KING Felipe VI's annual Christmas Eve speech once again included a covert appeal to secessionist politicians, as well as raising concerns about young adults' struggle to afford housing and violence against women.
Sister suffragettes: Spain celebrates 90 years of votes for women
03/10/2021
WOMEN all over Spain have plenty to be grateful for this month – the 90th anniversary of the female vote which, even for residents who can never cast their ballot because of being a foreigner, was still a life-changing turn of history which has made a real difference for approximately 50% of the population.
That's because it wasn't just about elections, even though that was the sole quest for the women's suffrage movement in Spain which ended with the Constitution of 1931. As a result of this landmark new law, female views are taken into account when building the institution that runs the country, being able to vote made ladies actually start to think about politics, as it was finally something they were 'allowed' to have opinions on, and felt encouraged to become involved on the front line. And perhaps as a result of the feminine influence in national and local government formation, life, legislation and society began to change towards equality between the sexes – or maybe this new outlook was purely a result of the suffrage debate itself, causing women to suddenly become aware that, actually, there was no sensible or practical reason for their being treated any differently to their menfolk, and that they should not have to just accept this as their lot in life.
Not just a stroke of the pen
As was the case in most countries – and the suffrage movement, active from the early 19th century, was international – equality at election time was not just a case of, “okay, girls, if that's what you want, we'll sign the paperwork, then.” It was an ongoing battle on the part of its supporters against continued discrimination within this new freedom: Prerequisites such as property ownership, which basically only encompassed spinsters and widows with an inheritance; married women being allowed to vote only with their husbands' permission; women's minimum voting age being much higher than men's, all had to be beaten down along the way.
Nowadays it is hard to see why women never did have the vote in the first place, or why there should have been any opposition to their getting it – but the 'suffragettes' in Spain, as elsewhere, had to wade through a murky cesspool of preconceived ideas, disguised as 'expert' judgments, as to why females should not be allowed anywhere near the ballot box.
The women who made it happen
Suffragettes' voices began to be heard – or rather, tolerated and humoured – at the beginning of dictator Miguel Primo de Rivera's seven-year reign which started in 1923.
A concession was made to women who were heads of family, married or widowed but with no male 'authority' figure in the household, to vote in local council elections only; the criteria was so narrow that only around a quarter of the 6.8-million-strong electorate, or 1.7 million, were female.
And these local elections were never held, so this grandiose gesture on the part of the superior sex proved to be a mere platitude.
In practice, even men's votes would have been academic. Being a dictatorship, government members were hand-picked, not elected.
The only poll that came remotely close to being a 'local election', held over three days in September 1926, was little more than a collection of signatures – although all men and women aged 18 or over were, technically, able to participate, the signatures in question were uniquely those of people who supported Primo de Rivera's régime.
His 'Parliament', known as the National Consultative Assembly – the purpose of which was not to legislate but to 'provide information' – allowed participation by 'males and females, single, widowed or married', provided wives were 'duly authorised by their husbands' to join in.
Concepción Loring was the first woman in Spain's history to speak in national Parliament, or national assembly – Málaga-born, to a Basque father who was first Marquis of Loring and an Andalucía mother who was a researcher and philanthropist, sister of a mayor of Málaga who was assassinated, she was widowed aged 50, in 1918, meaning she did not have to ask husband Bernardo de Orozco's permission to be one of the 13 women at the open Assembly that began its life on October 11, 1927.
Marchioness Loring, Grandee of Spain, did live long enough to see women given the vote and actually exercise it, but not long enough to see it snatched away from them again for nearly 40 years, as she passed away in 1935 aged 67.
Three other ladies' names are also synonymous with equal suffrage: Margarita Nelken, Victoria Kent and, most of all, the undisputed Queen of Women's Votes, Clara Campoamor.
Three against Spain, or a female 'David vs Goliath' situation
Bizarrely, in early 1931, women were permitted to stand for election, but not to elect. The logic behind this has never been entirely clear: For some reason, women were not thought to be worldly, intelligent, sensible or wise enough to decide who should run the country, but were considered to be enough of all these to actually take part in running it.
One school of thought is that this was just another concession to 'keep them quiet': Let women run for office, because nobody would vote for them anyway. Men would not want to be 'exposed to being governed by a new matriarchal régime'.
