so things can be a bit hokey with the succession. However, the prince has been spared so far in those scandals, so his popularity is pretty good still. But he doesn't have the halo of his father, nor we are exiting a dictatorship; the republicans will speak up this time.
I don't think Spain will become a republic anytime soon, if that is what you're asking. But the crown will have to adapt.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2014, 01:19:31 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on January 07, 2014, 11:36:34 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2014, 10:04:26 PM
It's a shame Britain was never a contestant in one of those wars of succession, someone go back in time and whack Geroge the II please.
Huh?
How do you think Britain got Gibraltar?
Britain fought in the war, but the British monarch wasn't a candidate for the Spanish throne.
A prottie ruling Spain? Yeah, right.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 08, 2014, 02:37:36 AM
Yo Spaniards,
Is there any goodwill left over for the Monarchy from the transition to Democracy? Juan Carlos is maybe the only European monarch of the later half of the 20th Century who ever did anyone any good.
What Cel said. There's a sizeable remnant of goodwill left from the transition for Juan Carlos (personally on him, not on the monarchy per se), but he has been coasting on it for 30+ years, and in the last couple of them it has been scandals left and right. The crown prince has been untouched by the scandals, so he might stand a chance in the future, but he has not the same goodwill behind him like his father, and he's not exactly dripping charisma. The logical thing to do for Juan Carlos would be to abdicate and spare the public of his nth hip replacement surgery/elephant hunting trip/frolicking with German flozzies dominating the airwaves anymore.
Then again, I don't see any of the two big political parties rocking the boat on this in the near future. Republicanism will continue to be fringe-ish in political discourse, even if it's quite popular in the street and amongst younger people.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2014, 10:04:26 PM
It's a shame Britain was never a contestant in one of those wars of succession, someone go back in time and whack Geroge the II please.
You need to make sure that Bloody Mary has a child with Philip II to get Britain involved in that particular succession war though.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2014, 01:19:31 AM
Britain fought in the war, but the British monarch wasn't a candidate for the Spanish throne.
:lol:
There was zero chance of that happening.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 08, 2014, 07:51:23 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2014, 01:19:31 AM
Britain fought in the war, but the British monarch wasn't a candidate for the Spanish throne.
:lol:
There was zero chance of that happening.
I know, that's why I said it was a shame. All those 17th century wars of succession, Spanish, Austrian and Polish and not one with a British candidate.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2014, 08:02:36 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on January 08, 2014, 07:51:23 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2014, 01:19:31 AM
Britain fought in the war, but the British monarch wasn't a candidate for the Spanish throne.
:lol:
There was zero chance of that happening.
I know, that's why I said it was a shame. All those 17th century wars of succession, Spanish, Austrian and Polish and not one with a British candidate.
All catholic nations, don't embrace heresy next time.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2014, 08:02:36 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on January 08, 2014, 07:51:23 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2014, 01:19:31 AM
Britain fought in the war, but the British monarch wasn't a candidate for the Spanish throne.
:lol:
There was zero chance of that happening.
I know, that's why I said it was a shame. All those 17th century wars of succession, Spanish, Austrian and Polish and not one with a British candidate.
A Stuart was a semi-serious candidate for the Polish throne at some point
When was that? Didn't people have to covert to Catholicism to become King of Poland?
That is hardly a problem for a Stuart :D
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 08, 2014, 12:29:28 PM
That is hardly a problem for a Stuart :D
Yeah, I was going to say, I actually thought it was a Legitimist Stuart after the Glorious Revolution, but I'm p. sure that Catholicism was a requirement of the throne, and thus a personal union between Poland and Britain was not likely. There were actually pretty close political and economic ties because of the Baltic grain trade, though.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 08, 2014, 12:28:29 PM
When was that? Didn't people have to covert to Catholicism to become King of Poland?
Jesus is King
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 08, 2014, 04:22:29 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on January 08, 2014, 12:28:29 PM
When was that? Didn't people have to covert to Catholicism to become King of Poland?
Jesus is King
They got a Mexican on the throne in Poland?
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2014, 07:32:05 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 08, 2014, 04:22:29 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on January 08, 2014, 12:28:29 PM
When was that? Didn't people have to covert to Catholicism to become King of Poland?
Jesus is King
They got a Mexican on the throne in Poland?
You fail at old Languish lore:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6200539.stm
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 08, 2014, 12:29:28 PM
That is hardly a problem for a Stuart :D
Paris may be worth a mass, but... Warsaw?
It's worth a Pact.
A temporary pact.