General Franco's grave: when 'righting past wrongs' backfires

His son the present King has actively sided with a political party over the Catalan Crisis which is not what his role should have been.
So the King of Spain isnt allowed to say Catatlan (a Spanish province) should not be independent and should stay part of Spain?

Could it not be said he sided WITH Spains constitution as it's guardian and used his moral authority as guardian to keep the nation as one?
You couldn't make this up. While the government is doing its level best to prevent Franco from being buried in the Almudena in Madrid, some people obviously don't agree with them.

Mossos (Catalan autonomous police) arrested a security guard who wanted to assassinate the PM Pedro Sanchez because he wants to disenter Franco. Member of a shooting club he managed to get hold of an arsenal and as an ardent right-winger and son of a Francoist he was determined to do the business.
Problem was he had motive and desire but he didn't have a plan, so while he was thinking about it he went on social media and opened a whatsapp group and so the Mossos got hold of him.

Mind his toys aren't half bad even though the shooting club considered him to be only a moderate shot.

Now if he had only had THAT rifle......................................
He does, it's a CETME in the back painted green


Kit Reviewer




So the King of Spain isnt allowed to say Catatlan (a Spanish province) should not be independent and should stay part of Spain?

Could it not be said he sided WITH Spains constitution as it's guardian and used his moral authority as guardian to keep the nation as one?
You weren't there and you didn't hear the speech, and you aren't totally up on the situation as seen from Catalonia. That's not getting at you just an observation.

Yes he can say it, yes he can side with the constitution, no problems with that at all. That he would want Catalonia to stay part of Spain is obvious and no one would be surprised.
What he did was give a speech sitting in front of a painting of a previous king who was very authoritarian and support his government's action in smacking around a certain number of his own citizens who were not offering violence towards the police. His content, tone of voice and body language simply said he had adopted a stance that supported repression whereas his role should have been that of mediator.
Instead he placed more than 2 million subjects on one side of a line and warned them that more was in the pipeline if they didn't behave and conform. No effort to find a different solution.

Province? Far more of a colony.


War Hero
So the King of Great Britain isnt allowed to say the American colonies (British colonies) should not be independent and should stay part of Great Britain?

Could it not be said he sided WITH Great Britain's constitution as it's guardian and used his moral authority as guardian to keep the nation as one?
I've taken the liberty of changing your words very slightly to point out what might be a flaw in your reasoning.


For those that talk about letting sleeping dogs lie, here is an article in the NY Times by a Spaniard that explains why in Spain it needs to be brought out into the open.
Opinión | Por qué España debe desenterrar a Franco

Franco is still lauded by a certain sector here who uphold the traditional Church, Army, King, Money, discipline for Spain and the imposition of their ideas on everyone else whether they agree or not. Until Franco is widely seen as a dictator who rose against a legal government, caused untold misery to his country, and subsequently murdered many while holding Spain in his fist, then he will still be supported.


MADRID - There is never a lack of fresh flowers on the tomb of General Francisco Franco. His remains rest under a granite slab of 1,500 kilograms in the Valley of the Fallen, the mausoleum that the dictator had built on the outskirts of Madrid. A guard watches that tourists do not raise their voices, scolds the children who step on the tombstone and remembers that it is "forbidden to take photographs". Nothing can disturb the rest of the man who led the destinies of Spain with an iron fist and who, four decades after his death, continues to divide it.

We Spaniards have been discussing since 1975 what to do with the Caudillo. Municipalities throughout the country still debate whether to keep or remove monuments in his honor. The City Council of Madrid changed in April the street signs with Francoist references in the city. And the parliament, after years of futile debates, finally approved last year a resolution calling for the exhumation of the general, a measure that the new socialist government of Pedro Sanchez has been determined to meet. It is never too late to stop honoring a dictator: the time has come for the Spaniards to unearth Franco, to bury him once and for all.