Except that some men, clearly, did vote for them. Margarita Nelken gained a seat in Parliament on the very same party which is governing Spain now, 90 years on – the Partido Socialista Obrero Español ('Spanish Labourer Socialist Party', or PSOE). Victoria Kent represented the liberal, anti-clerical Radical Socialist Republican Party (PRRS), and Clara Campoamor was on the centre-right Radical Republican Party (PRR).
Just three women in an otherwise all-male Assembly who proved that minorities can, indeed, make waves and bring about huge social change.
“Let women vote? No, they're hysterical and emotional!”
These waves would have amounted to a veritable tsunami if the Constitution of 1931 debate that started on September 30 had taken place today. Head of Madrid University's Faculty of Pathology and MP for the Galicia Republican Federation, Roberto Nóvoa Santos, would have seen his political career screech to an abrupt halt before October. If his argument against the thesis of Clara, Victoria and Margarita had taken place in the context of a Constitution of 2021 debate, he would probably also have lost his lecturing career – and his Twitter feed would have been on fire.
But 90 years ago, he was considered to be making a valid point based upon his expert knowledge, one that many of his fellow MPs supported or, at least, mulled over, even if he eventually had to admit defeat.
“Why do we have to concede the same political rights and titles to woman as to man?” He mused.
“Are they equally capable organisms?”
Fast-forward to the 21st century, the printable response would have been, “Er, yes, we are, thank you.”
Rewind swiftly to the day it happened, and Nóvoa Santos' explanation went as follows.
“Woman is all passion, everything features emotion, she is all sensitivity; she is not, by contrast, reflection, she is not critical spirit, she is not preponderance,” he argued.
Nóvoa Santos was convinced women remained 'under the pressure of religious institutions', whether they be 'country women or urban women'.
“I wonder, what would be the destiny of the Republic if, in a very near future, we had conceded the vote to women? Certainly a reversal, a backwards step. Women are not fluent in reflection and critical spirit; women allow themselves to be always ruled by emotion and of all that speaks to her feelings, but only critical reflection on a minimum scale.”
Nóvoa Santos quoted his 'friend', priest, journalist and politician Basilio Álvarez: “He affirmed that this would make hysteria law.
“Hysteria is not an illness, it is woman's own structure; woman is all that: Hysteria and, as a result, volatile, versatile, sensitive of spirit, and emotional.”
According to Nóvoa Santos, giving females the vote would 'submerge us in a new electoral régime, with men exposed to being governed by a new matriarchal régime, behind which would always be the Spanish Catholic Church waiting expectantly'.
Ouch.
Victoria Kent, suffragette...who sought to postpone women's votes. But why?
You can put the knives away now, girls. Roberto Nóvoa Santos caused a collective 'hmm' across Parliament, but his eloquent discourse on the unhinged nature of half the population did not stop them getting the right to pop their ballot in the box of their choice. A month after they first did so, Nóvoa Santos passed away aged 48, from cancer, but he did, despite the fact today's ladies would like to travel back 90 years in time and hurl rotten eggs at him, make huge advances in medicine in his time which men and women alike are probably still seeing the benefit of now.
And, curiously, one of the key females in helping gain suffrage rights for her sex advocated putting off the reform and not including it in the Constitution of 1931.
Victoria Kent argued that at that precise moment in social history 'Spanish women lack the democratic and liberal Republican fervour'.
But she had her reasons. A stalling tactic was all it was – let them see how the Republic of 1931 onwards was better than the dictatorship Spain had just left following Primo de Rivera's resignation, since the contrast would be a practical course in political education that would allow them to vote with their heads and not their feet.
“I believe now is not the time to offer the vote to Spanish women. And this comes from a woman who, at the critical moment, seeks to renounce her own ideal,” Victoria Kent stated.
“I'm asking this, not because it questions, in the slightest, women's capabilities. No, gentlemen of the Assembly, it is not a matter of capability, but of opportunity for the Republic.
“When Spanish women realise that, only through the Republic, are their children's human rights guaranteed, that only the Republic has provided the daily bread that the Monarchy has not, only then, gentlemen, will women be the most fervent, most ardent defenders of the Republic.”
She said women had petitioned Parliament 'in good faith', sending 'thousands of signatures to the president', calling for a different régime – one much more like the dictatorship the country had just exited.
“When I had fervently wished for thousands of signatures of women supporting the Republic,” Victoria concluded.
“Right at this moment, it is dangerous to give women the vote.”
