Symbols of Spain

In accordance with the Spanish Constitution of 1978, the Flag of Spain consists of 3 horizontal stripes, red, yellow, and red, with the central one (the yellow one) being twice the width of each of the outer ones (the red ones). Historically, the central stripe bears the Coat of Arms of Spain.

The Constitution's brief reference to the Flag of Spain is developed by Law 39/1981, of October 28. Regarding the flag's shape and geometry, this Law does not include any specifications; it is Royal Decree 2964/1981, of December 18, which, in addition to providing the official model of the Coat of Arms of Spain, partially develops it by specifying several aspects it leaves undefined. Thus, the norm establishes the «normal proportion» of the flag and associates it with a length-width ratio of 3:2, which indirectly equates to establishing that the standard shape of the flag is rectangular. In certain cases (flag variants regulated for specific cases), it may adopt a different shape (commonly, square).

The aforementioned Law 39/1981 introduces the possibility of incorporating the Coat of Arms of Spain into the yellow stripe, although without specifying how. Furthermore, it prescribes the inclusion of the emblem for certain specific cases covered by the norm, without preventing or prohibiting it in other different cases.

For its part, the aforementioned Royal Decree 2964/1981 specifies in its articles how the coat of arms must be incorporated into the central stripe of the flag: when the flag has a rectangular shape, the axis of the coat of arms will be placed at a distance, with respect to the mast, halyard, or sleeve, equivalent to 1/3 of the length of the flag or, what is the same, 1/2 of its width; in all other cases (square flags or those with other non-rectangular geometries), the coat of arms will be placed centrally.

Regarding the dimensions of the coat of arms on the flag, the Royal Decree in question establishes that its height will be 2/5 (i.e., 40%) of the width of the ensign, although it leaves the corresponding value for the width undefined. However, the official model of the coat of arms is inserted in the first article of the norm, from which an approximate height-to-width ratio of 1.05 can be inferred. This proportion coincides with that deduced from a grid for the graphic construction of the coat of arms included in the Central Government Institutional Image Manual (which will be detailed further in later paragraphs). Therefore, starting from this data and operating appropriately, it can be established that the width of the coat of arms will be approximately 19/50 of the width of the ensign.

Traditionally, the Flag of Spain has incorporated the coat of arms in its central stripe, among other reasons, because it was conceived as a naval flag at its inception (in fact, this stripe was widened in the initial design, precisely, to give prominence to the coat of arms and reinforce its symbolism). Furthermore, over time, the perception of the coat of arms transcended the mere role of state ornament, becoming, as a representative symbol of the union of territories that gave rise to Spain, a substantial part of the common identity and, therefore, of the flag that symbolizes it.

Nevertheless, the flag has also been (and is) used without the emblem, sometimes as a kind of simplified flag, because its production or representation is more economical and simple, or, in past periods, because it had been expressly regulated in some specific area (see what was related above about the merchant marine). This variant of the flag is sometimes called the civil flag, in contrast to the variant with the coat of arms, sometimes called the state or institutional flag. Such concepts (apart from being used informally or colloquially) do not exist legally, since neither the Constitution nor any other legal provision formally contemplates or defines them, unlike what happens in other states; for example, Finland, whose current law on the matter expressly defines the Kansallislippu and the Valtiolippu, or Peru, which explicitly defines by law its national flag, without the coat of arms, distinguishing it from the war flag, with the coat of arms. Therefore, strictly speaking, in the Spanish legal corpus there is only the Flag of Spain, whose definition, as already emphasized, is given both by the Constitution and by the subsequent regulatory development on the matter.

Delving into the origin of this apparent dichotomy regarding the use of the coat of arms on the flag, it is worth noting that, according to certain authors, in the 1978 Constitution there was a «deliberate intention not to refer to other national symbols such as the anthem, the coat of arms or mottos, after a dictatorship characterized by the constant and abusive exaltation of those». Josu de Miguel Bárcena - Símbolos, neutralidad e integración constitucional. That is, according to these postulates, the constituents would have limited themselves to including a basic description of the flag to avoid divisions or compromising the achievement of consensus in the elaboration of the final text of the Magna Carta, avoiding the incorporation into the ensign of a coat of arms, whose latest official version, although it was approved by the government of Adolfo Suárez already in the stage of transition to democracy, still evoked the Franco regime, given the minimal differences with respect to the coat of arms used during that period.

Once the Constitution had entered into force, the normalization or settlement of the democratic regime was neither immediate nor exempt from complications; neither was it in relation to national symbols, since, as certain authors point out, «for several years, the new political system was forced to coexist with a situation of provisionality, in which it was not entirely clear whether the official symbols were exactly the ones inherited from Francoism or not» Javier Moreno Luzón y Xosé M. Núñez Seixas - Los colores de la patria. Símbolos nacionales en la España contemporánea. This ambiguity became especially evident in the use of the coat of arms on the flag: in those early stages, it was not clear whether the constitutional flag lacked it, or if the latest official version, already referred to in the previous paragraph, should be used, especially since its public exhibition could be pointed out as a sign of connection with the Francoist regime or inclination towards the far right.

All this burgeoning bureaucratic and legislative framework, with its slow progress in rolling out the new constitutional symbols, as well as the particularly tense political and social context of the time, led to the use of the flag without the coat of arms becoming widespread to a certain extent, both institutionally and among the civilian population, during the early years of democracy. As previously noted, it was not until late 1981 that a new version of the coat of arms of Spain (the current one) was established as a clear symbol of the break with the dictatorial past, and Article 4 of the Constitution was legally developed, thus completing the definition of the flag by adding the coat of arms with the aforementioned characteristics. From then on, the complete variant of the flag (i.e., bearing the coat of arms in its central stripe) gradually became established until it became, de facto, the usual formal representation of the flag of Spain, recognized both nationally and internationally.

The colors of the stripes on the Spanish flag are technically specified in Royal Decree 441/1981, of February 27. The following table shows the colors defined in the standard for the CIELAB and CIE-1931 systems. The table includes an additional column with the equivalence to sRGB values (not included in the aforementioned Royal Decree), obtained from those corresponding to CIE-1931 under illuminant C:

Regarding the colors of the coat of arms, the following table shows the values extracted from the Royal Decree 2267/1982, of September 3, as well as the equivalence to sRGB values (not included in the said Royal Decree) from those corresponding to CIE-1931 under illuminant C:

On the other hand, in 1999 a norm was approved for the homogenization of the institutional image of the Central Government Administration (or CGA), through Royal Decree 1465/1999, of September 17, which resulted in an Institutional Image Manual with design guidelines for printed material, stationery, folders, brochures, publications, magazines, posters, signage, plaques, cards, banners, etc., etc. This institutional image revolves around the Spanish coat of arms, which is why the manual proceeds to systematize its graphic construction. For the form and representation of this element, the manual is based on the heraldic description of the coat of arms made in Law 33/1981 and, mainly, on the official model included in Royal Decree 2964/1981. However, the manual omits Royal Decree 2267/1982 and proceeds to define, apart from the officials, colors that it names as institutional colors, in the Pantone, four-color process (CMYK) and RGB systems.

