The Legal Foundations

[78] Juan Manuel remarked that kings often displayed their magnificence by assembling the cortes, and the Partidas (II.5.5) noted that on great feast days "when they held their cortes," kings wore golden crowns encrusted with precious stones.⁽¹⁾ No occasion was more solemn than when the transfer of royal power was celebrated. Updating the Visigothic Code, the Partidas (II.13.19) declared that upon the death of a king, "the prelates, other magnates, masters of the orders, and good men of the cities and great towns" should come to bury him and to recognize his successor. If he had no adult heirs and had not appointed a regent, "all the great men of the realm" should choose a guardian, "because the affair of the king touches all and all have a part there." The new king, as well as the "prelates, magnates, noble knights, and good men of the cities and towns" should pledge to defend the unity of the realm, because it was the ancient custom that it should never be divided or alienated. If all could not assemble to pledge homage, they [79] could do so in each town. The king, in turn, would swear to uphold ah the laws and customs of the realm.⁽²⁾

Succession to the Throne

These principles more than likely reflected thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century practice. Enrique I, for example, was recognized in the curia of Burgos 1214 by prelates, nobles, and "people of the cities." Upon his death in 1217, the Castilian nobility and "the chief men of Extremadura" offered the crown to his sister Berenguela at Valladolid, but she yielded her rights to her son, Fernando III. "All who were present, both the magnates and the people of the cities and other towns," pledged homage to him, and he swore to uphold the laws of the land.⁽³⁾

Fernando III succeeded his father, Alfonso IX of León, in 1230, settling the claims of his half-sisters on 11 December in an assembly at Benavente attended by the archbishops of Toledo and Compostela as well as many barons and townsmen. Whether the Castilian towns participated is uncertain, so it is best described as a Leonese curia, rather an as the first curia plena of a reunited Castile and León.⁽⁴⁾

Alfonso X probably received a pledge of allegiance from the cortes of Seville 1252, and perhaps crowned himself in the cortes of Toledo two years later. The poet Gil Pérez Conde alluded to this when he recorded an instance "in Toledo when you took the crown there."⁽⁵⁾ Sancho IV was also crowned in Toledo (in 1284), but it does not seem that be summoned the cortes to witness the ceremony. Mindful of Toledos role as the seat of the royal and imperial traditions, and perhaps recalling his fathers example, Sancho IV commanded that all his successors be crowned there. His first cortes held at Valladolid at Martinmas 1284 probably swore allegiance to him.⁽⁶⁾

Fernando IV was acclaimed in the cathedral of Toledo in 1295 and swore to uphold the laws, but there is no mention of his coronation. As the validity of Sancho IVs marriage to Maria and the consequent legitimacy of their children were in question, the kings uncle, Juan, revived his claims to the throne, and Alfonso de la Cerda continued to maintain his. Intent on securing the throne for her son, Maria de Molina summoned the cortes to meet at Valladolid on St. Johns Day, 24 June 1295.⁽⁷⁾

Fearful of disorder, the towns began to form hermandades in support [80] of Fernando IV, and in defense of their liberties. The Castilian towns gathered at Burgos on 6 July; the Leonese and Galicians followed suit at Valladolid on 12 July, as did the towns of Castilian Extremadura and the archhishopric of Toledo on 3 August. The Castilian, Leonese, and Galician towns also subscribed to this last pact. The three texts are quite similar, though there are some significant differences. Recalling many injustices suffered under Alfonso X and Sancho IV, the towns declared their intention to defend their fueros, even if it meant opposing the king when be failed to amend abuses. The three associations planned to meet annually on Trinity Sunday--the Castilians at Burgos, the Leonese at León, and the Extremadurans at Alcalá de Henares.⁽⁸⁾

When the cortes opened (probably in early July), Maria de Molina urged the towns to acknowledge her son, pointedly recalling that he was named for his great-grandfather Fernando III, a just and honest king. Although Aparicio Martínez of León tried to persuade them to recognize Infante Juan, the towns declared that they would accept Fernando IV and no other.⁽⁹⁾

Even thougb the cortes and the Andalusian and Murcian hermandades gave their allegiance to Fernando IV,⁽¹⁰⁾ Infante Juan and Alfonso de la Cerda, backed by Portugal and Aragón, continued to challenge him. They proposed that "all the men of the realm should be assembled" to determine who had the best right to the kingdom, but before that assembly took place Juan was proclaimed king of León and Alfonso, king of Castile. Simultaneously, the kings of Aragón, Portugal, and Granada threatened the frontiers. Yet the realm, for the most part, remained loyal to the king. Reiterating its fidelity to Fernando IV, the Castilian hermandad, meeting at Palencia in January 1296, repudiated Infante Juan.⁽¹¹⁾ The towns of the Bay of Biscay and those of Álava also organized new hermandades to defend themselves.⁽¹²⁾

