"The monarchy in crisis: Felipe VI faces a growing popular discontent."

The figure of Felipe VI and his monarchy has been at the center of public debate this year, a period that some consider glorious and others, like myself, rather an example of what could be called "monarchical populism." This notion is not simply a derogatory term; it reflects a series of actions and decisions that, far from elevating the figure of the King, have plunged it into a controversy that deserves analysis. One of the most discussed episodes was the Royal House's decision to visit the epicenter of the DANA (a weather phenomenon), shortly after the region suffered devastating effects. At a time when rescue and aid efforts were underway, the presence of the King and other high officials not only interrupted those efforts but also left a sense of insensitivity to the human suffering being experienced at that moment. The question that arises is: Did they really think their presence could bring comfort or help? The answer seems more like an echo of arrogance and a desire to be in the spotlight, rather than a genuine commitment to the well-being of those affected. The confusion intensified when the situation turned violent and assaults occurred against those present. Instead of withdrawing to protect the integrity of the institutions and themselves, the members of the entourage appeared to remain in place, as if they were actors in a Greek tragedy, ready to become martyrs for a cause they never asked for. It is difficult to understand how one can seek a connection with the people while tolerating evident and unacceptable aggression. This leads us to the question of whether this insistence on remaining in difficult situations is truly an act of courage or a way to seek the limelight. The fact that their presence was rewarded with "popularity points" despite widespread criticism raises questions about the type of leadership expected from a figure like the King. Is suffering being confused with popularity? Is the Royal House so disconnected from reality that it does not realize that some aspects of its behavior are, at best, questionable? In his recent Christmas speech, Felipe VI once again evaded crucial issues affecting Spanish society, such as gender-based violence. Despite the fact that this phenomenon has claimed lives and has been the cause of social mobilization for years, the King seems to choose not to address it, dedicating his time to issues related to immigration, a topic that resonates with the narratives of some political sectors that have shown unconditional support for the monarchy. This repeated omission generates the impression that there are topics that are more sensitive or prioritized than others, further blurring the figure of the King as a monarch for all. The inconsistency in his speeches, where certain topics are prioritized and others ignored, raises serious doubts about his ability to represent all sectors of society. Is it possible that, being aware of the fragility of his position, the King prefers not to discomfort his closest allies? This maneuver could be seen as a defensive strategy, but it carries the risk of alienating a significant portion of the population that feels their concerns are not being addressed. What is critical in this situation is the lack of authentic dialogue between the Royal House and society. Since 2015, public opinion has ceased to be a topic that is frequently addressed in the monarchy, and this could be a fatal mistake. The disconnection between what people feel and what the King chooses to communicate can lead to an erosion of the monarchy's legitimacy. The time of indifference may be coming to an end, and the Royal House must be aware that its relevance depends on its ability to empathize with the realities of its people. The question that lingers is whether Felipe VI and his team are capable of recognizing these failures and correcting their course. Or will they face an uncertain future in an increasingly polarized and demanding social context? The monarchy, once seen as a fundamental pillar of the state, could become a relic of the past if it does not adapt to the demands of a society that expects more from its institutions. The actions of the Royal House, far from being heroic acts, seem more like an attempt to cling to a relevance that is fading. The question remains: Will innocence be a shield or a condemnation for an institution that, at the end of the day, should be a symbol of unity and not division? The answer to this question could define the future of the monarchy in Spain.