Some years later, when the use of the internet had become widespread, a Digital communication guide for the Central Government Administration was published, divided into two fascicles, as a framework of recommendations and good practices for the design of websites, portals, and electronic headquarters belonging to said administration. The second of these fascicles addresses the graphic issues aimed at providing or transmitting the officiality of the designed web spaces, which is why we find references to the use of the Spanish coat of arms, whose colors are specified to coincide with those of the CGA manual, as well as the Spanish flag and the European Union flag. In the case of the Spanish flag (specifically, its stripes), the guide disregards the official colors specified in Royal Decree 441/1981 and defines its own colors, in the RGB and four-color process (CMYK) systems.

For the flag stripes, the guide defines their colors as follows:

Regarding the coat of arms, both the manual and the guide define its colors as follows:

Next, a comparison of the official colors with those of the CGA manual and guide is shown:

In addition to the digital representation, in the material world there are also noticeable divergences in the coloring of the flag; particularly in the central stripe, whose color, in a significant percentage of cases, differs notably from the official one, with a whole palette of possible yellows being observed. The same occurs with the lion on the coat of arms, whose hue (red, dark violet, pink) does not seem to hit the mark with the standard.

Generally, following the prevailing practice, the flag is made of 100% run-resistant, satin polyester with a weight of at least 110 g/m², featuring a double hem and double perimeter stitching, as well as a sleeve or reinforcement tape 5 cm wide on the side of the mast, with two metal eyelets or rings for fastening. Its coat of arms is added via stamping with 100% penetration (total color transfer and visibility on both sides) using heat-set dyes of maximum fastness.

On certain occasions, especially indoors or at events that require greater ceremoniousness, the flag is made of satin fabric (silk or nylon), or silk taffeta, in both cases double-sided, with a weight that can range between 160 and 350 g/m²; and an embroidered coat of arms using silk threads, as well as gold and silver, with a three-dimensional or relief effect.

○ Reverse of the flag

Although the current legislation does not explicitly define the reverse of the flag, it does mention, through the previously cited Royal Decree 2964/1981, that the coat of arms «shall appear on both sides», which, indirectly, confirms that a reverse of the flag exists as such. However, it leaves undefined how the coat of arms must appear, that is, whether it should be represented in a natural way (without a mirror effect) or whether it should appear inverted. In the latter case, the representation of the flag's reverse would be the result of rotating it 180° with respect to a vertical axis of rotation, obtaining a mirror image of the obverse. Nevertheless, heraldic orthodoxy suggests that a coat of arms must always be presented in its correct form, thus respecting the intrinsic nature of the emblem, regardless of the side or viewpoint from which it is observed. This, combined with a literal interpretation of the aforementioned rule (which states «the coat of arms of Spain (...) shall appear on both sides», without introducing any other nuance), leads to the conclusion that the representation of the flag's reverse must maintain the coat of arms without inverting it.

○ Vertical flag

It must first be established that, in the field of vexillology, the part, color, or emblem with the greatest symbolism is usually considered the point or area of honor of a flag. This point or area must always remain, regardless of the display arrangement adopted by the flag, in the upper part (or upper left, as the case may be) from the observer's perspective. For example, on the United States flag, the point of honor is the canton, so, according to its sectoral regulations, when the flag is displayed vertically (statically), the said canton must remain in the upper left part, meaning it would not be a matter of simply rotating the flag 90º from a horizontal position, but it must also be flipped so that the canton is in the required position. With respect to Spain, the legislation does not expressly define the configuration to be adopted for a vertical format of the flag nor what its point or area of honor is, although it can be tacitly assumed, by analogy with the general vexillological criteria mentioned above, that it is the coat of arms. Therefore, the vertical display of the Spanish flag can adopt two solutions: one would be the result of a simple rotation of 90º clockwise, whereby the coat of arms would remain in the upper part; another, more correct and orthodox, would consist of repeating the same rotation operation described, with the exception of the coat of arms, which would maintain its correct orientation from the observer's point of view (i.e., the coat of arms does not rotate), thus respecting its intrinsic nature, as mentioned in the previous section. This latter solution has the disadvantage of requiring flags with this format to be expressly manufactured or supplied, whereas the former can be adopted with a standard flag.

According to the Album des pavillons nationaux et marques distinctives, for the case of the Spanish flag, the use corresponds to

When handling or using the Spanish flag, a series of rules conventionally accepted in the vexillological and protocol field are applied, also known as flag etiquette or good practices; namely:

• The raising and lowering of the flag must be done in time with the national anthem, if it is being played, or, in any case, in a ceremonial manner.
• The flag should be raised at sunrise and lowered at sunset, unless the location is adequately illuminated during the night.
• The flag must always fly at the top of the flagpole, with the halyard or rope firmly secured so that it can fly freely and without restriction.
• The flag must be well secured, preventing it from falling or collapsing.
• When the flag is located outdoors, it should be taken down in case of strong winds exceeding 60 km/h or, if installed on a flagpole, be lowered and secured to it.
• The flag must never touch the ground.
• If the flag is visibly deteriorated, it must be replaced with a new one.

In accordance with the provisions of Law 39/1981, when flying with other flags, the Spanish flag must always occupy a prominent, visible, and place of maximum honor, and the others cannot be larger than the rojigualda. If the number of flags is odd, the Spanish flag must be placed in the central position; if the number is even, of the two central positions, the Spanish flag will be located to the observer's left.

When flags of companies, private entities, etc. exist (for example, in a hotel), they must be kept separate from institutional flags (that is, they should not be part of that group of flags).

When international flags are present, they must all be the same size and will generally be placed in alphabetical order according to the language of the host country, entity, or organization, with the flag of the host country, entity, or organization potentially occupying a prevalent position. On occasion (as occurs, for example, in the European Union), flags are arranged in alphabetical order using the name of the country in its own official language.

In bilateral meetings, the host's flag is placed on the right of the podium or meeting place (to the audience's left) and the guest's flag is placed on the left (to the audience's right). This rule applies to both standing flagpoles and tabletop flags.

Flags in official, institutional, or similar events must be in perfect condition (clean, without wrinkles or tears). Those that bear an emblem or coat of arms (like Spain's), as this is considered the point or area of honor, must be presented in a way that shows it clearly and prominently. Concealment or incorrect orientation of the coat of arms is considered a lack of respect and/or a serious protocol error.