The coalition against Fernando IV suffered a blow when King Dinis of Portugal made peace in 1297 and arranged the marriage of his daughter Constanza to the Castilian monarch. With the consent of the cortes of Valladolid early in 1298, Maria and the hermandad of León appealed to Dinis for belp, but his response--a proposal to partition the realm--was unacceptable. Rejecting it, the Extreinaduran and Leonese towns affirmed their loyalty to the king.⁽¹³⁾

The submission of Infante Juan in June 1300 further weakened the opposition to Fernando IV, but the price of his allegiance was money that had been earmarked by the cortes of Valladolid 1300 to pay for [81] papal bulls legitimating the king. Yet after the cortes of Burgos and Zamora in 1301 consented to additional taxes, Boniface VIII legitimated Fernando IV on 6 September. Reaching his majority two months later, he married Constanza of Portugal in January 1302.⁽¹⁴⁾

Hopes were high that Alfonso de la Cerda, now Fernando IV's sole challenger, would soon come to terms. During the cortes of Medina del Campo 1302 Archbishop Gonzalo of Toledo and Bishop Simón of Sigüenza, acting on behalf of the pope, urged the king to seek peace with Alfonso. Althougb he promised to consult the cortes about this, it is unknown whether he did so. Be that as it may, Alfonso and his brother, Fernando, renounced their claims to the Castilian throne on 8 Augzust 1304, bringing this era of uncertainty to a close. The presence of Fernando de la Cerda in the cortes of Medina del Campo in April 1305 demonstrated the end of the rivalry.⁽¹⁵⁾

As the dispute over the succession dating from the death of Fernando de la Cerda in 1275 was now resolved, there was no one to challenge Fernando IVs thirteen-month-old son Alfonso XI, who was proclaimed at once after his father died in 1312. Some years after reaching his majority, in 1332, he crowned himself at Las Huelgas de Burgos, after being anointed by the archhishop of Compostela. No source describes this essentially festive gathering as a cortes, nor is it certain that municipal procurators were summoned to attend.⁽¹⁶⁾

In summary, because the monarchy was hereditary, the cortes did not elect the king. In two instances, however, the cortes influenced the determination of the succession. The assembly of Valladolid 1217 acknowledged Berenguelas rights to the throne, but encouraged her to cede them to her son Fernando III, as she wished to do. The cortes of Valladolid 1295 could have opted in favor of Infante Juan or another candidate but preferred to extend recognition to Fernando IV. In general, the cortes seldom did more than accept a king who was already proclaimed and who had been the acknowledged heir to the throne. His moral authority, nevertheless, was greatly strengthened by the support of the cortes, as this was tantamount to acceptance by the entire realm.

Royal Weddings

At times the cortes was convened to celebrate a royal marriage. Fernando III, for example, convoked a curia at Burgos in 1219 and again in 1237 on the occasion of his marriages, and in 1224 when his[82] daughter Berenguela married John of Brienne. During the cortes of Burgos in 1254, Alfonso Xs sister Leonor married Prince Edward of England, who was knighted at that time. The wedding of the kings heir, Fernando de la Cerda, to Blanche of France, was also solemnized during the cortes of Burgos in November 1269. These would seem to be exceptional instances, however, as no other marriages, either of the king or the heir to the tlirone, appear to have taken place during the cortes.⁽¹⁷⁾

Recognition of the Heir to the Throne

From time to time the cortes was also called on to pledge allegiance to the heir to the throne. Alfonso VIII, for example, celebrated a curia in May 1187 at San Esteban de Gormaz to acknowledge his daughter Berenguela, who was to be married to Conrad of Hohenstaufen. The marriage contract signed at Seligenstadt in April 1188 listed fifty towns whose majores (probably their elected magistrates) swore to guarantee observance of the pact. Though dated in Germany, the contract was prepared at San Esteban in 1187, so it is likely that the chief men of the fifty towns were summoned to the curia to take the oarh. In .July 1188 Conrad attended the curia of Carrión where he was knighted by Alfonso VIII and betrothed to Berenguela. "The entire realm"--a phrase that probably should be understood to include representatives of the towns--pledged homage to him.⁽¹⁸⁾ Berenguela subsequently married Alfonso IX of León and gave birth to Fernando III in August 1201. "The whole Leonese kingdom" swore allegiance to him, perhaps at the curia of Benavente in March 1202. He, in turn, summoned the chiefmen of Castile to Burgos on 21 March 1222 to render homage to his first-born son Alfonso.⁽¹⁹⁾