The Valley of the Fallen, where the tomb of Franco and 34,000 fallen in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), has been for decades a symbol for the winners of the conflict and the subsequent authoritarian regime. Franco himself confessed, in the decree announcing its construction, his aspiration that it would serve so that future generations "pay tribute of admiration to those who bequeathed a better Spain." This is: himself. But the new generations do not need anyone to remind them who won a war that destroyed the country and set brothers against brothers, but they do need reminding of the price paid by societies that are driven by intolerance and sectarianism.
The Valley of the Fallen, an offering to dictatorship in the heart of Europe, should be converted into a place of homage for all the victims of war, regardless of which side they belonged to, and as a symbol of reconciliation that the presence of Franco hinders. Those who oppose touching the general's tomb claim that exhuming his corpse to give him a private burial would reopen old wounds. The reality is that they were never completely closed.
Eight decades after the end of the conflict that marked the prelude to World War II, resentment continues to distance the two Spains that Goya already portrayed almost two hundred years ago in his painting. There was a time, in the middle of the euphoria of the recently won democracy and the economic boom of the eighties that returned the country to the club of modern nations, in which it seemed that the Spaniards had managed to get out of our trenches. It was a mirage. Today it is impossible to hold a conversation on any issue of public interest - education, health, economy, pensions or foreign policy - without ending in ideological recriminations or references to the Civil War. Young people who, for obvious reasons, did not live through the conflict continue to call each other "fachas" and "rojas", making theirs the factions that confronted their great grandparents. The press, the judiciary, the police, the institutions and, of course, the politicians are divided into irreconcilable factions.
We Spaniards clung too long to the fantasy that by running away from our past we could leave it behind. And yet, every time we look in the rear view mirror of our recent history, we see that it is still there. The "Spanish holocaust," as the historian Paul Preston defined the conflict, left 200,000 dead and marked the beginning of decades of backwardness. Atrocities were committed on both sides of the Spanish Civil War, but the military regime extended the pain beyond its victory with a campaign of repression that lasted four decades.

The Historical Memory Act of 2007 was an attempt by then President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero to compensate the losers of the conflict. The government imposed the withdrawal of Francoist symbols from the streets and promised to provide funds so that the relatives of the disappeared could search, unearth and say goodbye to their dead, among other measures. The coming to power of the conservatives of the Popular Party (PP) in 2011 meant the cancellation of funds to implement the law and a change of policy that had as a priority not to "remove the past." The result is that Franco enjoys in Spain an legitimacy unthinkable in any other democracy, including public subsidies to the foundation that bears his name and promotes "his work".
The defenders of leaving things as they are claim that Spain experienced a transition to model democracy after the death of the dictator. They are right. The attempts to delegitimize that process, which included the amnesty of the members of the regime, do not take into account that it was a necessary national commitment at a time when neither stability nor peace were guaranteed. Both sides put aside their eternal differences to build a better future. And yet, no agreement can impose oblivion on those who paid their confrontation with the dictatorship with exile or prison, prevent families from seeking their disappeared or legitimize those who made them disappear.

The elimination of streets with Francoist names, the withdrawal of monuments that honor the dictator or the exhumation of his remains from the Valley of the Fallen, which would become a National Memory Center for all victims, is not an ideological nor political question. It is a moral obligation that has the additional advantage of sending a clear message to those nostalgic for the Francoism that Spaniards have buried our authoritarian past forever.
The opening of Franco's tomb will not be immediate and still has several obstacles ahead. The government must request authorization from the Church - the crypt is in the basilica of the Valley of the Fallen and can not be opened without their permission - to agree with the Caudillo's family a new burial place and even change laws if any of the parties object. Only then can the workers be sent to lift the granite slab under which the general rests and thus close the only mausoleum of a dictator among the European democracies. Spain will have buried that day one of the impediments in its long road towards reconciliation.


I've taken the liberty of changing your words very slightly to point out what might be a flaw in your reasoning.
There isn't a really, really like button. So have one.
A short update:

In new setback to Franco reburial, religious leader denies access to tomb

In short, the Abbot of The Valley of the Fallen (who is coincidentally a former Falangist election candidate) has denied the Spanish government permission to enter Franco's monument, to remove his body. The Vatican has refused to get involved so the Abbot's word is the formal position of the Church in Spain (pending a ruling by the courts on the legality of the government's proposal).
An article in today's 'i' notes that the number of visitors to the Valley is up 33% on 2017. The aim of the government to reduce Franco's profile appears to have backfired.
Last edited:
Not suggesting for a moment that he's put through a chipper , burned in acid or burnt in the back of a van , though

New Posts

Latest Threads