Regarding the folding of the flag, although there are different procedures depending on the specific case (lowering, funeral honors, etc.), it is usually carried out in such a way that the flag remains presented with the coat of arms visible.

With the establishment of the Bourbon dynasty in Spain through Philip V, the royal symbol became composed of the royal arms on white cloth. White was the dynastic color of the Bourbons, which is why, in the various territories ruled by this family (France, Parma, Sicily and Naples, in addition to Spain), a cloth of that color was used. This fact made it difficult to distinguish the respective national flags of ships, which is why, at some point (probably after some fatal mistake), a change in the flag of Spain's warships began to be considered. This is suggested by the fact that, during the reign of Ferdinand VI, in article I of Title III of the Third Treaty, of the Ordinances of His Majesty for the military, political and economic government of his Naval Armada, from 1748, it was established that «For now, all ships of the Armada shall use the ordinary national white flag with the coat of my arms, until I see fit to dispose otherwise. And, in the meantime, they shall not fly another except on occasions when it is permitted according to maritime custom.»

Already during the reign of Charles III, the monarch commissioned Antonio Valdés y Fernández Bazán, then Secretary of State and Universal Office of the Navy, to design a new flag for the Armada, one that was easily identifiable—that is, one that would not be confused with the sails, would be distinguishable from the colors of the sky and the sea, would be noticeable in unfavorable weather, and would not be confused with those of other nations.

Valdés's cabinet prepared a project with twelve different proposals. In the plate on which they were captured, the flags were grouped into three rows of four flags each, presenting different combinations of colors and coat of arms formats. In the first row, the proposals featured horizontal stripes (a common format at the time for naval flags) and used red and yellow as colors, with a quartered coat of arms. In the second row, the flags were identical to those in the first, but substituting red for white and yellow for red, and introducing a coat of arms reduced solely to a castle in a couple of models. In the third, cruciform versions of the flags predominated, blue was introduced in some, and one in particular presented a parted coat of arms.

From among the proposals drafted, the monarch selected the first one—that is, the one that featured three horizontal stripes of color, respectively, red, yellow, and red—although he ordered a modification to the central stripe, which was made double the width of the upper and lower stripes, so that the coat of arms could be larger. For this same purpose, the coat of arms, initially quartered, was replaced by the parted one from the twelfth proposal, which featured only the quarters of Castile and León, in a circle or oval. Furthermore, the coat of arms was positioned shifted toward the mast or halyard (not centered horizontally in the central stripe) to facilitate its identification and visibility when the flag was not fully unfurled.

Finally, by means of the Royal Decree of May 28, 1785, Charles III stipulated a new war flag: «To avoid the inconveniences and losses that experience has shown can be caused by the national Flag used by my naval Armada, and other Spanish Vessels, by being mistaken at long distances, or with calm winds, for those of other Nations; I have resolved that henceforth my War Ships shall use a Flag divided lengthwise into three stripes, of which the high and the low ones shall be red, and the width of each one shall be a quarter part of the total, and the middle one yellow, placing thereon the Coat of my Royal Arms reduced to the two quarters of Castile and León with the Royal Crown on top; and the Pennant with the same three stripes, and the Coat of Arms along its length, on a yellow square in the upper part: And the other Vessels shall use, without the Coat of Arms, the same colors, the middle stripe being yellow, and the width of the third part of the Flag, and each of the remaining parts divided into two equal alternating stripes of red and yellow, all in accordance with the attached design. No other ensigns may be used in the Northern Seas with respect to Europe up to the parallel of Tenerife in the Ocean, and in the Mediterranean from the first of the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-six: in North America from the beginning of the following July; and in the other Seas from the first of the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven. You will understand this for its compliance. Signed by the hand of H.M. in Aranjuez on the twenty-eighth of May of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-five. To D. Antonio Valdés.»

From reading the Ordinances of Ferdinand VI, of 1748, and the Royal Decree of Charles III, of 1785, it is clear that, even back then (and it is deduced that previously), there existed a concept of the national identity, insofar as the flags used by the Navy are referred to by that name («national flag»), although it should be noted that the national concept must be understood, in terms of its political-legal connotations, from the perspective of the era in question, without being mimetically comparable to the one that may exist today. In any case, it is clear that the rojigualda flag, in addition to a functional origin (avoiding confusion and mistakes at sea), a naval origin (it is used by the Navy) and a military origin (it is the war flag), was created, if not with the strict consideration, then with the imprimatur of a national flag, by virtue of the already established concept of extraterritoriality enjoyed by Navy ships.

Aside from the adoption of the new flag due to the need to avoid inconveniences and losses at sea, as argued by the Royal Decree, certain authors maintain that this action would also aim to achieve a second objective not expressly stated in the rule, which would be to create distance with respect to other Bourbon kingdoms, by discarding the dynastic white color from the national flag; particularly, with France, with which disagreements and clashes had been occurring, often harming Spain's interests: «Spain was interested in distancing itself from that abusive and compromising relationship from which it gained little benefit. One of the means to achieve this goal was to differentiate, beyond any doubt, the warships and commercial vessels of both kingdoms; a distancing that had to be carried out with prudence and caution. A subterfuge was enough to camouflage the real reason for the flag change so that, from its entry into force, the new naval, war, and merchant flag would show a patent difference from those of neighboring France in a politically correct way.» José Luis Ruiz de la Hermosa, Jesús Dolado Esteban, Eduardo Robles Esteban - La bandera que nació en la mar

In relation to the design of the flag, there are authors who consider that its configuration, based on red and yellow stripes with the coat of arms, obeys a fusion of the symbology of the kingdoms that originally formed Spain, thus resulting in a common national symbol: «Thus the naval ensign is born as a symbol of the original union in a combination of colors and coat of arms in which the former are Aragonese, the latter Castilian, and the whole is Spanish.» Hugo O'Donell - Excerpt from ABC of the work Símbolos de España. In fact, other precedents already materialized «the idea of gathering in a single flag the symbols—charges or colors—of the kingdoms that formed the superior national entity» Hugo O'Donell - Orígenes y trayectoria naval de la bandera de España, as happened in 1707 with the Union Flag (or Union Jack) of Great Britain following the union of the crowns of Scotland and England. Other authors, however, consider that in the conception of the new naval flag there would not be such an intention, but that it would be due to the influence of the most abundant colors (gules and gold) in the heraldry of the historical Spanish kingdoms.