In accordance with "royal sanctions and the custom of Spain," Alfonso X convened the cortes of Toledo in March 1254 to pledge homage to his infant daughter Berenguela.⁽²⁰⁾ Fernando de la Cerda, born on 23 October 1255, supplanted her as heir to the throne, but there is no evidence that the king convened the cortes at Vitoria in 1256 to acknowledge him. He did, however, insist on receiving a further pledge of homage to Berenguela when her marriage to Prince Louis of France was arranged in 1256. Orenses representatives, summoned on 14 December 1255 "to wherever I may be," seem to have pledged [83] homage at Vitoria, but the procurators of the archbishop and chapter of Compostela did so on 10 February 1256 at San Esteban de Gormaz. Thus, it is likely that homages were given individually rather than in cortes.⁽²¹⁾

When Fernando was designated as regent, the cortes of Burgos 1274 pledged to receive him as king, if Alfonso X should die during his absence from the realm. Perhaps at that time the king also "caused all the towns and castles of the kingdoms of Castile and León to do homage to his grandson, Alfonso de la Cerda . . . as . . . he had arranged with the king of France." On the basis of this text, the Crónica general de 1344, Jerry Craddock suggests that Alfonso X and Philip III made a pact after the birth of Alfonso de la Cerda in 1270, giving him preference over his uncles in the matter of succession. It is not inconceivable that Alfonso X would have asked the cortes of Burgos to accept Fernando as his heir, and to recognize the rights of Fernando's firstborn son.⁽²²⁾

Fernando's sudden death in November 1275 opened the question of the succession and created a crisis that would plague the Castilian monarchy for more than a quarter century. As he lay dying, he expressed the hope that his son, Alfonso de la Cerda, would eventually gain the throne, and entrusted him to Juan Núñez de Lara. The kings second son Sancho, however, demanded recognition as heir apparent. Lope Díaz de Haro urged the king "to summon all the councils of all the cities and towns of the kingdom to send their procurators with certain powers" to pay homage to Sancho.⁽²³⁾

Alfonso X convoked the cortes of Burgos (rather than Segovia as the royal chronicle has it) in the spring of 1276 to advise him concerning the respective rights of the two claimants. Juan Núñez de Lara and his brother Nuño pleaded on behalf of Alfonso, while the kings brother Fadrique, Lope Díaz de Haro, and many other nobles, prelates, and townsmen favored Sancho. Ballesteros argues that Alfonso X vacillated and did not designate Sancho as his heir until April l278.⁽²⁴⁾ Yet Alfonso X was under great pressure to resolve this issue. The fact that Alfonso de la Cerda was under age and that Sancho had recently distinguished himself against the Moors and had the support of a substantial body of people required the king ro commit himself. Sanchos designation as fijo mayor et heredero as early as 10 June 1276, and the testimonies of Jofre de Loaysa and Bernat Desclot, invalidate Ballesreross [84] argument. The rejection of Alfonso de la Cerdas claims appears to be confirmed by the decision of his principal supporter, Juan Núñez de Lara, to withdraw to France, where he pledged homage and fealty to Philip III (the uncle of the infantes de la Cerda) in September 1276.⁽²⁵⁾ Urged by Philip III, Alfonso X promised to celebrate a curia with his prelates and barons before Christmas 1277 to adjudicate the dispute, but he never did.⁽²⁶⁾

Two years later in the cortes of Segovia, Alfonso X reaffirmed his designation of Sancho, but also entrusted him with even greater responsibilities. Fray Juan Gil de Zamora, Sanchos tutor, remarked that he began to reign together with his father in 1278. He did not receive the royal title but, as Alfonso X stated in his will of 8 November 1283, he had given Sancho "greater power than any kings son had in his fathers lifetime." Perhaps this decision was taken because he turned twenty years old in May, thereby reaching his majority according to te Partidas (II.15.3), and if his father had died, be could .have reigned without a regency. Alfonso X required Santo Domingo de Silos "and all the others of my realm" to send two good men to pay homage to Sancho "my oldest son and heir" wherever be might be.⁽²⁷⁾

Soon after the cortes of Segovia, Fernando de la Cerdas widow, Blanche, fled to Aragón with her mother-in-law Queen Violante and her two sons. There the boys were left in the care of Violantes brother, King Pedro III, while Blanche continued to France to enlist the support of her brother, Philip III. During the cortes of Seville 1281, Alfonso X, under continued pressure from France and the papacy, revealed his desire to allow his grandsons a share in his dominions and exchanged harsh words with Sancho.⁽²⁸⁾

