Although the Holy Roman Empire was famous for being a loose confederation of largely independent feudal lords, it nevertheless possessed institutions akin to a unified state even near the end of its life.
Each ecclesiastical Prince-Elector was also chancellor of one of the Empire's kingdoms (Germany, Italy and Arles). Additionally, the Archbishop of Mainz was ex-officio Archchancellor of the Empire, the second highest post of the Holy Roman Empire under the Emperor.
Wikipedia mentions that the Archchancellor exercised government functions such as calling an imperial election, and notes that his 'political role' is considerable without elaborating. My question is, what other functions besides calling an election, if any, did the Archchancellor serve?
What de jure powers/duties did the Archchancellor have in theory? And What powers or roles did the Archbishop of Mainz play in reality?
I've now gathered that the Archancellor serves a few more functions in Imperial governance:
- appointing the Vice-Chancellor, who presides in the Reichshofrat (The Aulic Council)
- chairing the plenary sessions of the Reichstag
- formulating the Reichstag's legislative agenda
- receiving the Reichstag's delegates
- drafting the proposals submitted to the Reichstag
- accrediting foreign ambassadors to the Holy Roman Empire
These would seem to be most of the formal functions that the Archancellor wielded, although I'm sure the office had more powers formal or informal that I haven't discovered. Moreover its unclear how these powers were exercised in, and affected, the HRE at large, especially in the later centuries.
I assume there would be more sources available in German, but unfortunately I can't understand them.
The Archbishop of Mainz had extraordinary secular powers from the creation of the Holy Roman Empire, until the Diocese's decline in the 15th century. Mainz was the most important diocese, being called primas inter pares, first among equals of the German bishops. It also frequently held the title Primas Germanie, most important German bishop. As a prince, it collected taxes in its territory.
It had a crucial role in the formation of the Holy Roman Empire. In order to understand its importance, it helps to go back to the end of East Francia and the creation of the Kingdom of Germany. The Kingdom of Germany became the core of the Holy Roman Empire, which included the Kingdoms of Italy, Burgundy, and Bohemia.
Liutbert was archbishop of Mainz from 863-889. He was probably the first to be called Archchancellor. He oversaw the continued works on the Annals Fuldenses. He put down a rebellion of Moravians and Serbs in 871. He organized defenses against Viking raids into East Francia.
Hatto I was bishop of Mainz from 891-913. He became acquainted with the king of East Frankia, Arnulf, who appointed him as Archbishop of Mainz. He became so close to the king as an adviser that he was called "the heart of the king". When Arnulf died in 899, Hatto became regent to his son, Louis the Blind. He remained influential throughout Louis' reign.
Hatto became involved in the dispute between the Conradines and the Bambergs in the Duchy of Franconia. Henry Babenberg had been granted the Duchy of Franconia by Charles III (the Fat). Henry had been the Commander in Chief under Louis III and Charles III. Hatto supported the Conradines against the Babenbergs. In a battle in 906, Conrad the Elder was killed, as was two of the three Babenberg sons. Louis III then intervened; notably, his mother was a Conradine, and the last Babenberg was captured. Hatto ignored a promise of safe conduct, captured and executed the last Babenberg. Conrad became duke of Franconia. Hatto was prominent in securing Conrad as King after the death of Louis the Child. Hatto supported Conrad against the Saxon, Henry the Fowler. The Saxons saw Conrad as an extension of Hatto's interests. Conrad was the first non Carolingian King, and the first to not be elected by the nobles. This marks the end of East Francia and the beginning of the Kingdom of Germany.
The archbishop Frederick plotted to asassinate Otto I. It's not suprising, then, that the next one, Wiliam, was Otto's son. Willigis was archbishop from 975-1011. After the death of the Byzantine queen Theophanu, he adopted Otto III and served as regent, along with Adelaide of Italy.
Aribo, (1021-31) developed Thuringia by minting coins at Erfurt.
Siegfried II (1200-1230) obtained the right to crown the King of Bohemia. This was retained by the archbishops of Mainz until 1343. This later date was the highpoint of the Diocese. A war over the position of Archbishop from 1461-63 devastated the city and Diocese, which lost a lot of funds and territory. This marked the decline of the Diocese.
These are highlights of when it exercised great influence. More often than not, these early archbishops were an antagonist to the Crown. They frequently backed other stem (tribal) duchies in rebellion. You have listed the formalities that the Archchancellor retained in the later period, but it was past its prime. Its continued importance would be as a Church representative, not as a powerful prince of its own territory.
To clarify, the Archbishop of Mainz was only the Archancellor of Germany. The Archbishop of Cologne was the Archancellor of Italy.
France in the Middle Ages
The Kingdom of France in the Middle Ages (roughly, from the 10th century to the middle of the 15th century) was marked by the fragmentation of the Carolingian Empire and West Francia (843–987) the expansion of royal control by the House of Capet (987–1328), including their struggles with the virtually independent principalities (duchies and counties, such as the Norman and Angevin regions) that had developed following the Viking invasions and through the piecemeal dismantling of the Carolingian Empire and the creation and extension of administrative/state control (notably under Philip II Augustus and Louis IX) in the 13th century and the rise of the House of Valois (1328–1589), including the protracted dynastic crisis of the Hundred Years' War with the Kingdom of England (1337–1453) compounded by the catastrophic Black Death epidemic (1348), which laid the seeds for a more centralized and expanded state in the early modern period and the creation of a sense of French identity.
Up to the 12th century, the period saw the elaboration and extension of the seigneurial economic system (including the attachment of peasants to the land through serfdom) the extension of the feudal system of political rights and obligations between lords and vassals the so-called "feudal revolution" of the 11th century during which ever smaller lords took control of local lands in many regions and the appropriation by regional/local seigneurs of various administrative, fiscal and judicial rights for themselves. From the 13th century on, the state slowly regained control of a number of these lost powers. The crises of the 13th and 14th centuries led to the convening of an advisory assembly, the Estates General, and also to an effective end to serfdom.
From the 12th and 13th centuries on, France was at the center (and often originator) of a vibrant cultural production that extended across much of western Europe, including the transition from Romanesque architecture to Gothic architecture (originating in 12th-century France) and Gothic art the foundation of medieval universities (such as the universities of Paris (recognized in 1150), Montpellier (1220), Toulouse (1229), and Orleans (1235)) and the so-called "Renaissance of the 12th century" a growing body of secular vernacular literature (including the chanson de geste, chivalric romance, troubadour and trouvère poetry, etc.) and medieval music (such as the flowering of the Notre Dame school of polyphony from around 1150 to 1250 which represents the beginning of what is conventionally known as Ars antiqua).
On July 5, 1821, The Times reported:
Thus terminates in exile and in prison the most extraordinary life yet known to political history.… Buonaparte came into active life with as much (but we have no reason to think a larger share of) lax morality and pure selfishness as others of his age and calling. The public crisis into which he was thrown gave to profound selfishness the form of insatiable ambition. With talents and enterprise beyond all comparison greater than any against which he had to contend, he overthrew whatever opposed his progress…. How, then, was this pupil of a military school prepared to exercise the functions of sovereignty? An officer, as such, has no idea of divided power. His patriotism is simply love of his troops and his profession. He will obey commands – he will issue them – but in both cases those commands are absolute. Talk to him of deliberation, of debate, of freedom of action, of speech, nay of opinion, his feeling is that the body to which any of these privileges shall be accessible, must fall into confusion and be speedily destroyed. Whatever pretexts may have been resorted to by Buonaparte – whatever Jacobin yells he may have joined in to assist his own advance towards power – every subsequent act of his life assures us that the military prepossessions in which he was educated became those by which he was influenced as a statesman: and we are well persuaded of his conviction, that it was impossible for any country, above all for France, to be governed otherwise than by one sole authority – undivided and unlimited.
It may, we confess, be no satisfaction to the French, nor any great consolation to the rest of Europe, to know through what means it was, or by what vicious training, that Buonaparte was fitted, nay, predestined almost, to be a scourge and destroyer of the rights of nations, instead of employing a power…for the promotion of knowledge, peace and liberty throughout the world…. The factions which he was compelled to crush, and whose overthrow obtained for him the gratitude of his country, still threatened a resurrection…. Hence were pretexts furnished on behalf of despotism of which men more enlightened and better constituted than Buonaparte might not soon have discovered the fallacy. Raised to empire at home, his ambition sought for itself fresh aliment and foreign conquest was at once tempting and easy…. [W]hat might not this extraordinary being have effected for the happiness of mankind and for his own everlasting fame and grandeur, had he used but a moiety of the force or perseverance in generous efforts to relieve the oppressed, which he wasted in rendering himself the monopolist and patron of oppression. But he had left himself no resource. He had extinguished liberty in France and had no hold upon his subjects but their love of military glory. Conquest therefore succeed to conquest, until nothing capable of subjugation was left to be subdued….
The sensation produced by the death of Buonaparte will be a good deal confined in this country to its effect as a partial relief to our finances, the expense of his custody at St. Helena being little short of 400,000£ per annum. In France the sentiment will be more deep and complex, and perhaps not altogether easy to define…. A pretext for suspicion and severity in the administration of affairs may be taken away by a Pretender’s death but then a motive to moderation…is at the same time removed from the minds of reigning Princes. Buonaparte’s son still lives, it is true, but how far he may ever become an object of interest with any great party of the French nation, is a point on which we will not speculate.
Detail of “The Death of Napoleon” by Charles de Steuben
The monarchy in Spain has its roots in the Visigothic Kingdom and its Christian successor states of Navarre, Asturias (later Leon and Castille) and Aragon, which fought the Reconquista or Reconquest of the Iberian peninsula following the Umayyad invasion of Hispania in the 8th century. One of the earliest influential dynasties was the House of Jiménez which united much of Christian Iberia under its leadership in the 11th century. From Sancho III of Navarre (r. 1000–1035) until Urraca of León and Castile (r.1106–1125), members of the Jiménez family claimed the historic Visigothic title Imperator totius Hispaniae or Emperor of All Spain. The Jiménez rulers sought to bring their kingdoms into the European mainstream and often engaged in cross-Pyrenees alliances and marriages, and became patrons to Cluniac Reforms (c. 950–c.1130). Urraca's son and heir Alfonso VII of León and Castile, the first of the Spanish branch of the Burgundy Family, was the last to claim the imperial title of Spain, but divided his empire among his sons. The Castilian Civil War (1366 to 1369) ended with the death of King Peter (r. 1334–1369) at the hands of his illegitimate half-brother Henry, 1st Count of Trastámara who ruled as Henry II (r. 1369–1379). Henry II became the first of the House of Trastámara to rule over a Spanish kingdom. King Peter's heiress, his granddaughter Catherine of Lancaster, married Henry III, reuniting the dynasties in the person of their son, King John II.
Marital union of the Catholic Monarchs Edit
In the 15th century, the marriage between Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon, both members of the House of Trastámara, known as the Catholic Monarchs, united two important kingdoms of the Iberian peninsula. Each kingdom retained its basic structure. In 1492 the Catholic Monarchs conquered the Kingdom of Granada in southern Spain, the last Muslim territory in the Iberian peninsula. The unification of Spain is marked from this date, though the Spanish kingdoms continued past that date.
The territories of the Spanish empire overseas were dependencies of the crown of Castile, and Castile had an outsize influence there.  Following the Spanish explorations and settlement in the Caribbean, Spanish conquest of Mexico and the Spanish conquest of Peru, the crown established high courts (Audiencias) in important regions and viceroyalties (Mexico, 1535 Peru, 1542) with the viceroy (vice-king) and the Audiencias the effective administrators of royal policy.
Habsburg Monarchy Edit
In the early 16th century, the Spanish monarchy passed to the House of Habsburg under King Charles I (also Holy Roman Emperor as Charles V), son of Queen Joanna of Castile. The reign of Philip II of Spain marked the peak of the Spanish Golden Age (1492–1659), a period of great colonial expansion and trade. In 1700, Charles II was the last of the Spanish Habsburgs and his death triggered the War of the Spanish succession.
Bourbon Monarchy Edit
With the death of the childless Charles II, the succession to the throne was disputed. Charles II had designated his sister Maria Theresa's grandson, Philip of France, Duke of Anjou, as his heir. The possible unification of Spain with France, the two big European powers at the time, sparked the Spanish War of Succession in the 18th century, culminating in the treaties of Utrecht (1713) and Rastatt (1714), which preserved the European balance of power.
In the mid-eighteenth century, particularly under Charles III of Spain, the Spanish crown embarked on an ambitious and far-reaching project to implement major reforms in the administration of Spain and the Spanish empire. These changes, collectively known as the Bourbon Reforms, attempted to rationalize administration and produce more revenue from the overseas empire. 
Philip V was the first member of the House of Bourbon (Spanish: Borbón) to rule Spain. That dynasty still rules today under Felipe VI.
During the Napoleonic Wars, the French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte forced Ferdinand VII to abdicate in 1808, and the Bourbons became a focus of popular resistance against French rule. However, Ferdinand's rejection of the liberal Spanish Constitution of 1812, as well as his ministerial appointments, particularly the exclusion of liberals, gradually eroded popular support for the Spanish monarchy. With the Pragmatic Sanction of 1830, Ferdinand set aside the Salic Law, introduced by Philip V, that prohibited women from becoming sovereigns of Spain. Thereby, as had been customary before the arrival of the Bourbons, Ferdinand VII's eldest daughter Isabella became his heiress presumptive. Opponents of the Pragmatic Sanction argued that it was never officially promulgated, claiming Ferdinand VII's younger brother, Prince Carlos, the rightful heir to the crown according to the Salic Law.
First Spanish Republic Edit
In September 1873, the First Spanish Republic was founded. A coup d'état restored the Bourbon dynasty to the throne in 1874.
Second Spanish Republic and Regime of Francisco Franco Edit
In 1931 local and municipal elections produced victories (particularly in urban areas) for candidates favoring an end to the monarchy and the establishment of a republic. Faced with unrest in the cities, Alfonso XIII went into exile, but did not abdicate. The ensuing provisional government evolved into the relatively short-lived Second Spanish Republic. The Spanish Civil War began in 1936 and ended on 1 April 1939 with the victory of General Francisco Franco and his coalition of allied organizations commonly referred to as the Nationalists. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany aided Franco in the Spanish Civil War. A British MI6 Operative flew Franco from the Canary Islands to Spanish North Africa to take over the Spanish Legion. The Soviet Union backed the Republican Government as did Mexico under the government of Lazaro Cardenas.
After sixteen years without monarchy or kingdom, in 1947, Spain was made a Kingdom again by General Franco, who claimed to rule Spain as Head of state of the Kingdom of Spain through the Law of Succession. However, without a king on the throne, he ruled through a coalition of allied organizations from the Spanish Civil War including, but not limited to, the Falange political party, the supporters of the Bourbon royal family, and the Carlists, until his death in 1975.
Re-establishment of the Monarchy Edit
Despite Franco's alliance with the Carlists, Franco appointed Juan Carlos I de Borbón as his successor, who is credited with presiding over Spain's transition from dictatorship to democracy by fully endorsing political reforms.
Impatient with the pace of democratic reforms, the new king, known for his formidable personality, dismissed Carlos Arias Navarro and appointed the reformer Adolfo Suárez as President of the Government in 1977.  
The next year the king signed into law the new liberal democratic Constitution of Spain, which was approved by 88% of voters. Juan Carlos' "quick wit and steady nerve" cut short the attempted military coup in 1981 when the king used a specially designed command communications center in the Zarzuela Palace to denounce the coup and command the military's eleven captains general to stand down. 
Following the events of 1981, Juan Carlos led a less eventful life, according to author John Hooper.  Juan Carlos did not preside over ceremonies such as the opening of hospitals and bridges as often as monarchs in other nations. Instead, he worked towards establishing reliable political customs when transitioning one government administration to another, emphasizing constitutional law and protocol, and representing the Spanish State domestically and internationally, all the while aiming to maintain a professionally non-partisan yet independent monarchy.  
The Crown of Spain (la Corona de España), with its roots in the Visigothic kingdom from the 5th century and subsequent successor states, is recognized in Title II The Crown, Articles 56 through 65 of the Spanish Constitution of 1978.  Constitutionally the monarch embodies and personifies the "indissoluble" unity and permanence of the Spanish State, and represents the legal personality of the State and by extension fulfills the role of "Father of the Nation". As a unifying figure for the nation, in 2010 King Juan Carlos worked towards "bridging the gap" between Spain's rival polarized political parties to develop a unified strategy in response to the country's on-going late-2000s economic crisis. 
According to the Spanish Constitution voted in referendum, the sovereignty power emanates from the people, so it is the very same people who give the king the power to reign:  
National sovereignty belongs to the Spanish people, from whom all State powers emanate.
The monarch "arbitrates and moderates the regular functioning of the institutions" and assumes the highest representation of the Spanish State in international relations.  The monarch exercises the functions expressly conferred on him by the constitution and the laws.  
The King is Head of State, the symbol of its unity and permanence. He arbitrates and moderates the regular functioning of the institutions, assumes the highest representation of the Spanish State in international relations, especially with the nations of its historical community, and exercises the functions expressly conferred on him by the Constitution and the laws.