Clara's counter-claim
Although not the only one doing her bit for equal votes, Clara Campoamor was, arguably, the woman who clinched it. She felt Victoria was generalising somewhat – just because women had not had much reason to think about politics before, did not mean all females were ignorant of what went on between the Assembly walls, nor that they were ill-informed.
For the sake of the Republic, it 'would be a very grave political mistake' not to let women vote, Clara, a lawyer and equal rights activist, believed.
As MP for 'the province of Madrid', which she had travelled widely, speaking to the public 'not just in fulfilment of my duties, but out of love', Clara said women in the audience at political rallies far outnumbered men.
“I've seen in these women's eyes the hope of redemption, I've seen a desire to help the Republic, I've seen the passion and emotion they plough into their ideals,” said Miss Campoamor.
“Today's Spanish woman hopes the Republic will be her own redemption, and that of her child.”
She urged MPs 'not to commit an historic error' that they would 'never have time to cry over' by 'leaving women out of the Republic'.
Women represented 'a new, young force' and were 'desirous and eager', Clara argued.
“They are applying to themselves that phrase of Humboldt's – that the only way to become mature enough to exercise one's freedom and to render this freedom accessible to everyone is to walk within it,” she finished.
Narrow margin
Parliament, with 470 seats, of which 467 were occupied by men, was almost equally split three ways in their reaction to the proposal, but those in favour of women's suffrage were very much in the minority.
A whole 40%, or 188 MPs – the majority – abstained. Clara's and Victoria's parties mostly voted against, as did the left-wing, progressive and secular Acción Republicana ('Republican Action'), giving 121 MPs who would rather election outcomes stayed entirely under men's influence.
On Margarita Nelken's party, the PSOE, a total of 84 MPs voted in favour of giving women the vote, comprising over half of the supporters of the move.
Thanks to the huge abstention, the 161 votes in favour were enough to pass the law, and the Constitution of 1931 – co-written by Clara Campoamor – stated, in Article 36: “Citizens of one or the other sex, aged at least 23 years, will have the same electoral rights as the law determines.”
Attempts were initially made to set the voting age for men at 23 and for women at 45, and Victoria Kent tabled a motion calling for women only to be allowed to vote in general elections after they had exercised their suffrage rights in at least two local council elections, but neither of these proposals saw the light of day.
Did it make a difference?
We know it has, 90 years on – but female electoral rights were, for a long time, merely academic.
Even though Clara, Victoria and Margarita had earned seats in Parliament in June 1931, they could not have voted for their own parties as the Constitution was not signed until October 1 that year, after the two-day debate, by which time there was no imminent election on the horizon for this new freedom to be exercised.
The first time all women in Spain voted – or did not, but through personal choice rather than being prevented by law – was on April 23, 1933, in their local council elections.
And the first time women's ballots were able to influence national government was in the general elections of November 19, 1933, when over 6.5 million ladies nationwide cast their votes.
Here, ladies proved Victoria Kent to be wrong and Clara Campoamor to be right: The Republic stayed in place for another five years and four-and-a-half months.
It was not women – or men, for that matter – whose vote ended the Republic. The Civil War broke out in July 1936, ending with victory for General Franco's fascist faction on April 1, 1939, placing him in power.
Nobody voted at all after that, since a far-right dictatorship ensued, only ending with Franco's death in November 1975; the first election in 41 years came in June 1977, following the Transition to democracy and 18 months before the Spanish Constitution of 1978 was signed.
So although women were given licence to vote exactly 90 years ago this month, they – and men – have only really been able to do so for the last 44 years and four months.
Once the Constitution came into effect on December 6 the year after, the rights of both sexes, married or not, irrespective of civil status, wealth, property ownership or any other considerations besides having to be a Spanish national aged at least 18, were enshrined in law for good.
As yet, almost every country in the world bars its foreign residents, however long they have lived in the country – even if they were born there – from voting in general elections, so Spain is not unique, but EU citizens and those from other countries with a bilateral agreement can vote in local council elections, although not for their regional government.
Spain, like most countries in the world – other than a very tiny minority – allows its citizens to vote in its general elections wherever they are living; no cap is placed on time spent abroad.
This means even the children who were evacuated from the country during the Civil War and never returned, and those who fled to France as soon as it ended and stayed there, can still vote in Spanish general elections today if they wish.
Related Topics
WOMEN all over Spain have plenty to be grateful for this month – the 90th anniversary of the female vote which, even for residents who can never cast their ballot because of being a foreigner, was still a life-changing turn of history which has made a real difference for approximately 50% of the population.