Protesting that the unity of all the realms should be preserved, Sancho summoned the men of the realm to Valladolid in April 1282. Alarmed at this, Alfonso X proposed celebrating a curia at Villarreal to resolve the issue, but Sancho rebuffed him. The assembly at Valladolid was a plenary one, including Queen Violante, the kings brother Manuel, Sanchos brothers, the bishops, abbots, masters of the military orders, procurators of cathedral chapters, magnates, knights, and towns-men. In all outward appearances it resembled the cortes, and Sancho described it as such, but as it had not been convoked by the king, Alfonso X scoffed at this celebration of "cortes generales, if indeed one can give it that name."⁽²⁹⁾

[85] The main business of the assembly was Alfonso Xs future as king. The magnates and other men of the realm agreed that Sancho should be made king and given full power to rule, but be was unwilling to assume the royal title during his fathers lifetime. Ballesteros believes that exactly the reverse was true, that is, that Sancho wanted the title but the assembly was not ready to give it to him. Infante Manuel proposed that Alfonso X should continue to be acknowledged as king, but that authority over justice, taxes, and castles should be entrusted to Sancho. In effect, he would become a sort of regent or guardian of the realm until his fathers death. Alfonso X later complained bitterly that "without being cited, nor warned, nor without having given a confession, nor having been convicted," sentence was rendered against him, "not by any judge, but by our enemies and rebels." ⁽³⁰⁾

The degradation of the king was not achieved without dissent. Bishops Fernando of Burgos and Juan of Palencia alleged on 21 April that Infantes Pedro and Juan, with other barons and knights, suddenly entered their lodgings and demanded that they come at once to the palace where Sancho was meeting with the barons, knights, and citizens. They argued that to deprive the king of his authority was a weighty matter requiring careful examination and deliberation, but, bullied and threatened, they went to the palace, where they found Sancho with various prelaces, barons, and knights behind closed doors. The judgment against the king was read out, the doors were opened, and the bishops left. Once free, they drew up a protest, declaring their refusal to ratify the judgment to which they had given neither counsel nor consent.⁽³¹⁾

Sancho, meanwhile, confirmed the privileges of towns, monasteries and bishoprics, and granted away royal revenues to his supporters without taking care to provide adequately for his own needs.⁽³²⁾

The extent of his support and the size of the assembly of Valladolid is indicaced by the hermandades organized at that time. Denouncing the arbitrary actions of Alfonso X, the hermandades were principally concerned with defending their own rights. Aside from a reference to their convocacion by Sancho, there were few political overtones to the pact concluded on 2 May by forty Benedictine, Cistercian, and Premonstratensian abbots, who promised to pray for one another.⁽³³⁾ Less spiritually minded were the Leonese hishops of Astorga, Zamora, Mondoñedo, Túy, Badajoz, and Coria, who on the next day formed an hermandad which twenty-five Benedictine, Ciscercian, and Premonstratensian [86] abbots of the kingdom of León and the prior of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre in Spain. Pledging to defend their liberties, they called for daily prayers for "the good estate of the realm," and prayed that Sancho would rule "for the service of God and the utility of the realm." They planned to meet every two years on Jubilate Sunday (9 May) and set the meeting for the next year at Benavente. In a post-datum, they stipulated that the bishops, abbots, priors, and procurators of cathedral chapters aud monastic communities should come every year on 27 April to the place where "the hermandad of the kingdoms of León and Galicia will be celebrated."⁽³⁴⁾

While the Leonese and Galicians were forming this hermandad, seven Andalusian towns organized a similar association at Andújar on 10 May,⁽³⁵⁾ and thirty Castilian towns did so at Burgos on 27 May.⁽³⁶⁾ Accusing Alfonso X of many injustices, the Leonese and Castilians concluded a joint pact on 8 July at Valladolid and called on Sancho to preserve their fueros. The text incorporated the substance of the Leonese hermandad, including a pledge to uphold Sanchos rights to justice and taxes, and to defend their own fueros against encroachments by anyone, including Sancho or a future king. The Leonese agreed to meet every year on 1 May at a convenient place. The substance of this pact was repeated on 23 September 1282. Several more limited agreements were also reached at this time.⁽³⁷⁾

The formation of the Leonese and Castilian hermandades marked the beginning of the development of those general associations that were to play such an important role in other times of crisis. As the driving force behind the movement, the towns proposed to hold annual meetings as a means of guarding their privileges. Whereas the cortes depended for its existence on the kings willingness to summon it, the yearly assemblies of the hermandades were intended to be fixed and regular. The hermandad was an autonomous association organized to defend municipal rights. If Sancho violated the law, the hermandad was prepared to admonish him and would take whatever steps were necessary to compel him to amend his ways. In other words, the right of resistance was expressly affirmed and Sancho acknowledged it, as in those circumstances he could hardly do otherwise.