Upon accession to the crown and being proclaimed before the Cortes Generales, the king swears an oath to faithfully carry out his constitutional duties and to abide by the constitution and laws of the state. Additionally, the constitution gives the king the added responsibility to ensure that the constitution is obeyed. Lastly, the king swears to respect the rights of Spanish citizens and of the self-governing communities. The Prince of Asturias, upon reaching the age of majority, in addition to any regent(s) upon assuming the office, swears the same oath as that of the king along with a further oath of loyalty to the monarch.
- The King, on being proclaimed before the Cortes Generales, will swear to faithfully carry out his duties, to obey the Constitution and the laws and ensure that they are obeyed, and to respect the rights of the citizens and the Self-governing Communities.
- The Crown Prince, on coming of age, and the Regent or Regents, on assuming office, will swear the same oath as well as that of loyalty to the King.
The oath reads as follows:
I swear faithfully to discharge my functions, to sustain and see to it that the Constitution and the Laws are sustained, and to respect the rights of the citizens and of the autonomous communities.
The 1978 Constitution, Title II The Crown, Article 62, delineates the powers of the king, while Title IV Government and Administration, Article 99, defines the king's role in the appointment of the prime minister and the formation of the council of ministers/government.    Title VI Judicial Power, Article 117, Articles 122 through 124, outlines the king's role in the country's independent judiciary.  However, by constitutional convention established by Juan Carlos I, the king exercises his prerogatives having solicited government advice while maintaining a politically non-partisan and independent monarchy. Receiving government advice does not necessarily bind the monarch into executing the advice, except where prescribed by the constitution. His acts shall always be countersigned in the manner established in section 64. Without such countersignature they shall not be valid, except as provided under section 65(2). 
It is incumbent upon the King:
- To sanction and promulgate the laws
- To summon and dissolve the Cortes Generales and to call for elections under the terms provided for in the Constitution.
- To call for a referendum in the cases provided for in the Constitution.
- To propose a candidate for President of the Government and, as the case may be, appoint him or her or remove him or her from office, as provided in the Constitution.
- To appoint and dismiss members of the Government on the President of the Government's proposal.
- To issue the decrees approved in the Council of Ministers, to confer civil and military offices, honours and distinctions in conformity with the law.
- To be informed of the affairs of State and, for this purpose, to preside over the meetings of the Council of Ministers whenever, he sees fit, at the President of the Government's request.
- To exercise supreme command of the Armed Forces
- To exercise the right of clemency in accordance with the law, which may not authorize general pardons.
- To exercise the High Patronage of the Royal Academies.
Styles, titles, and the Fount of Honour Edit
The 1978 constitution confirms the title of the monarch is the King of Spain, but that he may also use other titles historically associated with the Crown.   
According to Royal Decree 1368/1987, regulating the titles, treatments and honours of the royal family and the regents, the king and his wife, the queen consort, will formally be addressed as "His Majesty and Her Majesty" (Their Majesties, Spanish: Su Majestad, Su represents His or Her) rather than the traditional "Catholic Majesty" (Su Católica Majestad). A prince consort, the husband of a queen regnant, will have the style "His Royal Highness" (Su Alteza Real).  The widows and widowers of monarchs are to retain these styles until they remarry.  The heir from birth shall hold the title of Prince of Asturias and the other titles historically associated with the heir apparent.   These additional titles include Prince of Viana, historically associated with the heir apparent to the Kingdom of Navarre with the titles Prince of Girona and Duke of Montblanc historically associated with the heir apparent for the Crown of Aragon, among others. Other children of the monarch, and the children of the heir apparent, shall have the title and rank of Infante or Infanta (prince or princess), and styled His or Her Royal Highness (Su Alteza Real).  Children of an Infante or Infanta of Spain "shall have the consideration of Spanish Grandees", and the address of "Your Excellency".  The royal decree further limits the ability of any regent to use or create titles during the minority or incapacitation of a monarch.  No further constitutional language prescribes titles or forms of address to the fourth generation, or great grandchildren, of a reigning monarch.
Following his abdication in 2014, Juan Carlos I and his wife Sofía retain courtesy titles of King and Queen of Spain.   
The monarch's position as the fount of honour within Spain is codified in Article 62 (f) It is incumbent upon the monarch to "confer civil and military positions and award honors and distinctions in conformity of the law".   According to the Spanish Ministry of Justice, nobility and grandee titles are created by the "sovereign grace of the king", and may be passed on to the recipient's heirs, who may not sell the title.  Titles may revert to the Crown when their vacancy is observed.  Succession of titles may follow one of several courses listed on the Title of Concession when the title is created.  As a general rule, most titles are now inherited by absolute Cognatic Primogeniture (as of 2006), in which the first born inherits all titles regardless of gender. However, a title holder may designate his successor, Succession by Assignment, or disperse his titles among his children – with the eldest getting the highest-ranking title, Succession by Distribution. 
During his reign between 1975 and 2014, King Juan Carlos awarded peerages to two of his former prime ministers who had retired from active politics: Adolfo Suárez, who was created 1st Duke of Suárez and Leopoldo Calvo-Sotelo who was created 1st Marquess of la Ría de Ribadeo.     All successive politicians remain active within politics.
The king grants not only military and civil orders, but also grants awards of distinction, customarily on the advice of government. The most distinguished order the king may award is the Order of Charles III to "citizens who, with their effort, initiative and work, have brought a distinguished and extraordinary service to the Nation".   The Laureate Cross of Saint Ferdinand is Spain's highest military award for gallantry. Other historic awards and distinctions include the Spanish Order of the Golden Fleece, the Order of Isabella the Catholic, the Order of Alfonso X, the Royal and Military Order of Saint Hermenegild, the Order of Saint Raimundo de Penafort, the Order of Military Merit, the Order of Naval Merit, the Order of Aerial Merit, the Order of Civil Merit, the Order of Cultural Merit, the Order of Calatrava, the Order of the Knights of Santiago, the Order of Sant Jordi d'Alfama, and the Order of Alcántara, among others.
Inviolability and lèse majesté Edit
The Spanish monarch is personally immune from prosecution for acts committed by government ministers in the king's name.   Although he is nominally chief executive, his acts are not valid unless countersigned by a minister, who then assumes political responsibility for the act in question. This legal convention mirrors the concept of sovereign immunity which evolved in similar constitutional monarchies. The legal concept of sovereign immunity evolved into other aspects of immunity law in similar liberal democracies, such as parliamentary immunity, judicial immunity, and qualified immunity in the United States. As the reigning monarch the king of Spain has absolute sovereign immunity, he cannot be charged in any court of law in the Spanish state. This immunity applies to both civil and criminal cases. Sovereign immunity is reserved exclusively for the current holder of the Office of King. It does not apply to any other member of the royal family. When Juan Carlos I abdicated the throne to his successor Felipe VI he automatically forfeited his constitutional sovereign immunity and can be charged in a court of law. However, special legislation was passed by parliament prior to his abdication that states he may only be tried by Spain's Supreme Court and no other.
The Person of the King of Spain is inviolable and shall not be held accountable. His acts shall always be countersigned in the manner established in section 64. Without such countersignature they shall not be valid, except as provided under section 65(2).
The concept of lèse majesté (lesa majestad) exists in Spanish jurisprudence, which is the crime or offense violating the dignity of the head-of-state or the State itself. According to Article 56 of the 1978 Constitution the monarch and the dignity of the Spanish State are one and the same: "The King is Head of State, the symbol of its unity and permanence".   Breaching Spain's lèse majesté laws may carry fines and up to two years in prison.  The concept is within the same legal sphere as legislation prohibiting flag desecration in other democratic countries. Additionally, lèse majesté extends to any foreign heads-of-state visiting Spain, and other members of the royal family, and to the Spanish President of the Government as the king's appointed officer.
The Spanish satirical magazine El Jueves was fined for violation of Spain's lèse majesté laws after publishing an issue with a caricature of the Prince and Princess of Asturias engaging in sexual intercourse on their cover in 2007.  In 2008, 400 Catalonia separatists burned images of the king and queen in Madrid,  and in 2009 two Galician separatists were fined for burning effigies of the king. 
Succession and regency Edit
According to Article 57 the Crown of Spain is inherited by the successors of King Juan Carlos I de Borbón through male preference primogeniture.   Article 57 is also significant in that it omits entirely the Franconist era designation of Juan Carlos as Franco's successor.  While drafting the new constitution, lawyer and liberal congressman Joaquín Satrústegui (1909–1992) insisted that the phrase "the legitimate heir of the historic dynasty" be included in the text to underscore that the monarchy was an historic institution predating the constitution or the prior regime.  Additionally, Satrústegui was "anxious to remove" notions that the constitutional monarchy had any Francoist origins, according to author Charles Powell. 
The Crown of Spain shall be inherited by the successors of HM Juan Carlos I de Borbón, the legitimate heir of the historic dynasty. Succession to the throne shall follow the regular order of primogeniture and representation, the first line having preference over subsequent lines and within the same line the closer grade over the more remote and within the same grade the male over female, and in the same sex, the elder over the younger.
Male-preference cognatic primogeniture has been practiced in Spain since the 11th century in the various Visigothic successor states and codified in the Siete Partidas, with women able to inherit in certain circumstances.  However, with the succession of Philip V in 1700, the first of the Spanish Bourbons, women were barred from succession until Ferdinand VII reintroduced the right and designated his elder daughter Isabella as his heir presumptive by 1833.
The debate on amending the Crown's succession law came to the forefront on 31 October 2005, when Infanta Leonor was born to the current King and Queen of Spain. Amending the law to absolute primogeniture would allow the first-born to inherit the throne, whether the heir be male or female. The Zapatero administration of the day proclaimed its intention to amend the succession law however, with the birth of the king's second daughter the issue was postponed. Paving the way, in 2006 King Juan Carlos issued a decree reforming the succession to noble titles from male preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture.  Since the order of succession to the Crown is codified in the Constitution, its reform mandates a complicated process that involves a dissolution of parliament, a constitutional election, and a referendum.
If all lines designated by law become extinct, the constitution reserves the right for the Cortes Generales to provide for the succession "in the manner most suitable for Spain".   The 1978 constitution disinherits members of the royal family (as well as their descendants) from succession if they marry against the expressed prohibition of the monarch and the Cortes Generales.   Lastly, Article 57 further provides that "Abdications and renunciations and any doubt in fact or in law that may arise in connection with the succession to the Crown shall be settled by an organic act". 
Constitutionally, the current heirs of Felipe VI are:   
- , elder daughter of the King , younger daughter of the King , elder daughter of King Juan Carlos I. , son of Infanta Elena. , daughter of Infanta Elena. , younger daughter of King Juan Carlos I. , eldest son of Infanta Cristina. , middle son of Infanta Cristina. , youngest son of Infanta Cristina. , daughter of Infanta Cristina.
The constitution outlines the regency of the monarchy and guardianship of the person of the monarch in the event of his minority or incapacitation.   The office of Regent(s) and the Guardianship of the monarch (whether the monarch is in his minority or incapacitated) may not necessarily be the same person. In the event of the minority of the monarch, the surviving mother or father, or oldest relative of legal age who is nearest in line to the throne, would immediately assume the office of Regent, who in any case must be Spanish.   If a monarch becomes incapacitated, and that incapacitation is recognized by the Cortes Generales, then the Prince of Asturias (the heir apparent), shall immediately become Regent, if he is of age. If the Prince of Asturias is himself a minor, then the Cortes Generales shall appoint a Regency which may be composed of one, three, or five persons.   The person of the king in his minority shall fall under the guardianship of the person designated in the will of the deceased monarch, provided that he or she be of age and of Spanish nationality.   If no guardian has been appointed in the will, then the father or mother will then assume the guardianship, as long as they remain widowed. Otherwise, the Cortes Generales shall appoint both the Regent(s) and the guardian, who in this case may not be held by the same person, except by the father or mother of direct relation of the king.  
King, the government, and the Cortes Generales Edit
The constitution defines the government's responsibilities.  The government consists of the President of the Government and ministers of state. The government conducts domestic and foreign policy, civil and military administration, and the defense of the nation all in the name of the king. Additionally, the government exercises executive authority and statutory regulations.  The most direct prerogative the monarch exercises in the formation of Spanish governments is in the nomination and appointment process of the President of the Government (Presidente del Gobierno de España).    Following the General Election of the Cortes Generales (Cortes), and other circumstances provided for in the constitution, the king meets with and interviews the political party leaders represented in the Cortes, and then consults with the Speaker of the Congress (who, in this instance, represents the whole of the Cortes Generales).
- After each renewal of the Congress and the other cases provided for under the Constitution, the King shall, after consultation with the representatives appointed by the political groups with parliamentary representation, and through the Speaker of the Congress, nominate for the Presidency of the Government.
- The candidate nominated in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing subsection shall submit to the Congress the political program of the Government he or she intends to form and shall seek the confidence of the House.
Constitutionally, the monarch may nominate anyone he sees fit as is his prerogative. However, it remains pragmatic for him to nominate the person most likely to enjoy the confidence of the Cortes and form a government, usually the political leader whose party commands the most seats in the Cortes.  For the Crown to nominate the political leader whose party controls the Cortes can be seen as a royal endorsement of the democratic process, a fundamental concept enshrined in the 1978 constitution. By political custom, the king's nominees have all been from parties who hold the most seats in the Cortes. The king is normally able to announce his nominee the day following a General Election.
The king's nominee is presented before the Cortes by the Speaker where the nominee and his political agenda are debated and submitted for a Vote of Confidence (Cuestión de confianza) by the Cortes.  A simple majority confirms the nominee and his program.  After the nominee is deemed confirmed by the Speaker of the Congress of Deputies, the king appoints him as the new President of the Government in a ceremony performed at the Salón de Audiencias in the la Zarzuela Palace, the official residence of the king.  During the inauguration ceremony, the President of the Government takes an oath of office over an open Constitution next to the Bible. The oath as taken by President Zapatero on his second term in office on 17 April 2004 was: 
I swear, under my conscience and honor, to faithfully execute the duties of the office of President of the Government with loyalty to the King, obey and enforce the Constitution as the main law of the State, and preserve in secret the deliberations of the Council of Ministers.
However, if no overall majority was obtained on the first vote of confidence, then the same nominee and program is resubmitted for a second vote within forty-eight hours.  Following the second vote, if confidence by the Cortes is still unreached, then the monarch again meets with political leaders and the Speaker, and submits a new nominee for a vote of confidence.  If, within two months, no candidate has won the confidence of the Cortes then the king dissolves the Cortes and calls for a new General Election.  The king's royal decree is countersigned by the Speaker of the Congress. 
In the political life of Spain, the king would already be familiar with the various political leaders in a professional capacity, and perhaps less formally in a more social capacity, facilitating their meeting following a General Election. Conversely, nominating the party leader whose party maintains a plurality and who are already familiar with their party manifesto facilitates a smoother nomination process. In the event of coalitions, the political leaders would customarily have met beforehand to hammer out a coalition agreements before their meeting with the king. Once appointed, the President of the Government forms an administration whose ministers are appointed and removed by the king on the president's advice. No minister may take up his appointment until after they give their oath of office to obey the constitution with loyalty to the king. 
As early as 1975, Juan Carlos expressed his view that his role in the government of a "crowned democracy" would be for him to counsel and orient an administration's "thrust in action", but for the government to take the initiative without the need for it to involve the king unnecessarily in its decisions.  Therefore, Juan Carlos has abstained from presiding over cabinet meetings except under special occasions or circumstances.  Generally, the king presides over cabinet meetings once or twice a year (more regularly if needed) to be directly informed by ministers of non-partisan national and international concerns.  However, the king does meet weekly with the President of the Government, usually on Tuesday mornings.   During the late-2000s economic recession which gripped the nation, the king discreetly used his influence to facilitate a bi-partisan response to the crisis. 
Governments and the Cortes sit for a term no longer than four years when the president tenders his resignation to the king and advises the king to dissolve the Cortes, prompting a General Election. It remains within the king's prerogative to dissolve the Cortes if, at the conclusion of the four years, the president has not asked for its dissolution, according to Title II Article 56.  The president may call for earlier elections, but no sooner than a year after the prior General Election. Additionally, if the Government loses the confidence of the Cortes, then it must resign. In the event that a president dies or becomes incapacitated while in office, then the government as a whole resigns and the process of royal nomination and appointment takes place. The vice president would take over the day-to-day operations in the meantime, even while vice president himself may be nominated by the king.
Royal assent, judiciary, and promulgation of the laws Edit
The constitution vests the sanction (Royal Assent) and promulgation (publication) of the laws with the king, while Title III The Cortes Generals, Chapter 2 Drafting of Bills outlines the method with which bills are passed. According to Article 91, within fifteen days that a bill has been passed by the Cortes Generales, the king shall give his assent and publish the new law. Article 92 invests the king with the right to call for referendum on the advice of the president and the previous authorization of Congress. 
No provision within the constitution invests the king with the ability to veto legislation directly however, no provision prohibits the king from withholding royal assent, effectively a veto. When the media asked King Juan Carlos if he would endorse the 2005 bill legalizing gay marriages (the implication being that he may not endorse the bill), he answered "Soy el Rey de España y no el de Bélgica" ("I am the King of Spain, not of Belgium") – a reference to King Baudouin I of Belgium who had refused to sign the Belgian law legalising abortion in Belgium. 
According to Title VI of the constitution, Justice in Spain "emanates from the people and is administered on behalf of the King by judges and magistrates members of the Judicial Power".  It remains a royal prerogative for the king to appoint the twenty members to the General Council of the Judicial Power of Spain (Spain's Supreme Court), and then appoint the President of the Supreme Court nominated by the General Council, according to Article 122, Subsection 3, of the constitution.   However, by convention the king's nominations have been with the advice of the government of the day.