Somewhat later, in 1793, through the General Ordinances of the Naval Armada, Charles IV ordered that, in addition to ships, the national flag should also fly in maritime posts, on their castles or any others along the coasts, as well as in naval arsenals, shipyards, and barracks. This fact began to promote and generalize the association of the flag with the territory, surpassing its original conception as a war flag, that is, «on the coasts and on the land borders, the same red-yellow-red flag was raised which now said in a general way and adequately interpreted by all, Spaniards and foreigners: “the territory of Spain begins here”». Antonio Manzano Lahoz - El triple camino de la bandera nacional

After the Napoleonic invasion and the subsequent Peninsular War, a patriotic or national identity sentiment arose in the population that used the rojigualda flag as a symbol of resistance and of differentiation against the invader. Later, when the Cortes of Cádiz promulgated the Constitution of 1812, by which sovereignty came to reside in the nation, the rojigualda flag, as the already predominant representative symbol, was, de facto, the flag of that new liberal nation.

Already in 1843, through the Decree of October 13 published in the Gazeta de Madrid, the Ministry of War of the Provisional Government of Joaquín María López ordered the unification of all flags and standards of the armed forces, given the differences between the war flag (that is, the one used by the Navy) and those specific to the Army corps. This decree, known as the unification decree, and the date of its publication, have been erroneously taken or cited in countless occasions and media as the moment when the rojigualda was officially declared the national flag of Spain, when, from a simple reading of the decree, it is clear that no such assertion exists, without thereby diminishing the noteworthy fact that the flag (with certain exceptions) officially became the same throughout the entire military establishment.

With the arrival of the First Republic, the flag continued to be the same, with the exception of the elimination of the royal crown on the coat of arms.

Following the Bourbon restoration, in January 1908, a Royal Decree ordered that on national holidays, the Spanish flag should fly on all public buildings, both civil and military, as well as in Provincial Councils, Town Halls, and official Corporations. A few years later, during the Dictatorship of Primo de Rivera, the aforementioned Royal Decree of July 19, 1927, stipulated that the merchant marine should use the same ensign as the war ensign but without the coat of arms, suppressing the old five-stripe ensign.

With the establishment of the Second Republic, the tricolor flag was established as the national symbol, whose stripes were made of equal width, the lower one being dark purple. As for the Spanish coat of arms, it adopted the form that appeared on the reverse of the five-peseta coins minted by the provisional government in 1869 and 1870, and it came to occupy the central position on the yellow stripe.

Following the outbreak of the Civil War, the rebel faction adopted the rojigualda flag, though it omitted references to the coat of arms, so it would be understood that the one used during the Second Republic remained in effect. Less than two years later, the coat of arms was modified, adopting much of the symbolism (quartered, Eagle of St. John) from that of the Catholic Monarchs. Subsequently, in 1945, the coat of arms was slightly redesigned.

Already during the pre-democratic period, in 1977, Adolfo Suárez maintained the flag, although he carried out a very minor redesign of the 1945 coat of arms. Certain authors describe this change as a botch job, typical of Suárez's strategy during the transition, who «made reforms without modifying the essentials so as not to irritate the Army; he changed symbols without changing them, an exercise in political tightrope walking to stitch together the transition to democracy (...) His fear of the regime's nostalgics, from which he himself originated, meant he did not dare to completely replace the coat of arms» Luis Miguel Sánchez Tostado - El desconocido escudo de la transición y “el gatopardo”].

In a country where the national sentiment is viewed with little enthusiasm, if not disdain, the flag is, among those considered national symbols, the one that probably has the greatest historical footprint among the population. Even so, like almost any subject susceptible to generating passions and dislikes, it is not exempt from criticism and polarized opinions.

The exacerbation and overexposure of national symbols during dictatorial periods (Primo de Rivera's regime, Francoism) had an effect contrary to the intended one, generating disaffection among a large part of the population. This was especially notable in territories with a marked alternative identity sentiment, which, over time, would translate into the strengthening of their own symbols and institutions as a means of channeling an autochthonous nationalism to counteract the centralist oppressor, thus legitimizing their refractory or disruptive role.

It is precisely in these territories where the greatest rejection of the flag is shown, as attested by the war of the flags (more pronounced years ago; somewhat less today): a set of incidents ranging from flag burning to the non-compliance with the Law 39/1981, mentioned several times in this article, which mandates the presence of the Spanish flag in public buildings. Similarly, in non-strictly institutional settings (civil society, media), the use of the flag is minimal, if not nonexistent.

From a framework not necessarily linked to nationalist circles, there is a segment of the population that, as a consequence of the historical episodes noted above, brands the flag as Francoist. It is not uncommon for a certain percentage of people with this perception to even believe that the flag was created by Franco. Similarly, those who perceive themselves ideologically as republicans or, simply, anti-monarchists, repudiate the flag for considering it monarchist; for them, the tricolor flag of the Second Republic represents a break with a form of government or state they disapprove of.

Likewise, it is worth noting the so-called appropriation of the flag by the political spectrum generally encompassing the right and the far-right—that is, the partisan use and abuse of the ensign in an attempt to capitalize on it, which evokes reminiscences, precisely, of the aforementioned dictatorial periods.

Ultimately, in no few occasions, the flag is observed through different ideological or subjective prisms that burden it with a certain particular connotation, making it perceived as alien or hostile.

The characteristic 1:2:1 proportion of the stripes on the Spanish flag is known in vexillology as Spanish fess, for being the most recognized among those that feature this configuration, just as occurs for flags with vertical stripes with the flag of Canada, whose pattern is known as Canadian pale. These terms are sometimes applied even if the canonical proportion is not strictly met. Examples of flags with the Spanish fess are those of Cambodia or Lebanon.

In the scope of Armed Forces personnel, the oath or promise before the Spanish flag is conceived as a prerequisite for acquiring the status of a professional soldier, in accordance with the provisions established in Law 17/1999, of May 18. It is a public and solemn act in which military personnel express the acceptance of a formula, stated by the authority presiding over the act, which includes a series of patriotic and constitutional commitments; subsequently, they individually kiss the flag and collectively parade under it and, occasionally, the saber of the referred authority. Finally, the soldier's decalogue is recited, as a set of principles or values that guide the conduct of a military in service, or the characteristic hymn of the corps or unit.

For its part, the civilian population, in accordance with the provisions indicated in Order DEF/1445/2004, of May 16 and subsequent modifications thereof, can likewise adhere to this commitment to the aforementioned values, upon prior request to the corresponding Delegation, Sub-delegation or Defense Attaché's Office. The required prerequisites are Spanish nationality and legal age.

According to the repealed Order DEF/1756/2016, of October 28, the nationality patch displayed on the left sleeve of the Armed Forces' uniforms, where applicable, was defined as a textile rectangle of 56×26 millimeters, with the colors of the national flag. Since the entry into force of Order DEF/114/2025, of January 28, which approves the Armed Forces Uniformity Regulations, the patch now consists of a rectangle of 67×37 millimeters, with the colors of the national flag and an incorporated coat of arms.