To sum up, the assembly of Valladolid transferred the essential powers of government from Alfonso X to his son. Abandoned by his family and so many of his subjects, the king retained the loyalty only of [87] Seville and Murcia, who formed an hermandad on 8 January 1283. He denounced Sanchos treason in scathing language, disinherited him, and willed his realms to the infantes de la Cerda. Hard pressed for cash, he borrowed money from his erstwhile enemy the emir of Morocco, who also sent troops to plunder the peninsula, ostensibly on the kings behalf.⁽³⁸⁾

Reiterating their support for Sancho, the hermandad of León and Galicia, and the Leonese bishop, abbots, and procurators of churches gathered at Benavente in May 1283 in a call for peace and reform. The Leonese and Galician hermandad also met at Toro in July 1283.⁽³⁹⁾ Sancho assured the assembly of Palencia (in effect a cortes without the legality of royal convocation) that he would seek an accord with the king (All Saints Day 1283). Nevertheless, as Pope Martin IV had excommunicated him and imposed an interdict on the land until the people returned to their allegiance, the assembly declared that anyone exhibiting a copy of the papal bull should be executed, and the interdict should not be observed. Indeed, Sancho appealed to the next pope, or to a future council, or to God, against the injury that Martin IV had done to the kingdom.⁽⁴⁰⁾

Proposals for a reconciliation between father and son remained inconclusive, however, and in January 1284 in his last will, Alfonso X reasserted his repudiation of Sanchos claims to the throne. When the king died at Seville on 4 April 1284, this time of turmoil and uncertainty came to an end.⁽⁴¹⁾

The designation of the heir to the throne was the initial reason for this prolonged conflict, but the end result was the near deposition of the king. Resentful of royal policies, the estates of the realm assembled at Valladolid in 1282, judged Alfonso X unfit to rule, and transferred his powers to Sancho, who received a status equivalent to that of a regent. Alfonso X pointed out that the assembly was not officially a cortes, but the realities of practical policies enabled Sancho to present himself as a champion of the law of the land and the rights of the people, rather than a willful son acting out of mere personal ambition. The hermandads strong condemnation of the excesses of Alfonso Xs government, and its admonition to Sancho and other monarchs to abide by the law, demonstrate that the assembly of Valladolid was not merely a passive instrument of the infantes will.

The designation of the heir to the throne was far less dramatic in [88] in later years. Sancho IV may have asked the cortes to recognize his daughter Isabel as his heir at the time of his accession, but this is uncertain. Procter believes that he convened the cortes at Zamora in January 1286 to acknowledge his new-born son Fernando, but this is doubtful as the king was there for only two days. It is more likely that members of the court rendered homage at once, while other prelates, nobles, and townsmen were summoned to do so as soon as they could reach Zamora. He ordered the municipal council of Zamora to appoint twelve knights and twelve good men to receive, in his name, the homage of the men of León, Castile, and Andalusia. The personeros of the city of León pledged homage on 24 February 1286, by which time the king was long gone. Nor does it appear that he summoned the cortes in 1295 when he designated Maria de Molina as regent and "caused all the men of the realm" to swear allegiance to Fernando.⁽⁴²⁾

When Fernando IV demanded that the nobles render homage to his son Alfonso (born on 13 August 1311), they were on the verge of rebellion and refused, but they probably did give homage when they came to terms with him at Palencia in October 13l1.⁽⁴³⁾

Alfonso XI apparently did not convoke the cortes to do homage to his son, Fernando, but in November 1332 he did instruct the towns to send to Valladolid two knights and two good men with full powers to do so. As they arrived randomly through mid-February 1333, it is evident that a cortes had not been convened.⁽⁴⁴⁾ After Fernando died, Alfonso XI required the towns to send their representatives with full powers to Burgos to pledge homage to his second son Pedro, but again there is no sign that the cortes was convoked.⁽⁴⁵⁾

Although it was generally accepted that the heir to the throne should be solemnly acknowledged by all the men of the realm, the cortes was summoned only occasionally for that purpose. Alfonso X convened the cortes of Toledo 1254 on this account, and the cortes of Burgos 1276, Segovia 1278, and Seville 1281 were concerned with this issue, but later monarchs allowed the process of pledging allegiance to extend over several months.