The General Council of the Judicial Power shall consist of the President of the Supreme Court, who shall preside over it, and of twenty members appointed by the King for a five-year period, of which twelve shall be judges and magistrates of all the judicial categories, under the terms provided for by the organic act four nominated by the Congress and four by the Senate, elected in both cases by three-fifths of their members amongst lawyers and other jurists of acknowledged competence with more than fifteen years of professional practice.
Additionally, the king appoints the State Public Prosecutor on the advice of the government, according to Article 124.  The king may grant clemency in accordance with the law, however the king may not authorize a general pardon of government ministers who have been found criminally liable or guilty of treason by the Criminal Article of the Supreme Court, according to Articles 62 and 102. 
King and international diplomacy Edit
Constitutionally the king accredits Spanish ambassadors to international states and governments, and foreign representatives to Spain are accredited before him. However, the government of the day manages diplomatic policy on behalf of the monarch.   Additionally, it remains the responsibility for the monarch to express the state's assent to international commitments and treaties, which must be in conformity with the Spanish constitution.  
During his reign, Juan Carlos followed a foreign policy during the first decade of his kingship coined Reencounter and Reconciliation, which greatly improved Spain's standing on the world stage.  The king reconciled long standing historic tensions with the Netherlands and cultivated relationships with France and Germany which led directly to Spain's entry into the European Community and into NATO.  Following the tensions between Franco and the Papacy over the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, Juan Carlos' personal relations with successive popes greatly improved diplomatic relations between the Holy See and Spain, and with Pope Paul VI blessing Juan Carlos' democratic reforms.   According to historian Charles Powell, it was the king's goal to win Spain's full acceptance by other European powers.  The king, a self-described Europeanist, was awarded the prestigious Charlemagne Award in 1982 for his steadfast work towards democracy and for supporting European unity.  The constitution gives the monarch special responsibility in promoting Spanish relations with members of its historic community, the nations formerly part of the Spanish Empire and also relations with Portugal and Brazil.   Fulfilling this responsibility, the King of Spain serves as president of the twenty-four member Ibero-American States Organization. With his support of democracy, various elements within Ibero-America political society have sought the king's advice on how to transition from a dictatorship to a democracy.  For his efforts, by 2008 the king was voted the most popular leader in all of the Ibero-American community. 
The monarch is assisted in his diplomatic missions by the Foreign Ministry, and high-ranking members of the Foreign Ministry are made available to the king when he is abroad representing Spain.  The royal household coordinates with the Foreign Ministry to ensure successful diplomatic engagements. Additionally, other members of the royal family, most notably the Prince of Asturias, may represent the Spanish State internationally. Though the Spanish monarchy is independent of the government, it is important that royal speeches are compatible with government foreign policy to project a unified diplomatic effort. To achieve balance, royal household speechwriters confer with the Foreign Ministry to ensure that the official speeches strike the desired diplomatic tone between the king's views and government policy.    When necessary and appropriate, the king and his government may focus on two different aspects in a diplomatic engagement. The king may emphasize one aspect, such as the promotion of democracy and historic relations while the government focuses on the details of strategic planning and bilateral coordination.
The king and members of the royal family have represented Spain in Europe, Latin America, in the United States and in Canada, nations in the Middle East and North Africa, in China, Japan, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand and many countries in sub-Sahara Africa. The king and Prince of Asturias have addressed many international organizations which include the United Nations, the institutions of the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Organization of American States, UNESCO, the International Labour Organization, and the Arab League. Since 2000, Felipe has represented Spain in half of all diplomatic engagements.
King as Commander-in-Chief Edit
The role of the Crown in the Spanish Armed Forces is rooted in tradition and patriotism as demonstrated in the symbols and the history of the military. The role of the Spanish monarch in the chain of command of the forces is established by the constitution of 1978, and other statutory law – Acts of Parliament, Royal Decrees etc. 
It is incumbent upon the King . to exercise Supreme Command of the Armed Forces.
The King exercises Supreme Command of the Armed Forces and other powers regarding national defense that are provided for in the constitution and other laws.
However, Title IV of the constitution vests the administration of the armed forces and formulation of national defense policy with the President of the Government, a civil officer who is nominated and appointed by the king, confirmed by the elected Congress of Deputies and, as such, is representative of the Spanish people.
Royal Decree 1310 of 5 October 2007  [ incomplete short citation ] requires the National Defence Council to report to the monarch, and that the king is to be the Chairman of the Council when he attends its sessions. The National Defence Council is Spain's highest advisory body on security and defense matters and performs the same basic function as the U.S. National Security Council. King Juan Carlos chaired the first full meeting of the council on 10 November 2007, at which the newly proposed National Defence Directive was reviewed along with the ongoing war missions in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and Lebanon.  [ incomplete short citation ]
As Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the king holds the highest-ranking office in the military chain of command. The king's ranks include Captain General of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force.  [ incomplete short citation ] The king is the only officer in the military to hold this 5-star General rank. The king takes a keen interest in all aspects of military policy as evidenced by "his direct participation in the life of the Spanish Armed Forces".  [ incomplete short citation ] The king's participation in Spanish military life stems from his constitutional duty to "arbitrate and moderate" the regular working of state institutions. Serving in the armed forces is considered an expectation of the heir apparent, Juan Carlos and Felipe VI served in the various branches of the armed forces before they became kings. The monarch has made his desire for a strong rapport with the armed forces clear in speeches to his officer corps:
I do not feel a stranger in your company, and my functions are not limited to being your king and to holding the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces. I am also your companion . I feel one more among you . because my youth has been formed, as yours and with many of you, in military academies where virtues are praised and qualities infused which are not modified by time or by the changes that may occur in society . In my heart, in all my being, side by side with my love for the country, palpitates military spirit, and I feel always identified with my companions in the army, with your concerns, your sorrows, your satisfactions and your hopes. So when I see you joyful, I am joyful. When I feel You sad, I am sad. And all, absolutely all of your worries, all absolutely all of your problems gravitate on your king and Captain General-your companion-with the same intensity that is felt by you. [ This quote needs a citation ]
Popularity and criticism Edit
Prior to the Spanish financial crisis from 2008, the monarchy traditionally enjoyed wide support and popularity by Spanish citizens since its constitutional restoration in 1978, according to Fernando Villespin,  president of the Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (CIS, English: Sociological Research Center) in 2008.    According to Villespin, the king's traditional approval rating of over 70% through the years consistently out-performed those of elected political leaders, with a similar percentage of respondents considering that the king played an important role in maintaining Spanish democracy.  Public trust in Juan Carlos’ kingship "comes only behind that of the National Ombudsman", Villespin continued.  Members of the royal family were routinely voted among the most respected public figures in Spain,  and in 2010 as many as 75% of Spanish citizens ranked the monarchy as "above any other public institution in the country", according to Dr Juan Díez-Nicolás, a former president of the CIS and founder of the private consulting firm ASEP (Análisis Sociológicos Económicos y Políticos).   The CIS, a non-partisan government funded independent research institution, has been researching public opinion of the monarchy since 1984 and tracks three basic lines of inquiry what is public confidence in the monarchy, what is the role of the monarchy in a democratic system, and to what degree has the king contributed to the democratic process. 
The king was routinely considered one of the top ten most popular figures in Spain,  with as many as 80% of Spanish believing Spain's transition to democracy would not have been made possible without the king's personal intervention.  Historian and royal biographer Charles Powell told BBC News in 2008 that "There's a deep-rooted feeling of gratitude for the king's role in the transition to democracy [and] Polls show that he is the individual to whom democratisation is most closely attributed, and the sense of gratitude cuts across class and ideological lines." 
Prior to the economic crisis, part of the monarchy's appeal may lay in the personal characteristics of Juan Carlos, whose philosophy on his family, on personal integrity, and on a selfless work ethic were revealed in intimate private letters of fatherly advice to his son Felipe, Prince of Asturias, between 1984 and 1985, when Felipe was then attending university in Canada.   According to Juan Carlos a monarch must not take his position for granted but work for the people's welfare, be kind, attentive and helpful, and "appear animated even when you are tired kind even when you don't feel like it attentive even when you are not interested helpful even when it takes an effort [. ] You need to appear natural, but not vulgar cultivated and aware of problems, but not pedantic or conceited".  
Those whom God has chosen to be kings and to be at the head of the destiny of a country do not have any other choice than to start to understand the importance and the special characteristics of the position, because one can say that they start to become adults long before other boys of their age. If in this life it is as important to form and strengthen character enough to permit us to lead, it is not any less to know how to obey. In spite of the high positions that we hold in life, it will always be vital to know we also have duties to perform and obedience always involves real honour [. ] We have to build a closely united family, without fissures or contradictions, we must not forget that on all and on each one of us are fixed the eyes of Spaniards whom we should serve with body and soul. I do not want to prolong my first letter any more in order not to tire you, but I would hope that this as well as the succeeding ones I send you leave a profound impression on you and are read calmly and thought about seriously.
"I have had to stand snubs and contempt, incomprehension and annoyances that you, thank God, have not known", reminded the king to his son in one letter.   The private letters from father to son remain within the royal household, but were copied and released into the public domain without any approval or foreknowledge, according to a Zarzuela palace official who confirmed the letter's authenticity.  
However, the monarchy became the focus of acute criticism from part of the left and right of the Spanish political spectrum, and by regional separatists. As many as 22% of Spanish citizens feel that a republic would be the better form of government for Spain, while separatists and independence supporters in the Basque Country and Catalonia routinely protest the monarchy as the living symbol of a united Spain.     Part of the left criticize the institution of monarchy as anachronistic, while the far right criticize King Juan Carlos personally because he has given his royal assent and tacit approval to what they perceive to be a liberal agenda in Spain and a secularism of Spanish life.   
The monarchy became subject to sharpened criticism during the financial crisis, particularly 2012 which became a kind of "annus horribilis" for the monarchy,  as members of the royal family became increasingly seen as out-of-step with the Spanish mainstream or drawn into scandal.   Queen Sofía was criticized in 2008 for inarticulately disclosing her private opinions on gay marriage in a biography publicly released that year. In 2011 the king's son-in-law Iñaki Urdangarin, Duke of Palma de Mallorca, was accused of money laundering and impropriety for using his connection to the royal family for personal financial gain.       In April 2012 the king's grandson, 13-year-old Froilán, shot himself in the foot during target practice at his father's estate, echoing a similar but far more serious gun accident involving the king in 1956.  According to historians, the then 18-year-old Juan Carlos was cleaning a revolver when he accidentally shot to death his 14-year-old brother Alfonso.  Also in 2012, the monarchy was seen as out-of-touch during the financial crisis as the king went on a hunting safari in Botswana while Spanish citizens suffered crippling unemployment and austerity measures at home.  Furthermore, sporting a hunting vest and rifle the king was photographed over a dead elephant propped against a tree.  Despite public knowledge of the king's interest in hunting,      the image this time contrasted sharply with his patronage of the Spanish branch of the conservation group World Wildlife Fund. Though elephant hunting is legal on the game preserve in Botswana, the World Wildlife Fund lists elephants as an endangered species, and the public outcry led to the WWF to strip the king of his honorary patronage in July, 2012.    With the perceived disconnect public support of the monarchy has dropped to a new low of only 49%, according to a December 2011 Metroscopia survey. 
The king took measures to reconcile public confidence in the monarchy.   In the wake of the scandal surrounding the Duke of Palma de Mallorca, the king spoke in his 2011 Christmas Eve National Speech that no-one is above the law.  Additionally, the king addressed the perennial critique of the monarchy by publishing the budget spent on the monarchy and royal household.  In 2012, the king and Prince of Asturias volunteered an additional 7% pay-cut in solidarity with government officials, bringing the king's taxable income for 2012 at about 270,000 euros, and that of the prince at 131,000 euros.  Of the events surrounding the safari, the contrite king issued a rare apology and said "I am very sorry. I made a mistake. It will not happen again."  Furthermore, the king and the Prince of Asturias stepped up public engagements, particularly those of a business nature, in an effort to promote "Brand Spain," as the king put it as he answered written questions.  The king's mantra for Spanish business "Export, export, export!"  Spanish business magnates rallied to the king's cause "From a corporate point of view, [King Juan Carlos] is Spain's No. 1 ambassador," said César Alierta, chairman of the Spanish telecommunications giant Telefónica.  The king is also credited with brokering a deal worth $9.9 billion for a Spanish consortium in Saudi Arabia to construct a high-speed rail line by leveraging his personal relationship with Saudi King Abdullah and outmaneuvering a French bid.    "Without the king, this contract would not have gone ahead," according to former Spanish foreign minister Miguel Angel Moratinos.  The king's role as a "business diplomat and deal maker" for his country's interest was brought to light during the safari scandal, as the safari was paid for by Mohamed Eyad Kayali, a Syrian construction magnate and longtime friend of the king. The two worked together on the deal which awarded the Haramain High Speed Rail Project to the Spanish consortium.  For supporters of the monarchy the king is an "irreplaceable resource" with unrivaled relationships with other world leaders.  Observers credit the king with easing tensions between Spain's former government of José Zapatero and the George W. Bush administration, while also helping to resolve disputes in Latin America. 
Opinion polls released in April 2012 revealed that the Spanish public generally forgave the king over the recent scandals, but wished for greater transparency of the monarchy.  However, criticism grew increasingly strident towards many senior members of the royal family as investigations continued to dominate headlines throughout 2013. In an act to preserve Spanish constitutional stability Juan Carlos I abdicated the throne on 19 June 2014, in favor of his popular son, now reigning as King Felipe VI.  
At the time of his abdication La Razon found that more than 77 per cent of respondents rated the leadership of King Juan Carlos as "good" or "very good." Seventy-two per cent thought the monarchy was an important factor for political stability.  The Spanish public also gave a broadly positive opinion not only of the abdication but of his reign as a whole. According to a poll taken by El Mundo, believed the king's reign was either good or very good, up from 41.3 per cent. Overall, 55.7 per cent of those polled in the 3–5 June survey by Sigma Dos supported the institution of the monarchy in Spain, up from 49.9 per cent when the same question was posed six months earlier. 57.5 per cent believed the Felipe VI could restore the royal family's lost prestige. An overwhelming majority of Spaniards believe Felipe VI would make a good monarch and more than three-quarters believe Juan Carlos was right to hand over the throne to his son. 
In recent years, however, public opinion on the form of organization of the Head of State has become increasingly divided, with polls confirming a technical tie between monarchists and republicans since 2018.   
Despite being hailed for his role in Spain's transition to democracy, King Juan Carlos I and the monarchy's reputation began to suffer after controversies surrounding his family arose, exacerbated by the public controversy centering on an elephant-hunting trip he undertook during a time of financial crisis in Spain. Since August 2020, Juan Carlos has lived in self-exile from Spain over allegedly improper ties to business deals in Saudi Arabia.  
During the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain, it became known on 2 March 2021 that the two sisters of King Felipe, the Infantas Cristina and Elena, had travelled to the United Arab Emirates in order to receive the vaccine and avoid the waiting of the Spanish protocol. 
Charitable, cultural, and religious patronage Edit
Members of the royal family are often invited by non-profit charitable, cultural, or religious organizations within Spain or internationally to become their patrons, a role the Spanish constitution recognizes.  Royal patronage conveys a sense of official credibility as the organization is vetted for suitability. A royal presence often greatly raises the profile of the organization and attracts public interest and media coverage that the organization may not have otherwise garnered, aiding in the charitable cause or cultural event. Royals use their considerable celebrity to assist the organization to raise funds or to affect or promote government policy.
Members of the royal family also pursue charitable and cultural causes of special interest to themselves. As prince, King Felipe chaired the Prince of Asturias Foundation (Fundación Príncipe de Asturias), which aims to promote "scientific, cultural and humanistic values that form part of mankind's universal heritage."  The Prince of Asturias Foundation holds annual awards ceremonies acknowledging the contributions of individuals, entities, and organizations which make notable achievements in the sciences, humanities, or public affairs. Felipe serves as president of the Codespa Foundation, which finances specific economic and social development activities in Ibero-America and other countries, and serves as president of the Spanish branch of the Association of European Journalists, which is composed of achieving communications professionals.   Felipe also serves as honorary chair of the Ministry of Culture National Awards Ceremonies. 
Queen Sofía devotes much of her time to the Queen Sofía Foundation (Fundación Reina Sofía).  Established in 1977 out of the queen's private funds, the non-profit aims to assist, promote, and develop the spiritual and physical needs of men and women from diverse backgrounds, with a particular focus on progress, welfare, and justice.  Infanta Elena, Duchess of Lugo, the king's eldest daughter, is the Director of Cultural and Social Projects of Mapfre Foundation,  while Infanta Cristina, Duchess of Palma de Mallorca, the king's youngest daughter, served as the Goodwill Ambassador to the United Nations for the 2nd World Assembly on Ageing, and is a member of the Dalí Foundation Board of Trustees, president of the International Foundation for Disabled Sailing, and Director of Social Welfare at the La Caixa Foundation in Barcelona where she lives with her family. 
The king, queen, and Infanta Cristina are all members of the Bilderberg Group, an informal think-tank centered on United States and European relations, and other world issues.   