The use of the flag, or other national symbols, that requires prior authorization (such as, for example, when it is intended to form part of trademarks or insignia), is the responsibility of the Ministry of the Presidency.

Aside from the term rojigualda, whose origin was discussed in previous sections, there are other nicknames for the flag, generally somewhat derogatory in nature. In Catalonia, it is sometimes called estanquera (tobacconist) because, years ago, the signs or posters of these establishments were usually adorned with red, yellow, and red stripes. On the other hand, in the Basque Country, it is known as piperpoto, which translates roughly to pepper jar/can, since, decades ago, a certain brand of canned peppers (also tomatoes, etc.) used the red-and-yellow colors on their packaging.

Similarly to what happens in other countries in the construction sector (with denominations like Richtfest in Germany, etc.), upon the completion of the structure of a building or a work in general, it is customary to carry out the placement of the flag, that is, to place a Spanish flag on the highest part of the work (sometimes accompanied by the regional one, or sometimes just the latter), as a symbolic milestone indicating the culmination of an important part of the project's execution. It is usually celebrated with some kind of feast in which the workers participate. Also called coronation, this ritual may consist of placing other elements, such as branches, trees, ribbons, etc., instead of the flag.

The Coat of Arms of Spain is a heraldic coat of arms, or blazon, that represents Spain as a nation and its sovereignty. Likewise, the coat of arms, through its representation on various media, makes visible the legislative, administrative, or jurisdictional activity of the State, granting it official status and distinctiveness. In descriptive terms, as a heraldic emblem, the coat of arms is quartered (it presents four main parts or divisions) and enté en pointe (a curved triangle in the lower part). The constituent elements symbolize the historical kingdoms that originally formed Spain.

For more details on the official shape, dimensions, and colors of the coat of arms, please see the information provided in the chapter corresponding to the flag.

See the information provided in the chapter corresponding to the flag.

The official model of the Coat of Arms of Spain has been subject to criticism for lacking the orthodoxy proper to the science of blazonry. This model was one of four designs that the Government submitted to the Royal Academy of History (RAH) in November 1981 for them to give their opinion and choose the one they deemed appropriate. Of the four proposed models, two had been elaborated by the Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre (National Mint and Stamp Factory) and the other two by private individuals. The RAH described all four as being of «a not very graceful execution» Faustino Menéndez-Pidal de Navascués - Inaugural speech: Behind the Coat of Arms of Spain and selected what must be understood as the least bad, which was the one the Government established as the official model, published in Royal Decree 2964/1981, mentioned several times previously. Critics of this official model point out its lack of heraldic rigor: «It is worth highlighting here the pertinent criticisms by Menéndez Pidal of the current misguided design of the coat of arms, criticisms that have been shared by the majority of specialists (...) This official model leaves much to be desired in terms of its design (...)» Jaime de Salazar y Acha - Boletín nº 6 del Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales.

Regarding the controversy over the color of the lion, several circumstances concur on this particular matter. To begin with, there is a certain heterogeneity among specialists regarding the feline's original shade, with some defending the color red and others doing the same for purple. Among the former, one might cite the Royal Academy of History (RAH), or, in any case, the stance it adopted in 1868, since in the report of that same year to the Provisional Government, in which it pronounced on the definition of the arms of Spain requested by the Executive (this will be elaborated on below), it mentioned a «lion Gules» (i.e., red). Similarly, one might cite the description made in other works on the subject at the beginning of the 20th century, which stated that «the lion was Gules, since polychromy appeared in the blazons, on a field of Argent or Or» Narciso Sentenach - El escudo de España. However, the opinion that seems to enjoy the greatest consensus is the one that maintains that, from the beginning, the «lion was 'cárdeno' [purpure] [which] is evidenced by the descriptions made of it in the armorials of the 13th century, starting with Matthew Paris, around 1244: “Campus hujus quarteri rubeus castrum de auro (...) Campus iste albus leo de purpura” (The field of this quarter is red, the castle is gold (...) This field is white, the lion is purple)» Juan José Sánchez Badiola - El león de España.

This disparity of criteria was reflected in the actual processing of the law that regulated the coat of arms. This process began at the end of 1979 through a proposal by the Socialist Parliamentary Group which included a description of the blazon that literally mentioned a «crowned red rampant lion on a white background». In the description included in the proposal, as observed, the choice was made to completely dispense with heraldic terms and describe the coat of arms with plain words. After various amendments and the corresponding debate, a description of the coat of arms in heraldic terms, but with certain clarifying additions in common language to facilitate understanding (Gules or red, Azure or blue, etc.), was eventually included. This description reproduced that of a 1981 opinion that had been specifically requested from the RAH by the Presidency of the Congress for that purpose. It is in this opinion that the lion came to be described as Purpure («a rampant lion, Purpure, langued, armed, and clawed Gules or red, and crowned Or»); that is, the RAH, likely recovering the criterion based on the oldest historical sources, introduced the color purple into the text that would eventually become law. At various points throughout its processing, politicians debated and modified other adjacent issues, but they adhered to the received description of the coat of arms. In fact, it was reiterated that the objective of the proposal was to faithfully reproduce the «Historical Coat of Arms of Spain», considering the 1868 one as such, which makes the RAH's change of stance in 1981 more noticeable.

On the other hand, when the time came to create an official model of the coat of arms that reflected the legal description, the technical definition and specification of its colors was necessary. The Government entrusted this task to the Daza de Valdés Optics Institute of the CSIC, which «given the indication received to move as far as possible from 'morado' (a shade of purple), assigned a certainly unfortunate tone to 'púrpura' (...)» Faustino Menéndez-Pidal de Navascués - Discurso inaugural: Detrás del escudo de España; that is to say, according to this thesis, the Executive gave a political directive to avoid the presence of 'morado' due to its republican connotations. Years later, in the CGA manual and guide referred to on multiple occasions previously, the misguided nature of the lion's color intensified, since the purple turned into the well-known pinkish color. Ultimately, the color of the lion was the result of the concatenation of the disparity of historical-documentary criteria, political decisions, and technical inaccuracy.