The evidence contradicts Martínez Marina and Piskorski, who hold that the heir to the throne had to be recognized by the cortes in order to have a legitimate right to the crown. Pérez Prendes correctly insists that the heir derived his right from birth. Recognition by the men of the realm, whether in the cortes or not, strengthened the heirs position [89] during the father's lifetime and gave him some assurance that he would not be opposed when the time came for him to assume the crown, but it did not give the heir a right to rule, which was his by reason of parentage.⁽⁴⁶⁾

Regencies

The cortes was most actively involved in affairs touching the kingship when a regency had to be established. The Partidas (II.15.3) provided that the great men of the realm should assemble to choose a regent if the king had not already. Before Alfonso X traveled to southern France to plead for papal recognition as Holy Roman Emperor, he summoned the cortes to Burgos in March 1274 and named his oldest son, Fernando de la Cerda, as regent during his absence. Giving him the royal seals and authority to appoint all officials, he admonished him to do justice to everyone. As already discussed, Fernandos sudden death in the next year opened a great controversy, which culminated at Valladolid in 1282 when Sancho assumed royal authority. He had had the effective status of regent for Alfonso X, who was considered incapacitated.⁽⁴⁷⁾

Just before he died in 1295, Sancho IV named Maria de Molina as regent for their nine-year-old son, Fernando IV, and she summoned the cortes to Valladolid to guarantee the succession. Before the cortes began, her husbands uncle, Infante Enrique, cried to manipulate the towns into promising him custody of the king and the kingdom. Thus, he assured the towns of the bishoprics of Osma and Sigüenza at Berlanga that he would uphold their fueros; in return, they urged the Extremaduran towns to aid him, but apparently without success. Like Burgos, they preferred to await the judgment of all the men of the realm in the cortes. The towns of the archbishopric of Toledo and of the bishoprics of Cuenca, Segovia, and Ávila threatened to leave the cortes rather than accept Enrique, but Maria persuaded them to stay. In her anxiety to secure Fernando IVs rights to the throne, she decided to compromise by retaining custody of her son while allowing Enrique to act as guardian of the realm. The cortes not only recognized Fernando IV as king, but also accepted this accord. The townsmen demanded, however, a place in the royal household and chancery, as well as a role in the collection of taxes and the custody of royal castles. The regents also assured [90] the predates that their rights would be upheld. Thereafter, Maria and Enrique shared the regency without further dispute until the king reached his majority in December 1301.⁽⁴⁸⁾

Far more complex was the contention over the regency during the years from Alfonso XIs accession in 1312 (when he was little more than a year old), until his coming of age in 1325. When Fernando IV died suddenly on the frontier, Maria de Molina urged the bishop and citizens of Ávila, to whom custody of the child had been entrusted, not to give him up to anyone "until all the men of the realm were assembled in cortes." Infante Juan, the younger brother of Sancho IV and a great-uncle of the new king, appealed to the Leonese hermandad at Benavente on 15 January 1313 to support his bid to control the regency. The hermandad supported him, with the stipulations that the nurture and custody of the king should be entrusted to good men of the towns, that illegal tributes should not be imposed, and that royal castles and towns should not be alienated. If the regent violated their fueros, and redress was not forthcoming, they would choose another regent.⁽⁴⁹⁾

Juan had achieved an apparent coup, but Infante Pedro, a younger brother of the deceased monarch, minimized the importance of the assembly by pointing out that only three towns (León, Zamora, and Benavente) had supported his rival. Both princes also attempted to manipulate the Castilian and Leonese towns at Sahagún in February 1313 and the Extremaduran hermandad at Cuéllar. Lest there be any doubt about it, the assemblies of Benavente, Sahagún, and Cuéllar were not meetings of the cortes, as some historians have alleged, but rather of the hermandades of León, León and Castile, and Extremadura. Meanwhile, the Andalusian towns formed their own hermandad on 8 May.⁽⁵⁰⁾

After months of political maneuvering, the infantes, each attended by a large body of troops, met in the cortes of Palencia in April 1313. Maria de Molina suggested that they leave the city so a regent could be freely chosen, but when they had done so the prelates aud procurators split immediately into two parties. One, assembled in the monastery of San Francisco, elected Maria and Pedro, while the other, in the monastery of San Pablo, chose Juan.⁽⁵¹⁾