King Juan Carlos built a tradition of presenting annual Christmas Eve National Speeches entitled "Mensaje de S.M. Juan Carlos I," personal messages from himself as king to the nation which are broadcast by radio and television through various media outlets.  King Juan Carlos usually referred to social or economic challenges facing the nation as well as positive messages of charity, good will, and religious faith. In 2004, the speech was highly related to the 2004 Madrid train bombings in 2006 he talked about the need to become a united nation against terrorism (in implicit support of Zapatero's anti-terrorist policies), and he mentioned the increasing force of immigrants in Spain and appreciated their contribution to the economy.
The royal household organization, constitutionally La Casa de Su Majestad el Rey,  supports and facilitates the monarch and members of the royal family in fulfilling their constitutionally hereditary responsibilities and obligations.   The royal household is funded through yearly budgets drafted by the government of the day in consultation with the monarch, and brought before the Cortes for approval, and then paid directly to the monarch. The royal household coordinates with various government administration ministries, and receives their advice and support where needed, though in no way does the royal household form part of the government administration.  Royal household staff serve at the pleasure of the monarch, and does not resign when the Spanish government resigns during election cycles. The royal household is managed by the Head of the Household who inspects and supervises all household operations through various bureaus or offices of the General Secretariat. The Head of the Household is assisted by a Secretary General.  The General Secretariat is divided into various departments which includes the secretariat (bureau) of King Juan Carlos (since 2014) planning and coordination the secretariat (bureau) of H.M. the Queen security services communication protocol and administration, infrastructure and services.  Before his father's abdication, Felipe VI had his own secretariat as Prince of Asturias.
The Spanish Armed Forces are represented by the Head of the Military Chamber, who does not advise the king on matters of national defense, which is the portfolio of the Minister of Defence and President of the Government to advise the king. Rather, the Head of the Military Chamber coordinates royal military operations and ceremonies, and prepares the royal family for any military activities.  The Military Chamber is directed by a commander who must be an active lieutenant-general or a general within the Spanish military, and is under the direct orders of the king.  The commander maintains an office with a military legal advisor, an auditor, and section heads for staffing, protocol, operations and logistics.  The king is assigned personal aides-de-camp for his assistance, and by extension to his wife the queen and to Princess Sofía.  Aides-de-camp are drawn from all of the services, from the Army, from the Navy, from the Air Force, and from the Civil Guard.  The Princess of Asturias is entitled to, in future, personal aides-de-camp, drawn from the army, the navy and the air force. 
The Head of the Household, Secretary General, and Head of the Military Chamber are considered senior management staff and are compensated at the level of senior government administration officials.  In 2004, the royal household employed 100 staff members.
The royal household's public relations department manages and maintains an official website on behalf of the royal family known as Casa de S.M. El Rey. The website lists biographical information on members of the immediate royal family, charts their activities, records speeches given at events, and publishes their expected diary of upcoming events, among other information. Additionally, the public relations department publishes the king's diary of his private meetings and the meeting minutes, so long as the other party agrees. 
Residences and royal sites Edit
The king and queen preside over many official functions at the Oriente Palace in Madrid.  However, King Felipe and Queen Letizia and their family reside at the Pavilion, a modest home on the El Pardo estate, near his parents’ residence at La Zarzuela.   King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofía have spent the majority of their time at the La Zarzuela Palace, a former hunting lodge on the El Pardo estate on the outskirts of Madrid. The El Pardo Palace itself has served as the "guest house" for visiting heads of state since the 1980s.
The Oriente Palace and the palaces of the El Pardo estate form part of the "Spanish royal sites", a collective term used to denote the set of palaces, monasteries, and convents built under royal patronage throughout history. Royal sites are owned by the state and administered by the Patrimonio Nacional (National Heritage) on behalf of the government of the day, and made available for the king as the head of state. Whenever a member of the royal family is not in residence, the royal site is made available for public visitations. The royal household coordinates directly with the National Heritage Council and relevant government ministries or other interests in their planning and staging of state events, with royal sites often providing the setting.
Juan Carlos began a tradition of taking his family on annual holidays to the island of Palma de Mallorca, staying at the Marivent Palace there since the 1960s.  Juan Carlos, known as a keen yachtsman, was presented with a yacht by the Balearic Islands and a consortium of local business leaders in 2001 as part of an effort to further associate the royal family with the islands, and to promote the islands as a tourist destination.  The yacht, known as the Fortuna, is also owned by the State and administered by the Patrimonio Nacional. 
Annual budget and taxation Edit
Constitutionally the monarch is entitled to compensation from the annual state budget for the maintenance of his family and household administration, and freely distributes these funds in accordance with the laws.   According to the Royal Household, "[T]he purpose of these resources is to ensure that the Head of State may carry out his tasks with the independence which is inherent to his constitutional functions, as well as with due effectiveness and dignity".  The annual budget pays the remunerations for senior management staff, management staff and career civil servants, other minor staffing positions, and for general office expenses.  The Head of Household, Secretary General, and other management staff salaries must be comparable to other administration ministers within the government, though in no way do they form part of the government or administration.  As such, the management staff experience increases, decreases, or freezes to their pay in accordance with the fluctuations of government minister salaries.  Additionally, the annual budget pays for the maintenance and expenses of senior members of the royal family who undertake royal duties which includes grocery, clothing, and toiletries allotments.  The budget approved by the Cortes for 2010 was just under 7.4 million euros, a budget only slightly larger than that spent on the Luxembourg monarchy.  In 2011 the king addressed the perennial critique of the monarchy that of how the annual budget awarded to the monarchy and royal household is spent.  The report revealed that only 9.6% of the 8.4 million euros budgeted that year for the monarchy are paid to royal family members as 'salaries and representative duties', with the difference marked for royal household operational expenses such as household staff salaries, various insurance premiums and liabilities, services, and 'supplementals' such as overhead.  In 2012, the monarchy volunteered an additional 7% pay-cut in solidarity with government officials. 
Not included in the annual budget is the maintenance and upkeep of Spanish royal sites, which are owned by the state and made available to the king as the head-of-state, but administered by Patrimonio Nacional on behalf of the government of the day. Spanish royal sites are open to the public when members of the royal family are not in residence. Maintenance and upkeep includes groundskeeping, domestic staffing and catering.  The budget is administered with professional Public Administration accounting procedures, and is audited by government auditors.  All members of the royal family are subject to taxation and annually submit Income Tax and Wealth Tax returns and effect the relevant payments. 
- ^ abcdefghijklmnopqrs Powell, Charles, Juan Carlos of Spain Self Made Monarch, St. Martin's Press, INC
- ^ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzaaabacadaeafagahaiajakTítulo II. De la Corona, Wikisource
- ^ Constitution of Spain 1978, Title II, Article 56, Subsection 2 and amended by Royal Decree 1368/1987, dated 6 November
- ^ According to historian Charles Powell, the term reestablished, rather than restored, was a conscious choice to find a middle ground acceptable by monarchists, who viewed the 1975 monarchy as a restoration, and Franconists who took the view that General Franco had essentially established a new monarchy apart from the prior historic office.
- ^ abcdefg Title II, Article 56, Subsection 1
- ^ abcdefg
- "Spanish King rebrands for recession". The Independent. London. 26 February 2010 . Retrieved 13 October 2010 .
- ^ ab
- "Uribe es el líder iberoamericano mejor valorado por los ciudadanos de su país". El Mundo (in Spanish). 7 October 2008 . Retrieved 1 December 2009 .
- ^ 19. P.K. Enepekides, `Das Wiener Testament des Andreas Palaiologos vom 7 April 1502', Akten des XI Internationalen Byzantinisten Kongresses, München 1958, ed. F. Dölger and H.G. Beck (Munich, 1960) 138-43, esp. 138.
- ^ Norwich, John Julius, Byzantium – The Decline and Fall, p. 446.
- "El presupuesto de la Casa del Rey crece un 0,9% para 2018". eldiario.es (in Spanish) . Retrieved 11 September 2018 .
- ^ James Lockhart and Stuart Schwartz, Early Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press 1983, p. 19.
- ^ James Lockhart and Stuart Schwartz, Early Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press 1983, pp. 346–52, 359–68.
- ^ John Hooper, The New Spaniards, 2001, From Dictatorship to Democracy
- ^ abcd
- "Spain's fast-living king turns 70". BBC News. 4 January 2008 . Retrieved 18 June 2009 .
- ^ abcde John Hooper, The New Spaniards, 2001, An Engaging Monarchy
- ^ abcdefghijklmnopq
- "Spanish Constitution of 1978" (PDF) . Boletin Oficial del Estado (BOE) . Retrieved 5 January 2016 .
- ^ Spanish Constitution of 1978 (in English):
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 4 September 2010 . Retrieved 10 October 2010 . CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- ^El Rey es el Jefe del Estado, símbolo de su unidad y permanencia, arbitra y modera el funcionamiento regular de las instituciones, asume la más alta representación del Estado español en las relaciones internacionales, especialmente con las naciones de su comunidad histórica, y ejerce las funciones que le atribuyen expresamente la Constitución y las leyes
- ^ abcdefghijklmPart IV Government and Administration
- ^ abcdeTítulo VI. Del Poder Judicial
- ^ Section 56.3
- ^ abcdefgReal Decreto 1368/1987, de 6 de noviembre, sobre régimen de títulos, tratamientos y honores de la Familia Real y de los Regentes. Boletin Oficial del Estado (BOE) no. 271, 12 November 1987, p. 33717. (Reference: BOE-A-1987-25284)
- ^ The King of Spain may also use the formal address of His Catholic Majesty, according to Almanach de Gotha page 336 (2000). However, according to Royal Decree published in 1987, the formal addressed used isHis Majesty.
- Goodman, Al Mullen, Jethro Levs, Josh (2 June 2014). "Spain's King Juan Carlos I to abdicate". CNN . Retrieved 2 June 2014 .
- "Spain will have two kings and two queens" . Retrieved 14 June 2014 .
- ^Real Decreto 470/2014, de 13 de junio, por el que se modifica el Real Decreto 1368/1987, de 6 de noviembre, sobre régimen de títulos, tratamientos y honores de la Familia Real y de los Regentes. Boletin Oficial del Estado (BOE) no. 149, 19 June 2014, p. 46399-46400. (Reference: BOE-A-2014-6477)
- ^ abcdef
- "Nobility and Grandee Titles". Spanish Ministry of Justice. 4 January 2008. Archived from the original on 3 August 2009 . Retrieved 31 May 2009 .
- "No deben tolerarse las recompensas a torturadores (They should not tolerate rewards to torturers)". Amnesty International. 30 January 2001.
- ^ "Aznar pagó con dinero público a un 'lobby' de Washington para conseguir la medalla del Congreso de EEUU" (Cadena SER)
- "Aznar: 'Muslims should apologize for occupying Spain for 800 years ' ". YouTube . Retrieved 3 January 2008 .
- "Aznar se pregunta por qué los musulmanes no se disculpan 'por haber ocupado España ocho siglos ' ". El Mundo . Retrieved 3 January 2008 .
- ^Royal Decree 1051/2002, 11 October, by which the Regulation of the Royal and Distinguished Spanish Order of Carlos III is passed. Boletin Oficial del Estado (BOE) no. 245, 12 October 2002, pg. 36085-36094. (Reference: BOE-A-2002-19803)
- ^(Spanish) Order of 8 May 2000 by which the Regulation of the Royal and Very Distinguished Order of Carlos III is adapted to the current circumstances and conditions.
- ^La persona del Rey de España es inviolable y no está sujeta a responsabilidad. Sus actos estarán siempre refrendados en la forma establecida en el artículo 64, careciendo de validez sin dicho refrendo, salvo lo dispuesto en el artículo 65,2.
- Govan, Fiona (4 October 2007). "Spanish King Juan Carlos defends monarchy". The Daily Telegraph. London . Retrieved 27 May 2009 .
- "Spain royal sex cartoonists fined". BBC News. 13 November 2007 . Retrieved 13 November 2007 .
- ^ ab
- "Protesters burn pictures of King Juan Carlos in Spain". Europa News. 14 September 2007. Archived from the original on 8 November 2010 . Retrieved 1 June 2009 .
- ^ ab
- "Two fined for torching effigy of Spanish king". Expatica. 1 June 2009. Archived from the original on 15 July 2014 . Retrieved 2 December 2009 .
- ^La Corona de España es hereditaria en los sucesores de S. M. Don Juan Carlos I de Borbón, legítimo heredero de la dinastía histórica. La sucesión en el trono seguirá el orden regular de primogenitura y representación, siendo preferida siempre la línea anterior a las posteriores en la misma línea, el grado más próximo al más remoto en el mismo grado, el varón a la mujer, y en el mismo sexo, la persona de más edad a la de menos.
- ^ Klapisch-Zuber, Christine (1992). A History of Women: Book II: "Silences of the Middle Ages". Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 1992, 2000 (5th printing). Chapter 6, "Women in the Fifth to the Tenth Century" by Suzanne Fonay Wemple, p. 74. According to Wemple, Visigothic women of Spain and Aquitaine could inherit land and title and manage it independently of their husbands, and dispose of it as they saw fit if they had no heirs, and represent themselves in court, appear as witnesses (over the age of 14), and arrange their own marriages over the age of twenty.
- ^ "The Crown of Spain shall be inherited by the successors of Juan Carlos I de Borbón, the legitimate heir of the historic dynasty. Succession to the throne shall follow the regular order of primogeniture and representation, the first line having preference over subsequent lines and within the same line the closer grade over the more remote and within the same grade the male over female, and in the same sex, the elder over the younger."
- "The English Style Guide (Fifth edition: 2005 Revised: March 2009)" (PDF) . European Commission Directorate-General for Translation. 1 March 2009 . Retrieved 13 November 2007 .
- ^ The President of the Government is usually known as the prime minister in many English language publications as the title president, outside of academic and business circles, has a republican connotation absent in the Spanish presidente.
Artículo 99. # Después de cada renovación del Congreso de los Diputados, y en los demás supuestos constitucionales en que así proceda, el Rey, previa consulta con los representantes designados por los grupos políticos con representación parlamentaria, y a través del Presidente del Congreso, propondrá un candidato a la Presidencia del Gobierno. # El candidato propuesto conforme a lo previsto en el apartado anterior expondrá ante el Congreso de los Diputados el programa político del Gobierno que pretenda formar y solicitará la confianza de la Cámara.
Louis XIV was born on 5 September 1638 in the Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, to Louis XIII and Anne of Austria. He was named Louis Dieudonné (Louis the God-given)  and bore the traditional title of French heirs apparent: Dauphin.  At the time of his birth, his parents had been married for 23 years. His mother had experienced four stillbirths between 1619 and 1631. Leading contemporaries thus regarded him as a divine gift and his birth a miracle of God.
Sensing imminent death, Louis XIII decided to put his affairs in order in the spring of 1643, when Louis XIV was four years old. In defiance of custom, which would have made Queen Anne the sole Regent of France, the king decreed that a regency council would rule on his son's behalf. His lack of faith in Queen Anne's political abilities was his primary rationale. He did, however, make the concession of appointing her head of the council.
Louis' relationship with his mother was uncommonly affectionate for the time. Contemporaries and eyewitnesses claimed that the Queen would spend all her time with Louis. Both were greatly interested in food and theatre, and it is highly likely that Louis developed these interests through his close relationship with his mother. This long-lasting and loving relationship can be evidenced by excerpts in Louis' journal entries, such as:
"Nature was responsible for the first knots which tied me to my mother. But attachments formed later by shared qualities of the spirit are far more difficult to break than those formed merely by blood." 
It was his mother who gave Louis his belief in the absolute and divine power of his monarchical rule. 
During his childhood, he was taken care of by the governesses Françoise de Lansac and Marie-Catherine de Senecey. In 1646, Nicolas V de Villeroy became the young king's tutor. Louis XIV became friends with Villeroy's young children, particularly François de Villeroy, and divided his time between the Palais-Royal and the nearby Hotel de Villeroy.
On 14 May 1643, with Louis XIII dead, Queen Anne had her husband's will annulled by the Parlement de Paris (a judicial body comprising mostly nobles and high clergymen).  This action abolished the regency council and made Anne sole Regent of France. Anne exiled some of her husband's ministers (Chavigny, Bouthilier), and she nominated Brienne as her minister of foreign affairs. 
Anne kept the direction of religious policy strongly in her hand until 1661 her most important political decisions were to nominate Cardinal Mazarin as her chief minister and the continuation of her late husband's and Cardinal Richelieu's policy, despite their persecution of her, for the sake of her son. Anne wanted to give her son absolute authority and a victorious kingdom. Her rationales for choosing Mazarin were mainly his ability and his total dependence on her, at least until 1653 when she was no longer regent. Anne protected Mazarin by arresting and exiling her followers who conspired against him in 1643: the Duke of Beaufort and Marie de Rohan.  She left the direction of the daily administration of policy to Cardinal Mazarin.
The best example of Anne's statesmanship and the partial change in her heart towards her native Spain is seen in her keeping of one of Richelieu's men, the Chancellor of France Pierre Séguier, in his post. Séguier was the person who had interrogated Anne in 1637, treating her like a "common criminal" as she described her treatment following the discovery that she was giving military secrets and information to Spain. Anne was virtually under house arrest for a number of years during her husband's rule. By keeping him in his post, Anne was giving a sign that the interests of France and her son Louis were the guiding spirit of all her political and legal actions. Though not necessarily opposed to Spain, she sought to end the war with a French victory, in order to establish a lasting peace between the Catholic nations.