Next, the difference between the colors in the representation of the coat of arms according to regulatory standards, on the one hand, and according to the CGA manual and guide, on the other, is shown:

Finally, it is not uncommon to hear the criticism that the coat of arms, in its constituent elements, does not represent all the territories of Spain. In this regard, the speaker's tribune of the Congress, during the deliberation of the law for the regulation of this symbol, provided a response: «The coat of arms is a symbol, the coat of arms is a message, the coat of arms is a representation of Spain, and it is in no way a catalog or an index. Let not every region, every province, every nationality, every community seek to be partially represented on the coat of arms of Spain. The coat of arms of Spain is not the definition of a part of Spain, but the expression of a Spanish whole. As such, it must also have permanence over time.» Luis Solana Madariaga - Intervención inicial en la defensa de la proposición de ley del escudo de España

The first precedent of the current Coat of Arms of Spain is considered to be that of the Catholic Monarchs, since, besides displaying personal mottos, it had a territorial character by representing the kingdoms integrated through the dynastic union. It was stipulated that the arms of Castile and León would precede those of Aragon and Sicily, using the same formula for the representation as the Castilian quartering in cross. This coat of arms laid the foundations for all those subsequently used by monarchs or other regimes in Spain.

The successive kings, both of the House of Austria and the House of Bourbon, added or removed elements from the coat of arms, making it more an emblem proper to the lineage or reigning dynasty at the time than to the nation. This changed, paradoxically, with the coat of arms that Joseph I Bonaparte (known as Pepe Botella or the intruder king) imposed, since it integrated the arms of the historical kingdoms, with the addition of the New World, attempting to create a more territorial and rationalized emblem.

In 1868, after the overthrow of Queen Isabella II, the Provisional Government of Francisco Serrano y Domínguez commissioned the Royal Academy of History (RAH), as noted above, a report on what the figure representing Spain should be and what its coat of arms should be. In its response, the RAH chose Hispania for the first question. For the second, on one hand, it subtly suggested that, if it were their own initiative, they would not choose a coat of arms to symbolize Spain, but they complied with the Government's request since it expressly requested it; on the other hand, it concluded by considering that the most appropriate coat of arms to represent Spain should be based on the arms of the old kingdoms, adding the Pillars of Hercules, removing the Bourbon escutcheon, and changing the royal crown to a mural crown.

During the brief reign of Amadeo I of Savoy, the same coat of arms as the Provisional Government was maintained, but the royal crown was re-established and his family's escutcheon was added.

With the First Republic, the Government again requested a report from the RAH on, among other issues, the coat of arms. The academy in its response concluded that the coat of arms for the federal Republic «does not have to change at all from the one proposed by the Academy of History to the Government of 1868». In the case of the Second Republic, the 1868 design was also maintained.

During the dictatorship, the coat of arms of the Catholic Monarchs was taken as a basis, replacing the arms of Aragonese Sicily with those of Navarre and adding the Pillars of Hercules and the motto «una, grande y libre» (one, great, and free). During the democratic transition, this design underwent a very slight remodeling, as explained in the chapter corresponding to the flag.

Finally, in 1981, already in the current constitutional era, the current design of the Coat of Arms of Spain came into force.

The National Anthem of Spain, also known as the Grenadier March, Royal March, Spanish Royal March, or Old Spanish March, is an instrumental composition of military origin and martial character. It is one of the few anthems in the world that lacks lyrics. In its current official version, it consists of a sixteen-bar phrase, divided into two sections, each of which has four repeated bars; the metronome marking is a quarter note equal to seventy-six, in the key of B-flat major. Two versions have been regulated: the one known as the complete version, with the normal AABB structure, lasting fifty-two seconds, and the short version, with the AB structure, lasting twenty-seven seconds.

Currently, as set forth in Royal Decree 1560/1997, of October 10, the anthem must be performed, when appropriate, at ceremonies honoring the Flag of Spain, at official events attended by State authorities, and at regulated events in the military sphere. The articles of the Royal Decree list a series of specific situations in which either the complete or the short version of the anthem must be performed. Apart from the above, the anthem can be performed in any other non-institutional sphere or context, as the regulation is neither restrictive nor does it confine its use to a State sphere.

During the performance of the anthem, the regulation establishes that the attitude of respect of attendees shall be expressed, for uniformed personnel of the Armed Forces and Security Forces, by rendering the prescribed salute. The wording of this provision explicitly introduced the need to show an attitude of respect for those who are part of the police, military, etc., while tacitly extending such observance to those attending the event in general.

At the beginning of an event where the official anthems of autonomous communities or local corporations are scheduled to be performed, the Spanish National Anthem must precede them. At the conclusion of the event, the order will be reversed; that is, the national anthem will be played last.

Regarding official events on Spanish territory where foreign national anthems must be performed by protocol (visits by heads of state, warships, etc.), in welcoming ceremonies, the foreign anthems will be played first, followed by the Spanish one; in farewell ceremonies, they will be performed in the reverse order. On foreign soil, the host's regulations or protocol will apply, although the standard practice is to use the same criterion as that described for national territory (first, the guest's anthem, followed by the host's).

Currently, the theories that, to a greater or lesser extent, had spread or become popular as the origin of the current Spanish national anthem are considered totally discredited:

— Gift from Frederick II of Prussia to Charles III, through the ambassador Count of Aranda, in 1762. During the reign of Charles III, the Count of Aranda was not ambassador to Prussia. Furthermore, the Book of the Ordinance of the tunes for fifes and drums newly played in the Spanish Infantry, dated 1761 and whose author is listed as Manuel de Espinosa de los Monteros, contains the score of the Grenadier March; prior, therefore, to the return of the Count of Aranda to Spain.

— Andalusi Nuba al-Istihlál. The nuba in question was «composed in the 18th century by a musician from Fez, whose name we know: Hajj Allal al-Batlá.» Christian Poché - La música árabigo-andaluza. Given the oral transmission of Andalusi music, there seems to be no basis whatsoever for Manuel de Espinosa de los Monteros to have been inspired by a nuba to compose the Grenadier March in 1761. Furthermore, it is striking that the excerpt from the nuba in question to which the resemblance to the anthem is attributed, indeed has it, but with respect to the anthem's arrangements typical of the early 20th century, not those of the original march from 1761. It must be considered that, of this and other nubas, more modern interpretations have been made, for example, by the Andalusi music master Haj Abdelkrim al-Rais, so everything suggests that, in some of these interpretations, fragments of Western compositions (such as the anthem) adapted to the style of Andalusi music have been added ex professo. At one point, someone, upon hearing that interpretation for the first time without knowing the context, assumed it was the origin of the anthem, instead of an obvious subsequent reinterpretation, spreading the idea through social media, media outlets, etc.

— Cantiga No. 42 of Alfonso X the Wise. There is no historical documentary evidence for this assertion, made by the well-known Father Otaño, and although there may be a brief melodic turn with some similarity between the cantiga and the anthem, the instrumentation, cadence, and form of the Grenadier March do not correspond to the musical practices of the cantiga's era.

