The reopening of the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris, a symbol of resilience and shared heritage, became a stage where the fractures in the relations between Pedro Sánchez and the Spanish Royal House became evident. Beyond the cultural, the absence of Spain in this event marked an episode that reveals latent political tensions and questionable diplomatic strategies.
On December 7, more than forty international leaders, including the Kings of Belgium, the Prince of Wales, Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, gathered in Paris for the reopening ceremony of Notre Dame. In this context of high geopolitical relevance, Spain’s empty chair did not go unnoticed. According to diplomatic sources, Felipe VI had been invited directly, but the lack of high-level government support left him in an uncomfortable position. This circumstance raises questions about the usefulness and convenience of that protocol according to which the presence of the head of State at an event would be subject to the decisions of the Executive, in such a way that if a minister decides to go to the circus with his family, the Spanish Monarch will not travel. Nor has it been explained why the King did not delegate, for example, to his wife, his mother or one of his daughters, being a perfectly scheduled act. Other sources indicate that Felipe VI resigned from attending Paris in order to prepare for the state trip to Italy that begins this Tuesdayand because of his busy schedule: the invitation from the Elysée arrived to Zarzuela two weeks in advance, and the Monarch did not consider the event a priority. This Monday, Felipe VI attended the funerals for the Dana victims in the Valencia Cathedral and in the morning he was in Segovia for the events of the 550th anniversary of the proclamation to the throne of Queen Isabella the Catholic.
The Minister of Culture, Ernest Urtasun, alleged “family commitments” to justify his absence, a decision that has been harshly criticized both inside and outside the Government. Without the usual political support, the king decided not to attend, a gesture interpreted by some as a response to the growing distance with the Executive.
Paiporta: the trigger for the disagreement
The tension between Sánchez and Felipe VI is not new, but the episode that occurred in Paiporta, Valencia, seems to have been a turning point. During their visit, witnesses reported an obvious disagreement that crystallized an already distant relationship. Although the exact details of this incident have not completely emerged, it is said that it marked a before and after in the coordination between Zarzuela and Moncloa.
The absence at Notre Dame seems to be perhaps one of the consequences of this deterioration. The Royal House has avoided giving explanations, limiting itself to pointing out that “some invitations are accepted and others are not.” However, the lack of representation in an event of such magnitude has been interpreted as a sign of the political isolation to which Pedro Sánchez subjects the monarch and, at the very least, a lack of consensus between Moncloa and Zarzuela.
Criticism of the Government and its international implications
The opposition was slow to take advantage of the situation. Alberto Núñez Feijóo described the absence as “embarrassing”, accusing the Government of neglecting its responsibility in the international representation of Spain. Isabel Díaz Ayuso, for her part, stated that this gesture shows a rejection of the Christian roots of Europe and a disconnection with the historical values of the continent.
In contrast, other nations stood out for their prominence. Prince William represented the British Crown, while the Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, attended accompanied by important political figures from her country. For analysts, this disparity reinforces the perception of a Spanish foreign policy that is uncoordinated and absent at key moments.
Urtasun’s role and a controversial appointment
The figure of Ernest Urtasun has also remained at the center of the debate. His absence in Paris and the recent appointment of Álvaro Albacete as ambassador to Venezuela have raised criticism and suspicion. Albacete, close to the Minister of Culture, assumes this responsibility at a time of high tension in Caracas, where recent elections have intensified the political crisis.
Although his experience as a diplomat is unquestionable, some consider that this appointment evidences Urtasun’s direct influence on key decisions. His relationship with the minister is interpreted as one more gesture of the internal fractures in Spanish foreign policy, which often seems to be subordinated to the partisan interests that dismantle the coalition.
A reflection of Spanish foreign policy?
The absence at Notre Dame has implications that go beyond the symbolic. In an event that represented European unity and commitment to our common heritage, Spain chose to stay on the sidelines. This not only affects its international perception, but also reinforces the narrative of a country that is losing prominence on the global stage.
As other nations consolidate their role on the international scene, the lack of coordination between Moncloa and Zarzuela seems to project an image of internal disorganization. At a time when diplomatic gestures are essential to face common challenges, this division between the main State institutions is emerging as an obstacle to Spain’s projection abroad.
The reopening of Notre Dame, which was supposed to be a symbol of unity and cooperation, has revealed Spain’s internal political tensions. The distance between Pedro Sánchez and Felipe VIfueled by episodes like that of Paiportaor the absence of Pedro Sánchez this Monday with the Kings at the funerals in Valencia, where he sent the vice president. Everything shows a lack of harmony that not only affects internal politics, but also the image of the country abroad.
In an increasingly interconnected world, the Spanish absence in internationally relevant events like this is not only a missed opportunity, but a worrying sign that internal divisions are impacting Spain’s role as a global actor. The question now is whether these differences can be overcome in the near future, or whether they will continue to set the course for an increasingly erratic foreign policy.
LinkedinBeloud