The Queen also gave a partial Catholic orientation to French foreign policy. This was felt by the Netherlands, France's Protestant ally, which negotiated a separate peace with Spain in 1648. 
In 1648, Anne and Mazarin successfully negotiated the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years' War. Its terms ensured Dutch independence from Spain, awarded some autonomy to the various German princes of the Holy Roman Empire, and granted Sweden seats on the Imperial Diet and territories to control the mouths of the Oder, Elbe, and Weser rivers. France, however, profited most from the settlement. Austria, ruled by the Habsburg Emperor Ferdinand III, ceded all Habsburg lands and claims in Alsace to France and acknowledged her de facto sovereignty over the Three Bishoprics of Metz, Verdun, and Toul. Moreover, eager to emancipate themselves from Habsburg domination, petty German states sought French protection. This anticipated the formation of the 1658 League of the Rhine, leading to the further diminution of Imperial power.
As the Thirty Years' War came to an end, a civil war known as the Fronde (after the slings used to smash windows) erupted in France. It effectively checked France's ability to exploit the Peace of Westphalia. Anne and Mazarin had largely pursued the policies of Cardinal Richelieu, augmenting the Crown's power at the expense of the nobility and the Parlements. Anne interfered much more in internal policy than foreign affairs she was a very proud queen who insisted on the divine rights of the King of France. 
All this led her to advocate a forceful policy in all matters relating to the King's authority, in a manner that was much more radical than the one proposed by Mazarin. The Cardinal depended totally on Anne's support and had to use all his influence on the Queen to avoid nullifying, but to restrain some of her radical actions. Anne imprisoned any aristocrat or member of parliament who challenged her will her main aim was to transfer to her son an absolute authority in the matters of finance and justice. One of the leaders of the Parlement of Paris, whom she had jailed, died in prison. 
The Frondeurs, political heirs of the disaffected feudal aristocracy, sought to protect their traditional feudal privileges from the increasingly centralized royal government. Furthermore, they believed their traditional influence and authority was being usurped by the recently ennobled bureaucrats (the Noblesse de Robe, or "nobility of the robe"), who administered the kingdom and on whom the monarchy increasingly began to rely. This belief intensified the nobles' resentment. [ citation needed ]
In 1648, Anne and Mazarin attempted to tax members of the Parlement de Paris. The members refused to comply and ordered all of the king's earlier financial edicts burned. Buoyed by the victory of Louis, duc d’Enghien (later known as le Grand Condé) at the Battle of Lens, Mazarin, on Queen Anne's insistence, arrested certain members in a show of force.  The most important arrest, from Anne's point of view, concerned Pierre Broussel, one of the most important leaders in the Parlement de Paris.
People in France were complaining about the expansion of royal authority, the high rate of taxation, and the reduction of the authority of the Parlement de Paris and other regional representative entities. Paris erupted in rioting as a result, and Anne was forced, under intense pressure, to free Broussel. Moreover, a mob of angry Parisians broke into the royal palace and demanded to see their king. Led into the royal bedchamber, they gazed upon Louis, who was feigning sleep, were appeased, and then quietly departed. The threat to the royal family prompted Anne to flee Paris with the king and his courtiers.
Shortly thereafter, the conclusion of the Peace of Westphalia allowed Condé's army to return to aid Louis and his court. Condé's family was close to Anne at that time, and he agreed to help her attempt to restore the king's authority.  The queen's army, headed by Condé, attacked the rebels in Paris the rebels were under the political control of Anne's old friend Marie de Rohan. Beaufort, who had escaped from the prison where Anne had incarcerated him five years before, was the military leader in Paris, under the nominal control of Conti. After a few battles, a political compromise was reached the Peace of Rueil was signed, and the court returned to Paris.
Unfortunately for Anne, her partial victory depended on Condé, who wanted to control the queen and destroy Mazarin's influence. It was Condé's sister who pushed him to turn against the queen. After striking a deal with her old friend Marie de Rohan, who was able to impose the nomination of Charles de l'Aubespine, marquis de Châteauneuf as minister of justice, Anne arrested Condé, his brother Armand de Bourbon, Prince of Conti, and the husband of their sister Anne Genevieve de Bourbon, duchess of Longueville. This situation did not last long, and Mazarin's unpopularity led to the creation of a coalition headed mainly by Marie de Rohan and the duchess of Longueville. This aristocratic coalition was strong enough to liberate the princes, exile Mazarin, and impose a condition of virtual house arrest on Queen Anne.
All these events were witnessed by Louis and largely explained his later distrust of Paris and the higher aristocracy.  "In one sense, Louis' childhood came to an end with the outbreak of the Fronde. It was not only that life became insecure and unpleasant – a fate meted out to many children in all ages – but that Louis had to be taken into the confidence of his mother and Mazarin and political and military matters of which he could have no deep understanding".  "The family home became at times a near-prison when Paris had to be abandoned, not in carefree outings to other chateaux but in humiliating flights".  The royal family was driven out of Paris twice in this manner, and at one point Louis XIV and Anne were held under virtual arrest in the royal palace in Paris. The Fronde years planted in Louis a hatred of Paris and a consequent determination to move out of the ancient capital as soon as possible, never to return. 
Just as the first Fronde (the Fronde parlementaire of 1648–1649) ended, a second one (the Fronde des princes of 1650–1653) began. Unlike that which preceded it, tales of sordid intrigue and half-hearted warfare characterized this second phase of upper-class insurrection. To the aristocracy, this rebellion represented a protest for the reversal of their political demotion from vassals to courtiers. It was headed by the highest-ranking French nobles, among them Louis' uncle Gaston, Duke of Orléans and first cousin Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans, Duchess of Montpensier, known as la Grande Mademoiselle Princes of the Blood such as Condé, his brother Armand de Bourbon, Prince of Conti, and their sister the Duchess of Longueville dukes of legitimised royal descent, such as Henri, Duke of Longueville, and François, Duke of Beaufort so-called "foreign princes" such as Frédéric Maurice, Duke of Bouillon, his brother Marshal Turenne, and Marie de Rohan, Duchess of Chevreuse and scions of France's oldest families, such as François de La Rochefoucauld.
Queen Anne played the most important role in defeating the Fronde because she wanted to transfer absolute authority to her son. In addition, most of the princes refused to deal with Mazarin, who went into exile for a number of years. The Frondeurs claimed to act on Louis' behalf, and in his real interest against his mother and Mazarin.
Queen Anne had a very close relationship with the Cardinal, and many observers believed that Mazarin became Louis XIV's stepfather by a secret marriage to Queen Anne.  However, Louis' coming-of-age and subsequent coronation deprived them of the Frondeurs ' pretext for revolt. The Fronde thus gradually lost steam and ended in 1653, when Mazarin returned triumphantly from exile. From that time until his death, Mazarin was in charge of foreign and financial policy without the daily supervision of Anne, who was no longer regent. 
During this period, Louis fell in love with Mazarin's niece Marie Mancini, but Anne and Mazarin ended the king's infatuation by sending Mancini away from court to be married in Italy. While Mazarin might have been tempted for a short period of time to marry his niece to the King of France, Queen Anne was absolutely against this she wanted to marry her son to the daughter of her brother, Philip IV of Spain, for both dynastic and political reasons. Mazarin soon supported the Queen's position because he knew that her support for his power and his foreign policy depended on making peace with Spain from a strong position and on the Spanish marriage. Additionally, Mazarin's relations with Marie Mancini were not good, and he did not trust her to support his position. All of Louis' tears and his supplications to his mother did not make her change her mind. The Spanish marriage would be very important both for its role in ending the war between France and Spain, because many of the claims and objectives of Louis' foreign policy for the next 50 years would be based upon this marriage, and because it was through this marriage that the Spanish throne would ultimately be delivered to the House of Bourbon (which holds it to this day). 
Coming of age and early reforms
Louis XIV was declared to have reached the age of majority on 7 September 1651. On the death of Mazarin, in March 1661, Louis assumed personal control of the reins of government and astonished his court by declaring that he would rule without a chief minister: "Up to this moment I have been pleased to entrust the government of my affairs to the late Cardinal. It is now time that I govern them myself. You [he was talking to the secretaries and ministers of state] will assist me with your counsels when I ask for them. I request and order you to seal no orders except by my command . . . I order you not to sign anything, not even a passport . . . without my command to render account to me personally each day and to favor no one".  Louis was able to capitalize on the widespread public yearning for law and order, that resulted from prolonged foreign wars and domestic civil strife, to further consolidate central political authority and reform at the expense of the feudal aristocracy. Praising his ability to choose and encourage men of talent, the historian Chateaubriand noted: "it is the voice of genius of all kinds which sounds from the tomb of Louis". 
Louis began his personal reign with administrative and fiscal reforms. In 1661, the treasury verged on bankruptcy. To rectify the situation, Louis chose Jean-Baptiste Colbert as Controller-General of Finances in 1665. However, Louis first had to neutralize Nicolas Fouquet, the Superintendent of Finances, in order to give Colbert a free hand. Although Fouquet's financial indiscretions were not very different from Mazarin's before him or Colbert's after him, his ambition was worrying to Louis. He had, for example, built an opulent château at Vaux-le-Vicomte where he entertained Louis and his court ostentatiously, as if he were wealthier than the king himself. The court was left with the impression that the vast sums of money needed to support his lifestyle could only have been obtained through embezzlement of government funds.
Fouquet appeared eager to succeed Mazarin and Richelieu in assuming power, and he indiscreetly purchased and privately fortified the remote island of Belle Île. These acts sealed his doom. Fouquet was charged with embezzlement. The Parlement found him guilty and sentenced him to exile. However, Louis altered the sentence to life-imprisonment and abolished Fouquet's post.
With Fouquet dismissed, Colbert reduced the national debt through more efficient taxation. The principal taxes included the aides and douanes (both customs duties), the gabelle (a tax on salt), and the taille (a tax on land). The taille was reduced at first financial officials were forced to keep regular accounts, auctioning certain taxes instead of selling them privately to a favored few, revising inventories and removing unauthorized exemptions (for example, in 1661 only 10 per cent from the royal domain reached the King). Reform proved difficult because the taille was levied by officers of the Crown who had purchased their post at a high price: punishment of abuses necessarily lowered the value of the post. Nevertheless, excellent results were achieved: the deficit of 1661 turned into a surplus in 1666. The interest on the debt was reduced from 52 million to 24 million livres. The taille was reduced to 42 million in 1661 and 35 million in 1665 finally the revenue from indirect taxation progressed from 26 million to 55 million. The revenues of the royal domain were raised from 80,000 livres in 1661 to 5.5 million livres in 1671. In 1661, the receipts were equivalent to 26 million British pounds, of which 10 million reached the treasury. The expenditure was around 18 million pounds, leaving a deficit of 8 million. In 1667, the net receipts had risen to 20 million pounds sterling, while expenditure had fallen to 11 million, leaving a surplus of 9 million pounds.
To support the reorganized and enlarged army, the panoply of Versailles, and the growing civil administration, the king needed a good deal of money. Finance had always been the weak spot in the French monarchy: methods of collecting taxes were costly and inefficient direct taxes passed through the hands of many intermediate officials and indirect taxes were collected by private concessionaries, called tax farmers, who made a substantial profit. Consequently, the state always received far less than what the taxpayers actually paid.
The main weakness arose from an old bargain between the French crown and nobility: the king might raise taxes without consent if only he refrained from taxing the nobles. Only the "unprivileged" classes paid direct taxes, and this term came to mean the peasants only, since many bourgeois, in one way or another, obtained exemptions.
The system was outrageously unjust in throwing a heavy tax burden on the poor and helpless. Later, after 1700, the French ministers who were supported by Louis' secret wife Madame De Maintenon, were able to convince the king to change his fiscal policy. Louis was willing enough to tax the nobles but was unwilling to fall under their control, and only towards the close of his reign, under extreme stress of war, was he able, for the first time in French history, to impose direct taxes on the aristocratic elements of the population. This was a step toward equality before the law and toward sound public finance, but so many concessions and exemptions were won by nobles and bourgeois that the reform lost much of its value. 
Louis and Colbert also had wide-ranging plans to bolster French commerce and trade. Colbert's mercantilist administration established new industries and encouraged manufacturers and inventors, such as the Lyon silk manufacturers and the Gobelins manufactory, a producer of tapestries. He invited manufacturers and artisans from all over Europe to France, such as Murano glassmakers, Swedish ironworkers, and Dutch shipbuilders. In this way, he aimed to decrease foreign imports while increasing French exports, hence reducing the net outflow of precious metals from France.
Louis instituted reforms in military administration through Michel le Tellier and the latter's son François-Michel le Tellier, Marquis de Louvois. They helped to curb the independent spirit of the nobility, imposing order on them at court and in the army. Gone were the days when generals protracted war at the frontiers while bickering over precedence and ignoring orders from the capital and the larger politico-diplomatic picture. The old military aristocracy (the Noblesse d'épée, or "nobility of the sword") ceased to have a monopoly over senior military positions and rank. Louvois, in particular, pledged to modernize the army and re-organize it into a professional, disciplined, well-trained force. He was devoted to the soldiers' material well-being and morale, and even tried to direct campaigns.
Relations with the major colonies
Legal matters did not escape Louis' attention, as is reflected in the numerous "Great Ordinances" he enacted. Pre-revolutionary France was a patchwork of legal systems, with as many legal customs as there were provinces, and two co-existing legal traditions—customary law in the north and Roman civil law in the south.  The Grande Ordonnance de Procédure Civile of 1667, also known as the Code Louis, was a comprehensive legal code attempting a uniform regulation of civil procedure throughout legally irregular France. Among other things, it prescribed baptismal, marriage and death records in the state's registers, not the church's, and it strictly regulated the right of the Parlements to remonstrate.  The Code Louis played an important part in French legal history as the basis for the Napoleonic code, from which many modern legal codes are, in turn, derived.
One of Louis' more infamous decrees was the Grande Ordonnance sur les Colonies of 1685, also known as the Code Noir ("black code"). Although it sanctioned slavery, it attempted to humanise the practice by prohibiting the separation of families. Additionally, in the colonies, only Roman Catholics could own slaves, and these had to be baptised.
The myth of the 'Turkish Empire'
In today's video, we will be discussing a common trope of badhistory I frequently see echoed in historical discourse, most vocally by Turkish and Balkan nationalists. This is the tendency to understand and interpret the military and administrative institutions of the Ottoman Empire exclusively in terms of it being dominated by Turkish influence. This is often done by dismissing the multi-ethnic heritage that the empire actually had with regard to these institutions.
We shall explore some of the reasons for why this is the case, both political and apolitical, and how it often makes discourse surrounding the legacy of the Ottoman Empire more difficult for those studying history to engage with.
Disclaimer: I did cite wikipedia in the description of the video, but it was exclusively for a list of ethnicities of Ottoman Grand Viziers and the Valide Sultans and nothing else.
As usual, any feedback would be much appreciated.
Good video, a nice concise dismantling of the imposition of nationalism backwards thru Ottoman history.
One thing I would add is how the Ottoman administration required non-Turkish Muslims to function as successfully as it did. The devshirme allowed the recruitment of Christian minorities into the administrative bodies of the Empire without any (or later, as few as possible) patrimonial connections beyond their office. Similar to how the Mamluke regime in Egypt used imported slave soldiers as their elite military to prevent local strongmen from entrenching their power into their family, the legal and religious restrictions Ottoman Christian administrators faced allowed the bureaucracy to resist political corruption and maintain loyalty directly to the Sultan, at least until these systems efficacy decayed.
Fukuyama's Origins of Political Order describes this system in the chapter "The functioning and decline of the Ottoman state", though if anyone has a book that primarily deals with this topic I would love to see it!
Resisting political corruption and only having loyalty to Sultan were mostly wishful thinking on the state's part, devshirme soldiers and statesmen were very involved in politics and palace intrigue to the point of getting rid of certain Sultans by coups. .
The real reason behind the system was to disallow the rise of any other Muslim ruling family that could rival the Osmanoglu dynasty. Ottoman system resembled a kind if "state feudalism", for lack of a better term. It was still feudal (land based) in its essence but without the decentralization, and didn't have institutions to keep any possible rising noble families in line. When the system became weaker and local Muslim "nobles" began to rise these fears of rivaling Muslim families were immediately realized from the 18th century onwards, most famous examples being the rebellions of Kavalali Mehmed Ali Pasa in Egypt and Tepedelenli Ali Pasa in Balkans. The system was too centralized to be able to tolerate any local power.
That legacy of political centralization fetish is also very influential in modern Turkish political issues but that's a whole other issue I won't go into here.
What government functions, if any, did the archchancellor of the HRE actually exercise? - History
The European nobility, the highest ranking citizens of a country besides the royal family, consisted of anyone who had been summoned to Parliament. Usually they were the owners of a vassalage, land given to them for their allegiance and services to the ruling monarch. Although titles were given different names in different countries, the system of ranking the nobility is pretty much the same throughout Europe.
Several ranks were widely used, for more than a thousand years in Europe alone, for both sovereign rulers and non-sovereigns. Additional knowledge about the territory (and period in history) is required to know whether the rank holder was a sovereign or non-sovereign. However joint precedence among rank holders often greatly depended on whether a rank holder was sovereign, whether of the same rank or not. This situation was most widely exemplified by the Holy Roman Empire (HRE) in Europe
The degrees of the nobility all have different coronets. In practice coronets are rarely worn today except at coronations. They are, however, depicted on the majority of noble coats-of-arms.