That's because it wasn't just about elections, even though that was the sole quest for the women's suffrage movement in Spain which ended with the Constitution of 1931. As a result of this landmark new law, female views are taken into account when building the institution that runs the country, being able to vote made ladies actually start to think about politics, as it was finally something they were 'allowed' to have opinions on, and felt encouraged to become involved on the front line. And perhaps as a result of the feminine influence in national and local government formation, life, legislation and society began to change towards equality between the sexes – or maybe this new outlook was purely a result of the suffrage debate itself, causing women to suddenly become aware that, actually, there was no sensible or practical reason for their being treated any differently to their menfolk, and that they should not have to just accept this as their lot in life.
Not just a stroke of the pen
As was the case in most countries – and the suffrage movement, active from the early 19th century, was international – equality at election time was not just a case of, “okay, girls, if that's what you want, we'll sign the paperwork, then.” It was an ongoing battle on the part of its supporters against continued discrimination within this new freedom: Prerequisites such as property ownership, which basically only encompassed spinsters and widows with an inheritance; married women being allowed to vote only with their husbands' permission; women's minimum voting age being much higher than men's, all had to be beaten down along the way.
Nowadays it is hard to see why women never did have the vote in the first place, or why there should have been any opposition to their getting it – but the 'suffragettes' in Spain, as elsewhere, had to wade through a murky cesspool of preconceived ideas, disguised as 'expert' judgments, as to why females should not be allowed anywhere near the ballot box.
The women who made it happen
Suffragettes' voices began to be heard – or rather, tolerated and humoured – at the beginning of dictator Miguel Primo de Rivera's seven-year reign which started in 1923.
A concession was made to women who were heads of family, married or widowed but with no male 'authority' figure in the household, to vote in local council elections only; the criteria was so narrow that only around a quarter of the 6.8-million-strong electorate, or 1.7 million, were female.
And these local elections were never held, so this grandiose gesture on the part of the superior sex proved to be a mere platitude.
In practice, even men's votes would have been academic. Being a dictatorship, government members were hand-picked, not elected.
The only poll that came remotely close to being a 'local election', held over three days in September 1926, was little more than a collection of signatures – although all men and women aged 18 or over were, technically, able to participate, the signatures in question were uniquely those of people who supported Primo de Rivera's régime.
His 'Parliament', known as the National Consultative Assembly – the purpose of which was not to legislate but to 'provide information' – allowed participation by 'males and females, single, widowed or married', provided wives were 'duly authorised by their husbands' to join in.
Concepción Loring was the first woman in Spain's history to speak in national Parliament, or national assembly – Málaga-born, to a Basque father who was first Marquis of Loring and an Andalucía mother who was a researcher and philanthropist, sister of a mayor of Málaga who was assassinated, she was widowed aged 50, in 1918, meaning she did not have to ask husband Bernardo de Orozco's permission to be one of the 13 women at the open Assembly that began its life on October 11, 1927.
Marchioness Loring, Grandee of Spain, did live long enough to see women given the vote and actually exercise it, but not long enough to see it snatched away from them again for nearly 40 years, as she passed away in 1935 aged 67.
Three other ladies' names are also synonymous with equal suffrage: Margarita Nelken, Victoria Kent and, most of all, the undisputed Queen of Women's Votes, Clara Campoamor.
Three against Spain, or a female 'David vs Goliath' situation
Bizarrely, in early 1931, women were permitted to stand for election, but not to elect. The logic behind this has never been entirely clear: For some reason, women were not thought to be worldly, intelligent, sensible or wise enough to decide who should run the country, but were considered to be enough of all these to actually take part in running it.
One school of thought is that this was just another concession to 'keep them quiet': Let women run for office, because nobody would vote for them anyway. Men would not want to be 'exposed to being governed by a new matriarchal régime'.
Except that some men, clearly, did vote for them. Margarita Nelken gained a seat in Parliament on the very same party which is governing Spain now, 90 years on – the Partido Socialista Obrero Español ('Spanish Labourer Socialist Party', or PSOE). Victoria Kent represented the liberal, anti-clerical Radical Socialist Republican Party (PRRS), and Clara Campoamor was on the centre-right Radical Republican Party (PRR).
Just three women in an otherwise all-male Assembly who proved that minorities can, indeed, make waves and bring about huge social change.