Today, the theory considered most solid as the origin of the anthem is that Manuel de Espinosa de los Monteros harmonized the Grenadier March in 1761, adapting for fife and drum the melody of the beginning of the Glosa de la Pavana Real, composed in 1547 by Enríquez Valderrábano, which «coincides note for note, chord for chord, or point against point with the theme of the Grenadier March» Juan María Silvela Miláns del Bosch, citing José Guillermo García Valdecasas - Revista de Historia Militar. El origen de los símbolos de España, and adding as a melodic close the ending used in the March of the Janissaries, during the reign of Louis XV, which was also incorporated, years later, by Puccini in the 2nd act of his opera La Bohème.

In Volume Two of H.M.'s Ordinances for the regime, discipline, subordination, and service of His Armies, of 1768, specifically, in its Treatise IV, Title I, dedicated to the tunes that fifes and drums must observe, it is established that «if the Grenadiers march alone, they will then use the Grenadier March.» That is to say, the tunes embodied in the 1761 book, mentioned above, were thus officialized with these ordinances.

Since the grenadiers used their march when escorting those who left the battalion formation to retrieve the flags and upon returning to it after having replaced them, and, likewise, when accompanying the king, rendering him honors, or performing the palace's external guard duty, the Grenadier March began to be associated with the flag and with honors. Although it does not appear to be documented, Charles III would declare it the March of Honor in 1770, thus formalizing its ceremonial nature.

According to some sources, in 1815 it would be decreed that the March, designated as Spanish, be performed as the sole tune of honor in any circumstance and regardless of the military unit rendering honors.

Following the success of General Riego's pronouncement in Las Cabezas de San Juan, during the Liberal Triennium the well-known Riego's Anthem was designated as the official national march, by means of the Royal Decree of April 7, 1822. With the restoration of absolutism after the invasion of the Hundred Thousand Sons of Saint Louis in 1823, however, Riego's Anthem was prohibited and disappeared (at least, officially) from public life.

From approximately 1840, the Grenadier March had a greater public and social presence, and the expression Marcha Real (Royal March) began to be used to refer to it, particularly, starting with the enthronement of Isabella II in 1843. By Royal Order of November 5, 1853, it was established that the tune of honors for all army corps should be the Old Spanish March (in allusion to the Grenadier March). According to certain authors, the variations in the march's interpretation, with respect to its initial structure, would have been «executed for the first time, upon the marriage of Doña Isabella II, on October 10, 1846.» Luis Bonafós - Marcha Real y Marcha de Infantes

During the Hispano-Moroccan War, due to the lack of a proper anthem (i.e., a patriotic composition with lyrics) to sing the troops' victories with, «the Madrid Conservatory called a public competition which was won by the musician José Gabaldá with the “national anthem” El grito de la patria (The Cry of the Homeland).» María Nagore Ferrer - Historia de un fracaso: El “himno nacional” en la España del siglo XIX

Later, in 1869, after the overthrow of Isabella II, General Prim commissioned a new march from José Squadrani (also transcribed in some texts as Escuadranit), which, after its premiere on the opening day of the Constituent Cortes, received terrible reviews. In fact, in September 1870, the Ministry of War called a contest for the composition of a National March to replace the royal one, since Squadrani's had not succeeded. Finally, the jury, after receiving nearly five hundred compositions, did not consider any suitable, and the Government decided to declare the contest void and maintain the Royal March.

Already in 1871, during the reign of Amadeo I of Savoy, he decided to declare the Royal March as the Spanish National March by means of the Royal Order of January 8.

Although used profusely during the First Republic, Riego's Anthem never attained official designation as the national anthem, coexisting with the Royal March. The latter again displaced Riego's Anthem with the Bourbon restoration in 1874 and the proclamation of Alfonso XII as king.

Conflicts arising from the last overseas possessions once again highlighted the lack of an anthem with which to ignite patriotic fervor. The march from the zarzuela Cádiz, whose authors were Federico Chueca and Joaquín Valverde, enjoyed great popularity during the era and played a substitute role for a few years, although it fell out of favor after the defeat in the Spanish-American War, and even received accusations of fostering unnecessary and excessive patriotic exaltation.

In 1908, Bartolomé Pérez Casas, director of Alfonso XIII's halberdiers band, created a harmonization and adaptation for military bands of the Royal March's bars, which became mandatory in the military sphere through the Royal Circular Order of August 27 of that year. This version was also taken as a reference outside the military sphere, although an official score was neither published nor disseminated among the civilian population, which led to the proliferation and popularization of different unofficial arrangements and versions.

With the arrival of the Second Republic, Riego's Anthem once again replaced the Royal March, though, again, without the official status of a national anthem.

Years later, in 1937, during the Civil War, the Francoist side declared the Grenadier March to be the National Anthem, which was subsequently ratified in 1942.

In 1997, the Government, with a view to completing the regulation of the designated national symbols, proceeded, firstly, to acquire the copyright to the march from Pérez Casas' heirs, as he had registered it in his name; secondly, it commissioned a new version of the march's chords, whose arrangements were carried out by Francisco Grau Vegara (who later ceded the exploitation rights for the revision and orchestration of the anthem), who, while respecting Pérez Casas' harmonization, recovered the composition and tones from its period of origin.

One of the main criticisms the anthem has received, almost inherent to its historical journey, has been the absence of lyrics as a kind of catalyst for a certain patriotic effervescence. This explains why the anthem (or, rather, its purpose) has been substituted in some way and at certain times by popular songs. Likewise, the march is criticized for its weak rootedness as a national anthem proper. In fact, for years, the Grenadier March «functioned de facto as a national march, but did not have the social support or symbolic weight sufficient to constitute a “national anthem.”» María Nagore Ferrer - Historia de un fracaso: El “himno nacional” en la España del siglo XIX. The country's own historical-political vicissitudes caused its alternation with other compositions, in successive attempts to establish an anthem, which, often, were driven more by the prevailing ideologies of the moment than by the construction of a national symbol rooted in society.

Furthermore, as indicated in the chapter corresponding to the flag, the anthem generates reluctance or rejection in those who see in it links to ideologies alien to their own or in those who experienced the consequences of its appropriation by the Franco regime. In connection with the latter, there are voices that consider that, given that the historical continuity of the anthem was agreed upon (even if tacitly) in the 1978 Constitution, it should at least have been provided with official lyrics, as a sort of turning point that «would have served not only as an element of rupture, separation, or distancing from the previous period, but would also have been a way to achieve or foster that “symbolic clarity” that our anthem largely lacks» Joaquín Brage - El himno como símbolo del Estado: dimensión jurídico-política, analogous to what happened with the coat of arms, as explained in preceding paragraphs.