Nobile (Untitled Nobleman). Nobile or Uomo is an Italian title of nobility in general equivalence to a baron . Like the other titles of nobility, such as baron or count, nobile is also used immediately before the family name, usually in the abbreviated form: Nob. or NU.
Barone, Baronessa. (Baron, Baroness). Baron is a title of nobility. The word baron comes from Old Frenchbaron, itself from Old High German and Latin (liber) baro meaning "(free) man, (free) warrior" it merged with cognate Old English beorn Barons rank below viscounts, and form the lowest rank in the peerage. Normally one refers to or addresses Baron [X] as Lord [X] and his wife as Lady [X]. In the case of women who hold baronies in their own right, they can be referred to as Baroness [X] as well as Lady [X]. meaning "nobleman."
The standard heraldic coronet of a baron is a jeweled circlet of gold surmounted by seven pearls
Conte, Contessa. (Count, Countess). A count is a nobleman in European countries his wife is a countess. The word count came into English from the French comte, itself from Latincomes—in its accusative comitem—meaning "companion", and later "companion of the emperor, delegate of the emperor". The British equivalent is an earl (whose wife is also a "countess", for lack of an Anglo-Saxon term). Alternative names for the "Count" rank in the nobility structure are used in other countries, such as HakushakuJapanese Imperial era. during the imperial era.
The heraldic coronet of a count is a jewelled circlet of gold surmounted by nine visible pearls, supported by stems or set directly upon the rim.
Marchese, Marchesa. (Marquess, Marchioness). A marquess or marquis (from French "marquis") is a nobleman of hereditary rank in various European monarchies and some of their colonies. In the British peerage it ranks below a duke and above an earl. A woman with the rank of marquess, or the wife of a marquess, is a marchioness (in British usage), or a marquise (in Europe). In Italy the equivalent modern rank (as opposed to margravio) is that of marchese, the wife of whom is a marchesa.
Although the vast majority of marquessates are named after places, and hence their holders are known as the "Marquess of X", a very few of them are named after surnames (even if not the bearer's own), and hence their holders are known as the "Marquess X". In either case, he is still informally known as "Lord X", regardless whether there is an of in his title, and it is always safe to style him so.
Duca, Duchessa. (Duke, Duchess). A Duke is a member of the nobility, historically of highest rank below the monarch, and historically controlling a duchy. The title comes from the Latin Dux Bellorum, which had the sense of "military commander" and was employed by both the Germanic peoplesRoman authors covering them to refer to their war leaders. themselves and by the
In the Middle Ages the title signified first among the Germanic monarchies. Dukes were the rulers of the provinces and the superiors of the counts in the cities and later, in the feudal monarchies, the highest-ranking peers of the king. A woman who holds in her own right the title to such duchy or dukedom, or is the wife of a duke, is normally styled Duchess.
In Italy, Germany and Austria the title of "duke" ("duca" in Italian, and "Herzog" in German) was quite common. As the Holy Roman Empirecourtesy title. was until its dissolution a feudal structure, most of its Dukes were actually reigning in their lands. As the titles from the HRE were taken over after its dissolution, or in Italy after their territories became independent of the Empire, both countries also had a share of fully sovereign dukes.
Principe, Principessa. (Prince, Princess). Prince, from French "Prince" (itself from the Latin root princeps), is a general term for a monarch, for a member of a monarchs' or former monarch's family, and is a hereditary title in some members of Europe's highest nobility. The feminine equivalent is a princess.
Generically, prince refers to members of a family that ruled by hereditary right, the title being used to refer either to sovereigns or to cadets of a sovereign's family. The term may be broadly used of persons in various cultures, continents or eras. In Europe, it is the title legally borne by dynastic cadets
in monarchies, and borne by courtesy by members of formerly reigning dynasties.
In parts of the Holy Roman Empire in which primogeniture did not prevail (i.e. Germany), all legitimate agnates had an equal right to the family's hereditary titles. While this meant that offices, such as emperor, king, and elector could only be legally occupied by one dynast at a time, holders of such other titles as duke, margrave, landgrave, count palatine, and prince could only differentiate themselves by adding the name of their appanage to the family's original title.
PRINCE AS A REIGNING MONARCH
A prince or princess who is the head of state of a territory that has a monarchy as a form of government is a reigning prince.
France and the Holy Roman Empire
In several countries of the European continent, e.g. in France, prince can be an aristocratic title of someone having a high rank of nobility royal family, which makes comparing it with e.g. the British system of royal princes difficult. in chief of a geographical place, but no actual territory and without any necessary link to the
The kings of France started to bestow the style of prince, as a title among the nobility, from the 16th century onwards. These titles were created by elevating a seigneurie to the nominal status of a principality—although prerogatives of sovereignty were never conceded in the letters patent. These titles held no official place in the hierarchy of the nobility, but were often treated as ranking just below dukedoms, since they were often inherited (or assumed) by ducal heirs.
A king is a head of state, who may or may not, depending on the style of government of a nation, exercise monarchal powers over a nation, usually called a kingdom or a realm. A king is the second highest sovereign title, only looking up to an emperor.
The female equivalent of king is queen although the term "queen" may refer to one ruling as a monarch in her own right, a queen regnant, or to the wife of a king, a queen consort. A queen who becomes the reigning monarch because the king has died, has become debilitated, or is a minor, is known as aqueen regent. The husband of a queen regnant is sometimes styled the king consort but is more commonly styled the prince consort. A king or queen may wear a crown or carry other regalia.
Terms for kings can vary (Sumerian lugal, Semitic melech, Celtic rix, Latin rex, Greek basileus, Sanskritraja, Germanic kuningaz) and in some cases can be a tribal leader or chief, or the tyrant of a city state. Tribal leaders continue to be referred to as king also into the modern period, e.g. Maquinna, king of perhaps 2000 Nootka people in the early 20th century.
Often, the king will not only have a political function, but also a religious one, acting as high priest or divine king.
In rare cases women have been crowned as kings instead of queens, such as Jadwiga of Poland andChristina of Sweden.
A government that is completely under a king or queen's rule is called an absolute monarchy (such countries include Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates). A government that has a king or queen with limited power is called a constitutional monarchy (such countries include Canada, the United Kingdom and Japan).
TITLES AND FORMS OF ADDRESS
Address: His Majesty the King
Salutation: Your dignified Majesty:
Closing: I have honor to remain, Sir, Your Majesty’s most humble and obedient subject
Address: Her Majesty the Queen
Salutation: Madam: or May it please Your Majesty:
Closing: I have honor to remain, Madam, Your Majesty’s most humble and obedient subject
Address: His Royal Highness The Prince of ……
Closing: I have honor to remain, Sir, Your Highness’s most humble and obedient subject
Address: Her Royal Highness The Princess of ……
Closing: I have honor to remain, Madam, Your Highness’s most humble and obedient subject
Address: His Grace The Duke of …..
Salutation: My Lord Duke:
Closing: Yours faithfully,
Address: Her Grace The Duchess of …..
Salutation: Dear Madam:
Closing: Yours faithfully,
Address: The Rt Hon. The Lord …..
Salutation: My Lord:
Closing: Yours faithfully,
Baroness (wife of a Baron)
Address: The Rt Hon. The Lady …..
Salutation: Dear Madam:
Closing: Yours faithfully,
Address: The Most Hon. The Marquess of …..
Salutation: My Lord:
Closing: Yours faithfully,
Marchioness (wife of a Marquess)
Address: The Most Hon. The Marchioness of …..
Salutation: Dear Madam:
Closing: Yours faithfully,
Address: The Rt Hon. The Earl of …..
Salutation: My Lord
Closing: Yours faithfully,
Countess (wife of an Earl)
Address: The Rt Hon. The Countess of …..
Salutation: Dear Madam:
Closing: Yours faithfully,
Address: The Rt Hon. The Viscount of …..
Salutation: My Lord:
Closing: Yours faithfully,
Viscountess (wife of a Viscount)
Address: The Rt Hon. The Viscountess …..
Salutation: Dear Madam:
Closing: Yours faithfully,
Address: Sir (First name and surname), Bt
Salutation: Dear Sir:
Closing: Yours faithfully,
Address : Lady (Surname only)
Salutation: Dear Madam:
Closing: Yours faithfully,
Address: Sir (First name and surname), followed with appropriate letters relevant to Order
Salutation: Dear Sir:
Closing: Yours faithfully,
Address: Lady (Surname only)
Salutation: Dear Madam:
Closing: Yours faithfully,
Address: His Holiness (Name & Roman Numeral)
Salutation: Your Holiness:
Closing: I have the honor to remain Your Holiness’s obedient servant,
Address: His Eminence, (First and Last Name)
Salutation: Your Eminence: or Dear Cardinal (Surname):
Closing: Yours very truly,
Address: The Most Reverend (First and Last Name), Archbishop of (Name of Diocese)
Salutation: Dear Archbishop (Surname)
Closing: Yours very truly,
Address: The Most Reverend (First and Last Name), Bishop of (Name of Diocese)
Salutation: Dear Bishop (Surname)
Closing: Yours very truly,
Address: The Very Reverend (First and Last Name), Abbot of …..
Salutation: Right Reverend Father: or Dear Abbot (Surname)
Closing: Yours sincerely,
Address: The Very Reverend (First and Last Name)
Salutation: Dear Canon (Surname)
Closing: Yours sincerely,
Address: The Reverend (First and Last Name)
Salutation: Dear Father:
Closing: Yours sincerely,
Nun – Mother Superior
Address: Reverend Mother (First and Last Name)
Salutation: Dear Reverend Mother:
Closing: Yours sincerely,
Nun – Sister
Address: Sister (First and Last Name)
Salutation: Dear Sister (Surname):
Closing: Yours sincerely,
Address: The Very Reverend (First and Last Name), Dean of (Name of Cathedral)
Salutation: Dear Dean (Surname):
Closing: Yours sincerely,
Address: The Venerable (First and Last Name)
Salutation: Dear Archdeacon (Surname):
Closing: Yours sincerely,
Address: The Reverend (First and Last Name)
Salutation: Dear Dr./Mr./Mrs./Ms./Miss (Surname):
Closing: Yours sincerely,
Address: Rabbi (First and Last Name)
Salutation: Dear Rabbi:
Closing: Yours sincerely,
The right to education in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
In the wake of World War II, the globe lay in shambles, torn by international violence from Poland to the Philippines, from the tundra to the tropics. Discussion about the importance of education as indispensable for post-World War II reconstruction emerged in the earliest work of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. That body was set up in 1946 by the Economic Social and Cultural Council of the UN, to make recommendations for promoting respect and observance of human rights on the untested theory that human rights-respecting regimes do not make war on other such regimes.
Thereby to bring peace to the world, members began their work in 1947, and Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt was elected to chair the Commission. The Commission’s Rapporteur, Dr. Charles Malik (Lebanon) said that from the beginning all the Commission members knew that their task of composing a declaration of human rights was in itself an educational undertaking. He said: “We must elaborate a general declaration of human rights defining in succinct terms the fundamental rights and freedoms of [everyone] which, according to the Charter, the United Nations must promote. … This responsible setting forth of fundamental rights will exert a potent doctrinal and moral and educational influence on the minds and behavior of people everywhere”. 1
Malik’s statement echoed the Preamble to the Universal Declaration proclaiming the instrument as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations who should “strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms …”. This entirely new global “bottom up” program of educating people regarding their human rights marked a challenge to the “top down” strategies of diplomatic state-craft, balance of power manipulations, and Realpolitik that were insufficient to forestall the calamity of two world wars.
Formulating the right to education
The Universal Declaration shows its framers realized that education is not value-neutral, and in drafting the document, the Soviets, being most ideologically sensitive, were the first to speak on this point. Mr. Alexandr Pavlov for the USSR argued that one of the fundamental factors in the development of Fascism and Nazism was “the education of young people in a spirit of hatred and intolerance”. 2 As it finally turned out, Article 26 took up Pavlov’s point that education inescapably has political objectives, but ignored his ideologically rigid ideas substituting several goals in positive terms. Thus Article 26, in its most contentiously debated section says that the right to education should be linked to three specific educational goals: (1) the full development of the human personality and the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms (2) the promotion of understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups and, (3) the furthering of the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
The first goal
This arresting notion of the development of the human being’s full personality, while abstract, is important as a thematic thread running through the UDHR. Its significance in framing a holistic concept of human nature as essentially free, social, potentially educated, and entitled to participation in critical decision-making is bolstered by repetition at several points:
• Article 22 says everyone’s rights to social, economic and cultural rights are “indispensable” … for the “free development of his personality”.
• Article 26 posits a right to education, and states: “Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality”.
• Article 29 repeats the holistic vision of human rights, saying: “Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible”.
The language linking these provisions in “full development” terms illustrates the organic nature of the Declaration whereby diverse rights flow from a belief in the equality of all human beings and the fundamental unity of all human rights. The often reiterated right to “the full development of the human personality” was seen by most framers as a right reinforced by community and social interaction. It linked and summarized all the social, economic and cultural rights in the Declaration. Given the goal of the full development of the human personality in the context of society – the only context in which this can occur – it follows that the right to education is a social right, a social good, and a responsibility of society as a whole.
Latin Americans took a leading role in framing the right to education. Belarmino Austregésilo de Athayde for Brazil provided a keynote statement on the importance of value-based education and was the first to argue that education provides the individual with the wherewithal “to develop his personality, which is the aim of human life and the most solid foundation of society”. 3 An Argentine proposal put substance on these abstractions mimicking Article 12 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. “The one-year old Declaration of Bogotá said: “Every person has the right to an education that will prepare him to lead a decent life, to raise his standard of living, and to be a useful member of society”. 4 Calling for greater conciseness, Mrs. Roosevelt cautioned against language that would overload the right to education. In this spirit, the framers settled on alternative simpler language – “Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality”. 5
The “full development” goal was intended to capture the enabling qualities of the right to education, and of education about human rights to capacitate people to their potential faculties so as to ensure human dignity. This view follows from a close reading of the key phrase – “full development of the human personality” – which is immediately followed without so much as a comma by the phrase: “and to the strengthening of human rights and fundamental freedoms”. Using a standard approach to statutory construction, one might fairly conclude that the joining of the two elements was deliberate and meaningful, especially in view of Mrs. Roosevelt’s injunction to seek conciseness.
The logic of the two ideas in combination tells us that education promoting the full development of the human personality and the dignity it entails also promote human rights. And for such full development, education for dignity should take into account the total menu of human rights, personal rights like privacy, political rights like participation and the right to seek and disseminate information civil rights like equality and non-discrimination economic rights like a decent standard of living and the right to participate in the community’s cultural life. This analysis pre-figures the Brazilian Paulo Freire’s views advocated in his book, The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 6 Freire emphasizes the connections between popular empowerment and self-realization as the consequence of people learning and exercising their human rights.
The second goal
Article 26 calls for education to “promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups …”. This idea started out under the guise of different language. Professor René Cassin, the influential French delegate and Vice President of the Human Rights Commission, drew support for asserting that one goal of education should involve “combating the spirit of intolerance and hatred against other nations and against racial and religious groups everywhere”. 7 But again, the Latin American delegations had the last word, showing their voting strength in supporting the view of Mr. Campos Ortiz of Mexico that educational goals should be framed in positive terms instead of negative goals such as “combating hatred”. He convincingly said that Article 26 should link the right to education with the positive goal of “the promotion of understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and racial and religious groups …”. 8
The third goal
Article 26 says education should “further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace”. In the final consideration of the Declaration before the General Assembly, the Mexican delegate said that the right to education should be connected to the peaceful objectives of United Nations activities. Mr. Watt from Australia promptly objected and urged support for a broader reference to all the “purposes and principles of the United Nations”. 9 Again, Mrs. Roosevelt expressed distaste for any formulation lacking conciseness and specificity, and said for that reason she associated herself with the simpler Mexican proposition. She thought that for educational purposes, United Nations activities for the maintenance of peace should be recognized as “the chief goal of the United Nations”. 10 True to pattern, other Latin American voices chimed in, supporting the Mexican initiative. Mr. Carrera Andrade of Ecuador lyrically concluded that when the world’s youth became imbued with “the guiding principles of the United Nations, then the future [would promise] … greater hope for all nations living in peace”. 11
Finally, the reference to UN peace activities was adopted and all dissent was swept away with the final version of Article 26 winning a unanimous 36 votes with 2 abstentions. As a result, Article 26, with three separate sections, now reads:
1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
On 10 December 1948, the General Assembly solemnly adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That body showed it realized such a document could have little effect unless people everywhere knew about it and appreciated its significance for every human being. Therefore, the Assembly also passed Resolution Number 217 urging that the widest possible publicity be given to the Declaration and inviting the Secretary General and UN specialized agencies and non-governmental organizations to do their utmost to bring the Declaration to the attention of their members. One present-day result is that the Universal Declaration can be obtained from the United Nations in any of 300 languages: http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm.
As noted, the educational directives of Article 26 point to three distinguishable goals. Using this tripartite framework affords a glimpse at present day examples of human rights education directed to each of the three goals.