The towns, fully conscious of their power, laid down conditions that had to be accepted, but the cuadernos issued by Juan (5 June) and Maria and Pedro (15 June) to their respective supporters reveal differing altitudes toward the regency.⁽⁵²⁾ Infante Juans term of office was [91] unlimited, and he was not bound by any council. The twenty knights and townsmen, whom he appointed, with the consent of the towns, were only guardians of the kings person (art. 1-2 J). Maria and Pedro, on the other hand, were restricted to two years (art. 48 M) and could do nothing without their council of twenty prelates, knights, and townsmen nominated by the cortes (art. 4-6 M). The cortes had no specific role in Juans regency, but he could be ousted if he violated his own conditions (art. 451). In contrast, Maria and Pedro had to convoke the cortes every two years to review their activities. If they failed to do so, their council could summon the cortes to amend the terms of the regency or to choose new regents (art. II, 16 M). Qn the whole, the cuaderno promulgated by Maria and Pedro provided greater safeguards for the preservation of peace, harmony, and good government.

The failure of the cortes of Palencia became apparent almost immediately. Infante Juan met the Castilian and Leonese hermandades at Sahagún in September. but the death of Queen Constanza (his chief supporter) in November weakened his position and induced him to seek a unified regency.⁽⁵³⁾ The basic terms of an accord were hammered out in the monastery of Palazuelos outside Valladolid at Easter 1314. Maria and Pedro then assembled their adherents at Valladolid, while Juan met his at Carrión. Legal niceties fail to give any guidance here, but the meetings at Valladolid and Carrión may be considered as separate sessions of a cortes that was soon to be unified. The pact signed at Palazuelos on 1 August provided for a joint regency, with the king entrusted to Maria de Molina. If she died before he reached his majority, he men of the realm would determine who would be given custody. If the regents violated the pact, the men of the realm would choose whomever they wished as regent.⁽⁵⁴⁾

On the same day, Archbishops Gutierre of Toledo, Rodrigo of Compostela, and Fernando of Seville, who had formed an hermandad with nine other bishops at Valladolid, obtained the regents pledge to defend the liberties of the church.⁽⁵⁵⁾

To resolve difficulties arising from the implementation of their pact, the regents convened the cortes at Burgos in the late spring of 1315. At that time they confirmed a new hermandad between the towns aud the lesser nobility (who had formed their own hermandad at Valladolid, probably in the previous summer). More numerous, better organized, and more conscious of its own strength than before, the [92] hermandad was resolved to influence the regency counsels. To accomplish their aims, the Caecilians, Leonese, and men of Extremadura and Toledo would hold separate assemblies each year. The regents, meanwhile, reaffirmed their desire to maintain unity.⁽⁵⁶⁾

As intense rivalry between Juan and Pedro continued, the Castilian hermandad meeting at Burgos (Martinmas 1316) demanded that the regents give hostages as security against arbitrary actions, as well as a detailed accounting of royal revenues. When the hermandad of Castile, León, Extremadura, and Toledo assembled again at Carrión in March 1317, it was in an ugly mood. Some members were intent on ousting Pedro (who was on the frontier), but a review of royal accounts showed nothing to indicate any wrongdoing on his part. Infante Juan proposed that the regents renounce their office so the assembly could choose a single regent, in the expectation that the new election would be in his favor. At this point Maria came to Carrión to oppose him and, while acknowledging the hermandads legitimate concern for reform (art. 71), she served notice that the regents would not be intimidated.⁽⁵⁷⁾

In order to divide the hermandad the regents summoned the Castilians to the cortes at Valladolid in June 1318, and the Leonese and Extremaduran to Medina del Campo some months later. Both assemblies granted taxes to enable the infantes to carry out a joint campaign against the Moors.⁽⁵⁸⁾

When both Juan and Pedro died suddenly in 1319, the renewal of conflict over the regency was inevitable. In accordance with the decision of the cortes of Burgos 1315, Maria de Molina was the sole regent, but Juan Manuel, a grandnephew of Alfonso X, was recognized by the hermandad of Toledo and Extremadura at Cuéllar in October 1319. Moreover, Felipe, Marias youngest son, and Juan the one-eyed, son of Infante Juan, also claimed a place in the regency. On Juans urging, the Castilian hermandad meeting at Burgos in May 1320 asked Maria not to accept either of his rivals; upon her refusal to come to Burgos to settle the issue, the hermandad withdrew its recognition of her.⁽⁵⁹⁾

Encouraged by the papal legate Cardinal William of Santa Sabina, Maria convened the cortes to meet at Palencia on 8 April 1321. Although it apparently met instead at Valladolid, it accepted Maria, Felipe, Juan, and Juan Manuel as regents. Maria was ill, however, and after entrusting the king to the care of the townsmen of Valladolid, she died on 30 June 1321.⁽⁶⁰⁾