“Let women vote? No, they're hysterical and emotional!”
These waves would have amounted to a veritable tsunami if the Constitution of 1931 debate that started on September 30 had taken place today. Head of Madrid University's Faculty of Pathology and MP for the Galicia Republican Federation, Roberto Nóvoa Santos, would have seen his political career screech to an abrupt halt before October. If his argument against the thesis of Clara, Victoria and Margarita had taken place in the context of a Constitution of 2021 debate, he would probably also have lost his lecturing career – and his Twitter feed would have been on fire.
But 90 years ago, he was considered to be making a valid point based upon his expert knowledge, one that many of his fellow MPs supported or, at least, mulled over, even if he eventually had to admit defeat.
“Why do we have to concede the same political rights and titles to woman as to man?” He mused.
“Are they equally capable organisms?”
Fast-forward to the 21st century, the printable response would have been, “Er, yes, we are, thank you.”
Rewind swiftly to the day it happened, and Nóvoa Santos' explanation went as follows.
“Woman is all passion, everything features emotion, she is all sensitivity; she is not, by contrast, reflection, she is not critical spirit, she is not preponderance,” he argued.
Nóvoa Santos was convinced women remained 'under the pressure of religious institutions', whether they be 'country women or urban women'.
“I wonder, what would be the destiny of the Republic if, in a very near future, we had conceded the vote to women? Certainly a reversal, a backwards step. Women are not fluent in reflection and critical spirit; women allow themselves to be always ruled by emotion and of all that speaks to her feelings, but only critical reflection on a minimum scale.”
Nóvoa Santos quoted his 'friend', priest, journalist and politician Basilio Álvarez: “He affirmed that this would make hysteria law.
“Hysteria is not an illness, it is woman's own structure; woman is all that: Hysteria and, as a result, volatile, versatile, sensitive of spirit, and emotional.”
According to Nóvoa Santos, giving females the vote would 'submerge us in a new electoral régime, with men exposed to being governed by a new matriarchal régime, behind which would always be the Spanish Catholic Church waiting expectantly'.
Ouch.
Victoria Kent, suffragette...who sought to postpone women's votes. But why?
You can put the knives away now, girls. Roberto Nóvoa Santos caused a collective 'hmm' across Parliament, but his eloquent discourse on the unhinged nature of half the population did not stop them getting the right to pop their ballot in the box of their choice. A month after they first did so, Nóvoa Santos passed away aged 48, from cancer, but he did, despite the fact today's ladies would like to travel back 90 years in time and hurl rotten eggs at him, make huge advances in medicine in his time which men and women alike are probably still seeing the benefit of now.
And, curiously, one of the key females in helping gain suffrage rights for her sex advocated putting off the reform and not including it in the Constitution of 1931.
Victoria Kent argued that at that precise moment in social history 'Spanish women lack the democratic and liberal Republican fervour'.
But she had her reasons. A stalling tactic was all it was – let them see how the Republic of 1931 onwards was better than the dictatorship Spain had just left following Primo de Rivera's resignation, since the contrast would be a practical course in political education that would allow them to vote with their heads and not their feet.
“I believe now is not the time to offer the vote to Spanish women. And this comes from a woman who, at the critical moment, seeks to renounce her own ideal,” Victoria Kent stated.
“I'm asking this, not because it questions, in the slightest, women's capabilities. No, gentlemen of the Assembly, it is not a matter of capability, but of opportunity for the Republic.
“When Spanish women realise that, only through the Republic, are their children's human rights guaranteed, that only the Republic has provided the daily bread that the Monarchy has not, only then, gentlemen, will women be the most fervent, most ardent defenders of the Republic.”
She said women had petitioned Parliament 'in good faith', sending 'thousands of signatures to the president', calling for a different régime – one much more like the dictatorship the country had just exited.
“When I had fervently wished for thousands of signatures of women supporting the Republic,” Victoria concluded.
“Right at this moment, it is dangerous to give women the vote.”
Clara's counter-claim
Although not the only one doing her bit for equal votes, Clara Campoamor was, arguably, the woman who clinched it. She felt Victoria was generalising somewhat – just because women had not had much reason to think about politics before, did not mean all females were ignorant of what went on between the Assembly walls, nor that they were ill-informed.
For the sake of the Republic, it 'would be a very grave political mistake' not to let women vote, Clara, a lawyer and equal rights activist, believed.