Worldwide Medical Tyranny in Finland Under Covid-19 Regulations
High treason has occurred in Finland and the majority of other nations worldwide with the introduction of Event 201 “Coronavirus pandemic preparedness exercise” initiated by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization (WHO), World Economic Forum, John Hopkins University, and more.
In Finland, betrayal began with the former Prime Minister Juha Sipilä during his term in 2015 – 2019. He sold the Finnish people down the river into a mass extermination program worse than anything we saw during World War II because of the advanced technologies being used. At the moment, Sipilä is on trial for genocide at the Natural Common Law Tribunal for International Justice where he faces a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison and the seizure of all his assets. See the video here (Starting at 4:50 minutes).
The current Prime Ministers of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland are also on trial for bringing genocide to Scandinavia. Bill and Melinda Gates are facing life imprisonment without parole. A slew of government, UN, and mainstream media agents as well as industry leaders worldwide, are also facing genocide charges at the international tribunal. The greatest Nuremberg of all time is already on its way.
Juha Sipilä invited the COVID-19 depopulation program into Finland through “vaccinations” and 5G. If you aren’t aware, 5G technology is classified as a US Military-grade biological weapons system. The extermination program is UN Agenda 21 and UN Agenda 2030 for worldwide depopulation. If these terms are new to you I recommend following Rosa Koire who is a leading expert on Agenda 21. I also recommend following Deborah Tavares at StopTheCrime.org and listening to her interview (35 minutes) with Trevor Coppola, about the NASA War Document on depopulation.
Corporate media abandoned their journalistic integrity after 9/11 to sell us “weapons of mass destruction” that never existed. That lie enabled the U.S. Government to invade the Middle East and commit war crimes atrocities for the last 18 years, decimating entire nations. Now the chickens have now come home to roost on our doorstep as Western nations, along with the entire world, are facing genetic slavery and extinction.
Corporate, mainstream media is hiding the truth from us while colluding with Agenda 21. Even in Finland, corporate media is damaging the sense of the reality of people who blindly trust what the news is telling them without doing their own research. We’re being told that the COVID-19 “vaccines” are going to save us from Coronavirus while not being informed about the deadly side effects of Big Pharma’s Biotech injections.
A SAGE document from March 2020, exposes how the corrupt mainstream media is indoctrinating the masses to gain public consent for lockdown using psychological warfare tactics to control people by invoking irrational fears. Under an illusory spell, a panicked individual cannot think clearly or make wise decisions.
First, they fool you then they rule you.
The lockdowns have killed millions of people which is many times greater a loss of life than those who died from Coronavirus. Governments know lockdowns kill. The joke is on us if we’re too stupid to see through the illusion.
Coronavirus is not more deadly than the seasonal flu. In fact, flu deaths have reduced by 98% now that they’re being labeled as COVID-19. We’ve been living with Coronavirus and all its naturally mutating variants for millennia without panic and lockdowns, just as we’ve been living with Tuberculosis. Trillions of viruses exist inside our bodies, keeping us alive. You begin to show flu symptoms when your body is overly toxic. Viruses help your body to cleanse and find balance again. This is Science 101.
You cannot be contagious during a viral infection unless you have symptoms. Even Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases admits in this press statement that a viral outbreak cannot occur without symptomatic people.
“In all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks.”
Please let this sink in. Mainstream media fear porn and pseudoscience are being shoved down our throats to the extent that people are muzzling their children’s faces and depriving themselves of oxygen while begging for lethal injections.
A giant study in December 2020, thoroughly debunked the concept of “asymptomatic transmission”. Huazhong University of Science & Technology in Wuhan and highly respected scientific institutions in the UK and Australia did nucleic acid screenings on nearly 10 million people. There is no such thing as “asymptomatic transmission” of Coronaviruses! Once again, the jokes on us.
The Asymptomatic transmission lie was the main driver for lockdowns and social distancing. Social Isolation is a CIA Torture tactic designed to weaken the enemy.
Pfizer’s own Chairman has confirmed that their COVID “vaccines” do not prevent Coronavirus transmission after inoculation. In fact, evidence proves the injections are maiming people and causing overwhelming deaths. So why risk your life taking them?
Bill Gates and Eugenicists
Multi-billionaire Bill Gates is a known eugenicist along with his father. First Gates was spreading computer viruses with Microsoft and now he’s injecting lab-generated viruses into healthy people and genetically modifying humans. He wants the entire world population injected with his Biotechnology. Gates owns the artificial Coronavirus patents US 7,222,851 B1 from May 22nd, 2007 and US 2017/0216427 AI from August 3rd, 2017.
Gates is funding The World Health Organization (WHO) who’s leading Event 201 with fake science. Gates has ownership in the Biotech “vaccine” industry and he’s profiting exponentially, in the hundreds of billions with the COVID agenda.
Here’s another excellent video in Finnish subtitles about eugenics.
A secret billionaire club has been meeting for years planning how to use their wealth to minimize the world’s population. Many of the names you will recognize. The eugenicists do their dirty planning under the guise of “philanthropy”. Ted Turner has gone on record stating:
“A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
In a recent interview (50 seconds), Gates referred to the experimental COVID concoctions as a “Final Solution” for humanity. Does this remind you of something? The Final Solution was Hitler’s “Endlösung” a term used for the planned systematic genocide not only of the European continent but the whole world too.
History is repeating. “Never again” for anyone is now the new normal for everyone. Israel is leading all nations in this COVID-19 Genocide. A recently leaked video reveals that the Israeli authorities are staging fake videos to make the public believe people are dying from Coronavirus in order to frighten them into taking the lethal injections. This same trickery is being used by corrupt media, worldwide. The actual deaths are coming from the forced Biotech injections. Death rates have skyrocketed in Israel following Pfizer’s experimental COVID injections. Here’s a video in Finnish about this.
The Israeli authorities are censoring its media with a complete blackout on what’s taking place there. Independent citizen reports from Israel reveal that children as young as 16-years-old are required to get the experimental COVID injections or there are severe penalties for refusing. The population is being segregated in what’s been termed a “Medical Apartheid”. The new model “Green Card” allows travel and conveniences only for “vaccinated” individuals. Medical records are being breached by the authorities to track who’s been injected and who hasn’t. People are either forced to quarantine or wear Biometric bracelets after travel. The Israeli military is also going door to door forcing injections on the population.
“This is a new Holocaust” – Haim Yativ and Dr. Seligmann
With no medical degree, Bill Gates’s intention to depopulate the world through “vaccinations” is a psychotic wet dream which he confesses to. In a TED talk in 2010, Gates said that population reduction is necessary because people are breathing too much oxygen. Isn’t it interesting that people are now muzzling their faces? Masks are scientifically proven to cause brain hypoxia, permanent brain damage, bacterial lung infections, and cancer. They increase the risk of contracting all pathogens, weaken your immune system, and cause premature death. Please read my report here: EVIDENCE OF GENOCIDE: The Mask Psyop
In the interview below, Gates admits the new “vaccines” contain Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). Gates gleefully describes how artificial RNA is being shot straight into the veins of our children.
The “fact-checkers” were all over this, telling us this was “taken out of context” and of course Bill Gates didn’t really mean that he’s injecting GMO into little kids’ veins. But that’s exactly what he said and it’s precisely what he’s doing. Who funds the “fact-checkers” anyway? Bill Gates and George Soros do!
Children are not at risk of contracting Coronavirus so why are they being used as guinea pigs in this dangerous medical experiment? Fake news reports like the one below, prove there’s an agenda to slowly suffocate our children. Please watch the video of Dr. Yves Obordörfer explaining that children need 3 times the amount of oxygen as adults.
"Children have double to three times the oxygen requirement of adults" pic.twitter.com/jL9cbnmmSv&mdash BEEHEMOTH ⏳ (@surveyorX) March 2, 2021
COVID-19 Biohacking Ingredients
Firstly, you need to know that the COVID Biotech injections have not been approved by any government. They were authorized through Emergency Use Acts. Under the Emergency Act, Big Pharma is under no obligation to disclose its COVID ingredients to the public. Also, you need to know that if you are damaged from the injection, Pfizer and the entire Biotech industry are protected against all lawsuits and liability. Meaning, you cannot sue them for compensation.
Now I am not an expert in biology, virology, or genetics. I am a simple Holistic Doctor but I will do my best to explain the ingredients that we do know about in the COVID “vaccination” program.
This is a worldwide medical experiment using synthetic mRNA, something that has never been tried or tested on humans before. Synthetic mRNA is being inserted directly into people’s cells with a nanotechnology delivery system (Nanites) in polymer chains Hydrogel. Nanites are nano-size medical devices programmed to deliver the chemical and synthetic pathogens which are being directly inserted into your cells, bypassing immune response. The pathogens are the disease.
If there’s any question, a synthetic lab-generated Coronavirus is being injected into your body. It’s the very same patented and weaponized Coronavirus owned by Bill Gates who is profiting from this human experiment. The Corona that people are is terrified of now, is the “vaccine”, Kill Gates’s final solution.
Dr. Carrie Madej explains in more detail about Hydrogel and Nanites giving an urgent warning to humanity about the grave dangers of this experiment.
Health Ranger from Natural News explains in this powerful two-minute video clip how the Nanites are causing inflammation and severe Adverse Reactions. I stress, these medical devices have never been tested on humans before.
Luciferase Patent WO 2020 060606 (666), is being dubbed the Mark of The Beast. It uses an enzyme along with Biohacking technologies to cause your body to produce an artificial protein so you can be tracked 24/7 from within your own body.
Also owned by Bill Gates, here’s what Microsoft has to say about Luciferase:
“Chitosan encapsulated quantum dots (CS-Qdots) exhibit fascinating optical properties and can efficiently deliver genes into cells in a visualized process. By using CS-Qdots as gene carriers, specific hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) expressed firefly luciferase genes (p[HRE]AFP-luc) were transfected into HCC cells for hepatoma bioluminescence imaging. The results obtained in this study show that nanocarrier CS-Qdots can be excited by the luciferase coded in the genes delivered into the cells. The maximum emission wavelength of the bioluminescence red-shifted from 560 nm to 630 nm. The excitation of CS-Qdots by bioluminescence occurs at the macroscopic scale and is independent of covalent bond. The luciferase gene-loaded CS-Qdots can act as wavelength-tunable self-illuminating probes thus holding potential for improved tumor optical molecular imaging.“
Under the guise of fighting tumors, this Biotechn is being used to force your body to produce bioluminescence making it possible for governments can track you.
China’s Cansino, Johnson & Johnson, Oxford, and AstraZeneca use adenovirus transfection while Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA transfection. Transfection means a foreign RNA is being inserted into your cells. This is also causing Adverse Reactions. Johnson & Johnson just announced it’s going to start injecting the COVID poison into infants. Nothing is sacred anymore. They are recoding the human genome of our babies in infancy.
Every one of the medical professionals and experts who come forward to expose the dangers of Big Pharma’s COVID Biotech experiment are being censored across Big Tech platforms. Quite a few experts have blown the whistle revealing evidence of a massive “pandemic” fraud and that the mRNA COVID injections are not vaccines at all because they do not induce an immune response, they bypass it.
There are very strict requirements for labeling a vaccine. Only governments and media are calling the COVID injections a “vaccine” because they know that if they keep repeating the lie long enough, people will believe it. Mass media mind control and the irrational fear of a deadly virus are enough to damage people’s ability to critically think and make wise decisions. These are warfare tactics used by governments to confuse the enemy (us) and make us more vulnerable to attack.
Kimmo Grönlund, Professor of Political Science at Åbo Akademi University in Turku, criticized the Finnish government for driving its citizens into “Mass Psychosis” with pseudoscience and media fear porn. The article appeared last week in the Turin Sanomat and was quickly removed. This is exactly how the censorship in Nazi Germany began in the 1930s.
World renown Journalist Naomi Wolf just released a news report on how the Biotech companies are literally injecting a new “operating system” into humans that can be continuously updated just like Microsoft Windows for computer systems. Her video was immediately removed and she was censored by Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, and Vimeo, simultaneously. It’s now possible for the globalists to cancel high-profile individuals across multiple platforms at the same time. Let that sink in.
In response to this tyrannical censorship, Naomi Wolf did a 12-minute Facebook Livestream to inform the public what had happened. She called this “Biofacism” and the “stripping of all our liberties in the name of a pandemic”. She described the horrible feeling she had not being able to talk to the 99,900 followers she has on Twitter who want to hear the vital research she’s reporting and who trust her to keep them informed. She further stated that this silencing of her voice was a “very traumatic experience to have in the United States of America in 2021”.CNN News report on mRNA technology
Moderna compares its mRNA Biotechnology as a “platform” and an “Operating System” that functions much like an operating system for a computer. It’s designed to “plug and play interchangeably with different programs”. This is on Moderna’s website and the description goes on to read, “In our case, the “program” or “app” is our mRNA drug – the unique mRNA sequence that codes for a protein”. Their technology is designed to hack our biological functions and genetically engineer new protein sequences within the genome. That’s what they’re telling us. Now let that sink in.
Big Pharma’s Biotech Whistleblowers
Big Pharma’s Biotech companies all have the greatest violations of health fraud on record, worldwide. Pfizer alone has paid out nearly 5 billion dollars in health care fraud settlements. Do you think these companies care about your health?GlaxoSmithKline sterilization research funded by Bill Gates
Multiple Biotech Whistleblowers have come forward with grave warnings against the COVID-19 injections. Dr. Brian Hooker explains in this interview (15 minutes), how the injections will genetically modify humans making us into a hybrid species. This is like a transhumanist sci-fi movie far worse than George Orwell imagined in his 1984 novel, except it’s very real and it’s happening now.
Another Biotech Whistleblower from GlaxoSmithKline revealed that the COVID injections sterilize 97% of women and sterilize men. It gets even more sinister than that when he explains that the “vaccinated” male will then sterilize a fertile female during coitus, with his genetically modified sperm. We are dealing with eugenics Bioweapons. This is sheer evil at play.
The former CEO of Pfizer, Dr. Michael Yeadon sounded the alarm in December. Dr. Yeadon and his colleagues went public saying that two additives in the Pfizer COVID “vaccine” concoction, polyethylene glycol, and mNeonGreen could cause infertility in women due to the antibodies against “spike proteins” that could disrupt the development of the placenta in “vaccinated” women. Dr. Yeadon was immediately censored and de-platformed on Twitter and the article is nowhere to be found. Luckily I captured a screenshot. Vital information is disappearing from the Internet on an alarming scale.
Even the present CEO of Pfizer admitted in an interview (1 minute) saying he will not take Pfizer’s COVID “vaccine”. The video has been repeatedly removed across Big Tech platforms.
A Geneticist and Scientist from France came forward in this interview (2 minutes) and told that mRNA is a form of “Gene Therapy”. She confirms they are “not vaccines” at all and goes on to say that gene therapy was invented to cure cancer and to cure disease. Pfizer also refers to their mRNA Biotech as Gene Therapy, on their website.
Big Pharma is using the synthetic mRNA with Nanites (medical devices) on healthy people to destroy parts of the human genome and replace them with artificial sequences. Since it’s not being used to make sick people well, it can’t be called gene “therapy” either. It’s more appropriate to call this gene-editing technology or in military tactical terms, this is Biological and technological warfare. Biowarfare. These are Bioweapons sold to you as life-saving vaccines. In fact, this is a worldwide operation to cull the herd and depopulate. We are facing extinction and the total enslavement of mankind through genetic engineering, for totalitarian control so psychopathic globalists can remain in power.
Dr. Judy Mikovits and Dr. David Martin also confirmed in this very important broadcast (3 minutes) that the mRNA COVID injections are “medical devices” designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator. Anyone telling you the COVID injections will make you healthy and protect you from disease is lying. There is no reason to inject perfectly healthy people and children with a synthetic pathogen that is guaranteed to make them sick. We have got to wrap our minds around this.
The Chief Molecular Geneticist in Europe, Dr. Doloris Cahill, told in this recent interview that people who took the COVID injections are going to start dying in the next few months as their bodies react to the poison with a Cytokine Storm. Please read: Is a Coronavirus Vaccine a Ticking Time Bomb.
Another Bioweapons expert and former president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) Dr. Lee Merrit, explains her belief that we are currently facing what appears to be biological warfare. Listen to her interview here (30 minutes).
Doctors also warned about permanent damage and cardiovascular events following “COVID vaccination” and Doctors are now petitioning the European Union to stop all COVID “vaccine” studies due to infertility it’s causing women and overwhelming deaths. Despite the warnings from governments for breastfeeding and expectant mothers to avoid the Biotech injections, it’s still being administered to them.
Mass sterilization of a population is Genocide. All medical and government officials who continue the roll-out of these experimental COVID Bioweapons are committing war crimes atrocities and will be held accountable. Tribunals are already underway!
There are 179 countries out of 195, implementing Agenda 21 depopulation. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) introduced this genocide model by first demonstrating lockdowns, masks, social isolation, and pseudosciences in Wuhan, that Western nations have adopted through the World Hoax Organization (WHO) guidelines again, funded by Bill Gates. These guidelines have been adopted by the health sectors in nations worldwide. This Nazi-Communist model is designed and scientifically proven to result in mass deaths and economic collapse. Lawyers are now suing the WHO for “misleading the public over the Covid-19 outbreak”.
Governments knew the COVID injections would kill people in overwhelming numbers and they were expecting it. The UK’s MHRA put out an ad asking for a new AI system that could process the wave of “vaccine” deaths and Adverse Reactions expected, prior to the COVID Biotech roll-out. Natural News reported on it and their article was, of course, censored.