In relation to the current legal regulation of the anthem, some authors consider it inadequate since, in addition to not being constitutionalized, it has not been regulated by a parliamentary law but by a regulatory norm, arguing that «it seems clear that a symbol of the State can only be regulated by the representatives of the Spanish people, and not simply by the government.» Joaquín Brage - El himno como símbolo del Estado: dimensión jurídico-política

Regarding the official version of the anthem currently in force, although it was argued that the elimination of the dramatic repetition in the central part, characteristic of arrangements prior to the 1997 regulation, sought to remove tones from the anthem improper to its period of origin—for which the favorable report of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts would have been obtained (although this point, while frequently repeated, does not appear to be documented)—the real intention behind the new harmonization would have been, simply, to reduce the duration of the piece with a view to limiting its exposure, particularly in hostile environments or contexts, thereby minimizing the possibility of controversy. Given that the anthem with Pérez Casas' arrangements was usually performed with a metronome marking ranging between 100 and 112, upon eliminating the central repetition, the tempo had to be lowered to 76 so that the resulting piece maintained a minimally suitable ceremonial duration. Consequently, the result was a composition that is perceived as deficient in dynamism and energy, especially in performances by a marching band, lacking the spirit and solemnity expected of the anthem. Furthermore, the regulation of two versions (complete and short, 52 and 27 seconds, respectively) is artificial and unnecessary in view of the duration of the complete version, which generates confusion among the general public, who are usually unaware of protocol matters.

Below, various versions of the national anthem are compiled, as well as related works, derived from or inspired by it.

In various countries, a particular animal occupies a special place in its mythology or folklore, or is considered representative of its values, history, or geography, and is referred to as the national animal. In some cases, the national animal is formally regulated (ovenbird in Argentina, beaver in Canada) or has an unofficial or traditional status (rooster in France, kangaroo in Australia). With respect to Spain, there is no formal designation of a national animal. On occasion, the bull is often taken as such, although this remains a stereotypical resource or cultural cliché. In any case, if a national animal were to be considered for Spain, it would have to be the lion.

Specialists consider that the genesis of Hispanic heraldry (and probably also of European heraldry) corresponds to the arms of León: a purple rampant lion as a canting figure (although the name of the Leonese capital derives from Legio, not Leo) which, with the passage of time, after integration with Castile, would end up forming what is known as the Castilian quartering in cross, and this, in turn, becoming representative of Spain. To this primordial symbolism of the lion in the Spanish arms is added the well-known embodiment of values such as bravery, fierceness, or majesty. In more recent times, «the lion became the guardian of democratic institutions». Ministerio de Hacienda y Función Pública - Los símbolos de la Hacienda Pública.

The so-called Spanish lion, Hispanic lion, or lion of Spain has been used as an allegory of Spain on numerous occasions throughout history, whether in portolan charts, coins, sculptures, etc.

In the same way as with the animal, Spain does not have a formally established national flower. The carnation is sometimes considered as such, but this does not seem to have any greater basis than being an element based on clichés and with little or no solid formal or historical link.

Within the habitual symbolic liturgy of modern nation-states, the national day can be broadly included. This is a commemorative day (usually also a non-working day) that seeks to celebrate a nation's identity or sense of community, often linked to a relevant historical event, such as its foundation, its independence, the promulgation of its constitution, etc.

In the case of Spain, at the beginning of the democratic period of '78, there seemed to be certain doubts among legislators about the suitability of declaring December 6th or October 12th as the national holiday. The former would serve to celebrate the almost unanimous agreement of Spaniards to ratify a new Constitution and, therefore, to provide a framework for peaceful and democratic coexistence, while also allowing the celebration to be used to exert a certain pedagogy on the population about the benefits of the new regime. The second proposal was not new, in the sense that the consideration of October 12th as a national holiday dated back to the late 19th century, on the occasion of the commemoration of the Fourth Centenary of the Discovery of America, maintaining itself in later years with one denomination or another (Fiesta de la Raza, Fiesta de la Hispanidad). Precisely, the veneer of evangelizing epic and the exaltation of the empire imprinted on said anniversary by the Franco regime, as well as the shadows of the historical event itself, weighed down the consideration of that date.

Nevertheless, at the end of 1981 (a certainly productive year in terms of symbol regulation), the Government approved, by means of a regulatory norm (perhaps due to the need to finalize the regulation of the new constitutional national symbols), the designation of October 12th as the «National Holiday of Spain and Day of Hispanidad», specifically, through Royal Decree 3217/1981, of November 27, setting aside regulation via law, whose debate and procedure had been carried out, without success, a few months earlier. Even so, six years later, the consideration of the national holiday for the aforementioned date was ratified, this time, through Law 18/1987, of October 7. If the Royal Decree justified the choice of the date for its singular importance in commemorating the Discovery of America as the «origin of a common cultural tradition for Spanish-speaking peoples», in the Law this takes a very secondary place and is expressed in a somewhat veiled manner («period of linguistic and cultural projection»), with the emphasis of the argument for choosing the date, surprisingly, placed on its transcendence as the conclusion of the «construction of the State (...) and integration of the Kingdoms of Spain», which evidenced the Government's intention to distance the national holiday from its most controversial connotations (the Discovery) to focus on its symbolism of national unity. A decade later, through Royal Decree 862/1997, of June 6, the Ministry of Defense moved the celebration of the Day of the Armed Forces to October 12th, in order to synchronize the military commemoration with the civil and institutional one, while aiming to underline «the identification of the Armed Forces with society».

A national motto is understood as the phrase, maxim, or slogan that aims to express, succinctly, the values, ideals, aspirations, or identity of a community. It often forms part of its symbolism due to being linked or rooted in its history, culture, or tradition.

As with other symbols, each country has legally regulated its national motto, should one exist, according to its own convenience, either through its constitutionalization (France, «Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité»; Dominican Republic, «Dios, Patria, Libertad»), by parliamentary law (United States, «In God We Trust»), or, as occurs in many other cases, in an unofficial or customary manner. Spain falls into this last group, since its considered national motto, «PLUS ULTRA», is not formally designated as such.

According to Greek mythology, Hercules placed two columns in the Strait of Gibraltar to mark the limit of the known world, considered the end of the Mediterranean and the beginning of the vast and unknown Atlantic Ocean. The inscription «NON PLUS ULTRA» (No further, in Latin) appeared on these two columns. The adoption of the motto «PLUS ULTRA» during the reign of Charles I, following the discovery of America, was in a certain way a mythifying act, denying the previous belief and symbolizing the empire and overseas possessions. As previously mentioned, Charles I added the columns to his coat of arms, which were surrounded by ribbons bearing the aforementioned motto. Over time, this exterior ornamentation was consolidated as an integral part of the coat of arms, maintaining its presence to this day.