As MP for 'the province of Madrid', which she had travelled widely, speaking to the public 'not just in fulfilment of my duties, but out of love', Clara said women in the audience at political rallies far outnumbered men.
“I've seen in these women's eyes the hope of redemption, I've seen a desire to help the Republic, I've seen the passion and emotion they plough into their ideals,” said Miss Campoamor.
“Today's Spanish woman hopes the Republic will be her own redemption, and that of her child.”
She urged MPs 'not to commit an historic error' that they would 'never have time to cry over' by 'leaving women out of the Republic'.
Women represented 'a new, young force' and were 'desirous and eager', Clara argued.
“They are applying to themselves that phrase of Humboldt's – that the only way to become mature enough to exercise one's freedom and to render this freedom accessible to everyone is to walk within it,” she finished.
Narrow margin
Parliament, with 470 seats, of which 467 were occupied by men, was almost equally split three ways in their reaction to the proposal, but those in favour of women's suffrage were very much in the minority.
A whole 40%, or 188 MPs – the majority – abstained. Clara's and Victoria's parties mostly voted against, as did the left-wing, progressive and secular Acción Republicana ('Republican Action'), giving 121 MPs who would rather election outcomes stayed entirely under men's influence.
On Margarita Nelken's party, the PSOE, a total of 84 MPs voted in favour of giving women the vote, comprising over half of the supporters of the move.
Thanks to the huge abstention, the 161 votes in favour were enough to pass the law, and the Constitution of 1931 – co-written by Clara Campoamor – stated, in Article 36: “Citizens of one or the other sex, aged at least 23 years, will have the same electoral rights as the law determines.”
Attempts were initially made to set the voting age for men at 23 and for women at 45, and Victoria Kent tabled a motion calling for women only to be allowed to vote in general elections after they had exercised their suffrage rights in at least two local council elections, but neither of these proposals saw the light of day.
Did it make a difference?
We know it has, 90 years on – but female electoral rights were, for a long time, merely academic.
Even though Clara, Victoria and Margarita had earned seats in Parliament in June 1931, they could not have voted for their own parties as the Constitution was not signed until October 1 that year, after the two-day debate, by which time there was no imminent election on the horizon for this new freedom to be exercised.
The first time all women in Spain voted – or did not, but through personal choice rather than being prevented by law – was on April 23, 1933, in their local council elections.
And the first time women's ballots were able to influence national government was in the general elections of November 19, 1933, when over 6.5 million ladies nationwide cast their votes.
Here, ladies proved Victoria Kent to be wrong and Clara Campoamor to be right: The Republic stayed in place for another five years and four-and-a-half months.
It was not women – or men, for that matter – whose vote ended the Republic. The Civil War broke out in July 1936, ending with victory for General Franco's fascist faction on April 1, 1939, placing him in power.
Nobody voted at all after that, since a far-right dictatorship ensued, only ending with Franco's death in November 1975; the first election in 41 years came in June 1977, following the Transition to democracy and 18 months before the Spanish Constitution of 1978 was signed.
So although women were given licence to vote exactly 90 years ago this month, they – and men – have only really been able to do so for the last 44 years and four months.
Once the Constitution came into effect on December 6 the year after, the rights of both sexes, married or not, irrespective of civil status, wealth, property ownership or any other considerations besides having to be a Spanish national aged at least 18, were enshrined in law for good.
As yet, almost every country in the world bars its foreign residents, however long they have lived in the country – even if they were born there – from voting in general elections, so Spain is not unique, but EU citizens and those from other countries with a bilateral agreement can vote in local council elections, although not for their regional government.
Spain, like most countries in the world – other than a very tiny minority – allows its citizens to vote in its general elections wherever they are living; no cap is placed on time spent abroad.
This means even the children who were evacuated from the country during the Civil War and never returned, and those who fled to France as soon as it ended and stayed there, can still vote in Spanish general elections today if they wish.
Related Topics
More News & Information
'BRAVE' servicemen and women who will spend Christmas overseas are 'making Spain proud', president Pedro Sánchez assured them during his annual festive message via video-call.
IT DOESN'T feel like nearly a decade since Prince Felipe of Asturias became King in the most austere coronation ceremony in Spain's history – but the monarch has just celebrated his ninth anniversary on the...
SPAIN'S reigning monarch, King Felipe VI, has given his ninth annual Christmas speech on TV with a call to unity in government to find solutions for society in light of inflation and the effects of the war in...