The UK implemented this Nazi-Communist Genocide model first. Independent media reports from medical professionals in the UK, like Clare Wills and World Doctors Alliance, have confirmed that the elderly are being forced “tested” and forcefully injected with the COVID poison, only to die days later. Under the guise of “protecting granny,” the elderly have been locked into care homes across the UK and left for dead. The elderly were dying of starvation when volunteer medics defied UK Government orders and broke into dozens of care homes to rescue them and reunite them with relatives. The elderly are still dying in care homes worldwide in this extermination.
You can see how mainstream media is trying to convince you that death as a side effect of the COVID injections is a good thing! This is how they desensitize and normalize murder in the minds of the masses. And just like that, death by lethal injection is therapeutic.
A panel of lawyers led by Reiner Fuellmich recently reviewed leaked video footage of vulnerable elderly people in care homes in Berlin being forcefully injected with COVID Bioweapons and murdered. The elderly are not being protected by lockdowns as we were told. The elderly are being eliminated as the number one burden to society. We are being told they are a “high risk” group and must be “vaccinated” to protect them against the Coronavirus flu but they’re actually being lethally injected in Germany, UK, the US, Finland, and many more countries worldwide in this “Great Reset”.Finnish Prime Minister, Sanna Marin with Claus Schwab in Davos, 2020
Government officials are being bribed with lots of money to eliminate their constituents in the name of safety. The European Union bribed the Tanzanian President, Dr. John Magufuli, with 27 million euros of European taxpayer’s money to lockdown the country. Instead, he exposed the fraud.
The Belarusian President, Alexander Lukashenko, went public revealing that the IMF and the World Bank offered him a 940 million dollar bribe if he would lock down his country and impose social isolation and curfew. He refused and exposed the fraud instead.
I wonder how much money Finnish politicians have been bribed with?
This interview (8 minutes) reveals how 2.2 trillion dollars in “hush money” has been paid out to hospitals and doctors worldwide to label deaths as COVID-19 in order to drive up the numbers and fake a pandemic to scare people into taking the lethal Biotech injections.
Nasal Swab Test
Finland began medically experimenting on its citizens with the Nasopharyngeal (nasal) “Corona test” in schools, in November 2020. Perfectly healthy underage minor children across the country are having medical devices shoved up their noses to the delicate blood/brain barrier in schools, without parents’ consent. Why aren’t parents in an uproar?
There is overwhelming evidence that the nasal swab or PCR test, is being used to administer Bioweapons and Nanite medical devices without Informed Consent.
Coronavirus testing kits bound for the UK were found contaminatedwith COVID-19 poison! A federal investigation in the U.S. found CDC’s testing kits sent out across the country in February 2020, were also contaminated with Bioweapons.
The patent for the COVID-19 test kit is held by Richard A. Rothschild, #US2020279585(AI). It was filed on the 13th of October, 2015, and dated for 2020.Undisputed social media post
The official United States Air Force Website declared “Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat to Humanity” on January 14, 2019.
Nanoparticles for nasal vaccination were developed in 2009 (PubMed). Nasal vaccine innovation was designed in 2010 (PubMed). Theragrippers easily administered in test swabs were designed to carry the poisonous payload. This microtechnology can transport any drug and release it gradually into your body and you won’t even know anything about it. Read more about Biohacking in this important article here.
Nanites deliver the synthetic mRNA into the cells of the body, genetically modifying your body through genetic engineering. They can enter the brain by way of the “Corona test”. The so-called “test” is also a medical device that can deliver the Nanite Hydrogel and Luciferase for 24/7 tracking. According to the company selling Luciferase, human cells are being “transfected with the Luciferase gene” (artificial RNA). The Nanites are programmed to recode your human genome, editing it and replacing parts of it with an artificial sequence that will permanently alter your DNA and change what it means to be human.
The psychopathic eugenicists are even targeting the VMAT2 gene otherwise known as the “God Gene”. It enables humans to experience their connection to God. By severing our ability to experience Divine connection to God humans will be easier to control. The Yummy Doctor explains more about the VMAT2 medical sorcery in her broadcast here (46 minutes).
People have taken apart test Corona test swabs and found various things like self-moving particles which is the Hydrogel Nanites. See the video here (6 minutes).
Even Bill Gates admits the COVID-19 injections alter human DNA. See this video below explaining CRISPR gene-editing technology: (2 minutes)
Also see this two minute video for another explanation of the CRISPR technology.
I highly recommend watching this video below (1 hour 52 minutes) when you have the time. It covers what the media is not telling you about the PCR tests and the COVID Bioweapons they contain.
Finland like many nations is implementing a genocide model of extermination in its hospitals and care homes, targeting the undesirables such as the elderly, foreigners, disabled, and low-income citizens first. The elderly, handicapped, and mentally ill are now required in Finland to take the COVID Bioweapons under the guise of protecting them. It’s reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the 1930s.Dr. Tenpenny posts the Australian Governments description of the PCR test
When undesirables enter Finnish hospitals for emergency care, they’re being forced to take the PCR test. But the PCR test is not even a diagnostic tool for viral infections. Previously viral infections were determined almost predominantly based on symptoms. Without symptoms, you are not infected. Occasionally a blood antibody test was used to determine if somebody was infected with a virus or not. The PCR nasal swab “test” cannot distinguish between a “live” infectious virus and a dead one, or non-infective RNA.
An EU court in Portugal has already ruled the PCR test as unreliable and ruled it unlawful to quarantine anyone using it due to the fact that it produced 97% false positives. Nonetheless, Finland is using the PCR test to quarantine. This is unlawful.
I have documented everything you need to know about the PCR test and how it’s been used to create a fake pandemic to frighten humanity into taking the COVID Bioweapons injections. Please review my article here: EVIDENCE OF GENOCIDE: Coronavirus PCR Testing Fraud.
I had to enter Asylum in July 2020 because I am targeted for my Journalism. Real Journalists who are reporting the truth are under assault worldwide. The censorship and tyrannical removal of online data bits by Big Tech companies for governments was tested on grassroots Journalists like me. Now it’s being used on world-renown Journalists such as Naomi Wolf.
When I was in the Asylum camp a woman became very ill with severe stomach pain. After one week of suffering, she was finally taken by ambulance to the hospital, unable to walk. She was forced to take the PCR test by hospital staff who threatened her and said that if she did not agree to the test they would send her back to the camp without treatment. This right here constitutes Medical Neglect in violation of Nuremberg Codes. Please see Nuremberg Codes in Finnish here and in English here. This poor mother in her vulnerable state did not want to take the Corona test but she felt she had no choice so she complied. A false positive was produced and the woman was told she has Coronavirus yet she did not have any flu symptoms. Her problem was a piercing pain in her stomach. She was told by the nurse that there is “no treatment or cure for Coronavirus” and that she would be quarantined. This was a deadly lie.
They placed the mother into quarantine and did not give her any treatment or the medicine she needed for her stomach pain which was the reason she entered the hospital in the first place. This mother was put into a hotel room and literally left for dead. While being medically tortured, she was also denied visitation from her family. The Asylum camp brought her cold meals every three days and left them outside her door. She had only a microwave. I saw her on video cam and she so ill and groaning in pain that we were not sure she would live. Finally, the mother did pull through and returned to the camp to her husband and children. She was so weakened and had dark circles under her eyes and a ghostly pale face.
I have another testimony to share. The father of a Finnish friend of mine entered the hospital with some medical condition and was treated in the same inhumane way. He was a grandfather. The elder man was forced to take the PCR test and when a false positive returned he was forced into quarantine in a hotel room. He was medically tortured to death and never treated for what he entered the hospital for in the first place. He did not live through the ordeal. A system of institutionalized extermination is being put into place in the health sector in Finland.
Doctors around the world have been censored for revealing that Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with Zinc, Ivermectin, and/or high dosages of intravenous Vitamin C have been successfully curing people who are sick with Coronavirus. You can read more peer-reviewed scientific research on HCQ successfully curing Coronavirus here.
These simple yet highly effective medicines were being suppressed in many nations worldwide so that Big Pharma’s Biotech companies could get the Emergency Use Authorization passed for their poisonous medical experiment. Big Tech, governments, and media were suppressing life-saving medicines that resulted in untold numbers of people needlessly dying. These are Crimes Against Humanity.
Listen to Dr. Pierre Kory at a U.S. Senate hearing pleading with the House to approve Ivermectin for Coronavirus treatment which he said is a 100% cure. Read more about Ivermectin here.
Now the staff in all hospitals across Finland are being forced by the government through THL, to take the experimental mRNA Bioweapons. If they decline, they will be fired. In just one unit of Keusote Hospital in Hyvinkää, there are presently 15 nurses too sick to work due to the Pfizer injections. These women are between 25 and 33 years old. According to testimony, they all got extremely high fevers after the injection. They’re in so much pain right now that when anything touches their skin it feels like they’re being pierced with a hunting knife.
200,000 NHS staff are now refusing the “jab”. What do they know that we don’t know?
The number of injuries reported to the CDC through VAERS in the US after COVID injections, climbed by nearly 4,000 in just one week.
The latest VAERS HHS Clinical Adverse Reactions and Deaths due to the experimental COVID injections ranked by percentage can be viewed here. What everyone can plainly see for themselves in this chart, is that the average percentage of deaths due to this medicine experiment is ranked at 4.10%.VAERS Covid-19 Adverse Reactions by percentage
Only 64,500 deaths due to the COVID injections were reported to VAERS in the UK.
If I break this down into simple math, you will see that the vast majority of Adverse Reactions and Deaths from the “COVID vaccines” are not being recorded or reported to VAERS. 236 million COVID Biotech injections have been administered worldwide. So with the average deaths at 4.10%, this means about 9,594,000 people have died worldwide. What percentage of these deaths have you seen reported by the media? I can answer that. Maybe a fraction of 1%.
427,000 people in Finland have been administered the COVID injections. That means about 17,080 people have died. How many of those deaths do you recall Finnish media reporting? What this data is showing us is that only 6.7% of all Adverse Reactions and Deaths are being reported to VAERS and 93.3% of Deaths are not being reported.
Now let that sink in. These figures are genocide statistics. The COVID Bioweapons are causing millions of people to die worldwide and disabling millions more. 4,36% of people have Hypoaesthesia. That means 10,202,400 people have partial or total loss of feeling in their bodies. Millions are already maimed and soon the human guinea pig will be dropping dead like flies just as Dr. Cahill predicted, especially after the second booster shot.
Right now the COVID injection deaths are being hidden from everyone because Big Pharma and governments want as many people as possible to get continue taking their poison. In the next few months when the inoculated start dying in droves, the deaths won’t be containable any longer. Our bribed governments know this and they are prepared for it. People’s fear will turn to terror and chaos will rip through the fabric of our societies. The corrupt media will tell you this is a “new virus strain” even deadlier than the Coronavirus flu but the deaths will actually be from the Bioweapons that people were either injected with by syringe or swab. The great culling is on its way. When it arrives, the bribed governments will swoop in and enforce martial law restrictions and begin forcing COVID injections on everyone at gunpoint in most nations. I’m not sure how it will play out here in Finland it depends entirely on people’s level of awareness and the actions we take now to hold our leaders to account for the genocide of Finland’s citizens.
The Court of Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has ruled on 29 January 2021 in Resolution 2361 that there cannot be compulsory vaccinations in any European country and no discrimination against those who do not take the vaccination, in ruling 7.3, 7.3.1 and 7.3.2.
7.3.1 varmistaa, että kansalaisille ilmoitetaan, että rokottaminen EI ole pakollista ja että ketään ei painosteta poliittisesti, sosiaalisesti tai muutenkaan rokottamaan, jos he eivät halua tehdä sitä itse
In addition, a German EU court ruled lockdowns unconstitutional in January.
The Finnish Government wants to pass new legislation that will allow for mandatory medical examinations and forced PCR testing with a penalty of fines and 3 months imprisonment if you don’t comply. The result is going to be ever-increasing medical tyranny due to panic-induced irrationality, like what you see here:
Merike Sirelpuu was taken from her home in handcuffs and covered in a hood so she could not where she was taken. Police only informed that she is in the hands of health authorities. Her family still does not know where she is not being released. Merike was tied to the hospital bed for 24 hours and the handcuffs caused bruising on her wrists. She was also strangled several times for refusing the “Corona swab test”. They forced a medical device through a nasal swab up her nose and against her will, which is medical rape.
Finnish police are using Merike to set a new precedent in medical tyranny in Finland, through the Communicable Diseases Act where a healthy person can be forcibly arrested and undergo medical rape over “suspected exposure” to Coronavirus.
I remind you that CORONAVIRUS IS THE NATURAL FLU AND IT HAS A 99.98% SURVIVAL RATE!! Please STOP being fools and use your minds!
This grand medical experiment is against our most sacred human rights and violates the Nuremberg Codes which require Informed Consent of all medicines administered to citizens of all nations. The COVID Bioweapons are against Finnish Constitutional Law. These new actions by the Finnish Government mark a dangerous precedent of Medical Tyranny in the Finnish society that is driving us rapidly closer towards a Nazi-Communist regime. These steps towards totalitarianism have a very dark history in Europe and in Finland and must never be implemented in Finland again unless you wish to embrace a future of starvation and annihilation. Make no mistake about it, this is Genocide and we are rapidly approaching the point of no return, where the government will have the upper hand to do whatever they want and inject whatever they want in us at gunpoint. The Finnish police have proven they will do this due to the mass psychosis and fear that’s been programmed into them. Most Finnish people are not informed with factual science.Indigenous Finnish Sami child
Medical Tyranny and the “Vaccine Passports” go against the spirit and original purpose of the Finnish Constitution which guarantees universal and equal rights. We are all equal according to law. Implementation of a digital “Vaccine Certificate” segregates society, giving the privilege of travel and purchase only to those who will take the Mark of The Beast in a lethal experiment that permanently changes what it means to be human. Anything that edits and recodes the human genome and replaces our original DNA with something artificial, is ABSOLUTE WICKED EVIL.
This kind of discrimination, giving the advantage to some over others, leads society towards polarization and confrontation. Finland, it’s time to WAKE UP! Before the eyes of God, we are all equal! Under Finnish Constitutional Law, we are all equal! There’s still time to speak up while our mouths are not taped shut! Everyone must rise up now against this corruption. Take this beautiful nation back from its dark leaders. This government is the worst Finland has ever had. End this Communist-Fascist-Nazi system right now before it’s too late to do so. We have the power to stop their greedy madness but not if you stand idle and do nothing. Compliance is death for you and your children. We are about to lose all autonomy to our own bodies! Is that the future you want for your children? Is that the future you want for this nation? Do you want to blood sacrifice Finland’s precious children on the Devil’s altar, God’s most beautiful and perfect creation in a deadly genetic experiment? These children cannot defend themselves. They need us to fight for them.Finnish child
We are facing the total enslavement of humanity on the genetic level through Bioterrorism. Now it’s time to reach inside and find your Sisu. Take up your sword and put on your shield and armor. We are called to war. The future of the human race is at stake.
King George III speaks to Parliament of American rebellion
On October 26, 1775, King George III speaks before both houses of the British Parliament to discuss growing concern about the rebellion in America, which he viewed as a traitorous action against himself and Great Britain. He began his speech by reading a “Proclamation of Rebellion” and urged Parliament to move quickly to end the revolt and bring order to the colonies.
The king spoke of his belief that “many of these unhappy people may still retain their loyalty, and may be too wise not to see the fatal consequence of this usurpation, and wish to resist it, yet the torrent of violence has been strong enough to compel their acquiescence, till a sufficient force shall appear to support them.” With these words, the king gave Parliament his consent to dispatch troops to use against his own subjects, a notion that his colonists believed impossible.
Just as the Continental Congress expressed its desire to remain loyal to the British crown in the Olive Branch Petition, delivered to the monarch on September 1, so George III insisted he had ted with the same temper anxious to prevent, if it had been possible, the effusion of the blood of my subjects and the calamities which are inseparable from a state of war still hoping that my people in America would have discerned the traitorous views of their leaders, and have been convinced, that to be a subject of Great Britain, with all its consequences, is to be the freest member of any civil society in the known world.” King George went on to scoff at what he called the colonists’ “strongest protestations of loyalty to me,” believing them disingenuous, “whilst they were preparing for a general revolt.”
Honolulu Civil Beat Inc. v. Department of the Attorney General
In this case concerning the State's refusal to produce the results of an investigation into the Office of the Auditor based in part on the lawyer-client privilege the Supreme Court held that the State may not exclude a government record from disclosure under the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) on the basis of a lawyer-client relationship between two State entities that is asserted but not proved.
Honolulu Civil Beat Inc. (Civil Beat) contacted the Department of the Attorney General (the Department) requesting under the UIPA access to copies of investigative reports related to the State Auditor's Office. The State refused to produce any documentation based in part on the lawyer-client privilege and the professional rule protecting confidential lawyer-client communications. Civil Beat filed a complaint alleging that the Department had denied Civil Beat its right to access government records under the UIPA. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Civil Beat. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's judgment, holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that the requested record was protected from disclosure under the UIPA by Haw. Rev. Stat. 92F-13(4). Because the court did not address the two other disclosure exceptions asserted by the Department, the Supreme Court remanded the case.
Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.