[93] As there was now no one with sufficient prestige to command the respect of all, terrible disorder followed. The citizens of Valladolid urged the regents to summon the cortes, but nothing was settled when the assembly met there in the spring of 1322. The threefold division of the realm was perpetuated as Juan gained recognition in Castile, Juan Manuel in Extremadura and Toledo, and Felipe in León. Convening their respective supporters from tune to time, the regents exploited the kingdom for their personal benefit, until Alfonso XI, upon reaching the age of fourteen (13 August 1325), brought the regency to an end. Summoning the cortes to Valladolid, he asked the regents to surrender their authority, which they did prior to 5 September.⁽⁶¹⁾

One may conclude that the convocation of the cortes was necessary to confirm anyones right to act as regent. Although Sancho IV intended that Maria de Molina should be regent for their son, Infante Enrique insisted on sharing power, and the cortes of Valladolid 1295 acquiesced. This precedent encouraged Infante Juan to challenge Fernando IVs designation of his brother Pedro, with the resulting division of allegiance in the cortes of Palencia 1313, and the increased strength of the hermandades. Impelled by similar ambition, Juan, Juan Manuel, and Felipe compelled the cortes of Valladolid 1321 to accept them. The regents apparently believed that recognition by the cortes, even though it might not be unanimous, gave them the right to claim that the entire realm approved of what they were doing. Mirroring the dissension that was rampant throughout the kingdom, the cortes was unable to preserve the necessary unity of government.

A European Perspective

Other European parliamentary assemblies participated in diverse ways in the resolution of similar issues relating to the royal office. The peoples obligation to swear allegiance was emphasized, for example, by Afonso IV of Portugal, who received the homage of the cortes of Évora in 1325. In the Crown of Aragón the king customarily pledged to uphold the laws in successive cortes in each of his realms, as Pedro IV did in 1336 at Zaragoza, Lérida, and Valencia.⁽⁶²⁾

None of the peninsular kings was deposed through parliamentary action, though the Union of Aragón threatened to transfer its allegiance if Alfonso III did not grant the Privileges of the Union in the [94] cortes of Zaragoza in 1287. In England, on the other hand, Edward II was deposed by a parliament summoned in his name in 1327, and a regency was established for his minor son Edward III. The parliament then invited him to abdicate, which he did, although he was murdered some months later.⁽⁶³⁾

The right of women to succeed to the throne, admitted in Navarre, was disputed in both France and Aragón. The Navarrese cort genera/ at Olite in 1274 appointtd a governor of the realm during the minority of Jeanne I. As the male line of Capetian kings petered out, the rights of female heirs were rejected by assemblies of notables in 1317 and 1328. In Aragón Pedro IV, after declaring his daughter Constance as his heir, promised not to arrange her marriage without consulting the cortes, but the protest of the Aragonese Union in the cortes of Zaragoza in 1347 forced him to revoke his decree.⁽⁶⁴⁾

1. Juan Manuel, Libro del caballero et del escudero, 3, 24, BAE, LI, 235, 238.

2. Forum Iudicum, Primus titulus, in Fuero juzgo en latín y castellano, ed. Real Academia Española (Madrid 1815), I-X; Espéculo, II.5.1, II.16.5, V.2.33; Partidas, II.15.3-5, II.20.5; Sancho IV, Castigos e Documentos (Bloomington 1952), ed. Agapito Rey, 11, l4, pp. 114,119.

3. Joaquim Ferreira, História de Portugal (Porto 1951), 195; Chronique catalane de Pierre IV dAragón, ed. Amedée Pagès (Toulouse 1941), 77-83.

4. Rodrigo, De rebus Hispaniae, IX, 14-15, pp. 203-205; Chronique latine, 60-61, pp. 132-134; Lucas of Túy, Crónica, 92, p. 427; González, Fernando III, II, no. 270, pp. 311-314; OCallaghan, "Beginnings," 1527.

5. Lucas of Túy, Crónica, 103, pp. 449-450; CAX, I, p. 3; Anónimo de Sahagún, 74-75, p. 360; Cantigas de escarnho e de mal dezir dos Cancioneiros medievais galego-portugueses, ed. Manuel Rodríguez Lapa (Coimbra 1970), no. 167, p. 261.CSIV, I, p. 69-70; Loaysa, Crónica, 33-34, pp. 110-112.

6. CSIV, 1, p. 69-70; Loaysa, Crónica, 33-34, pp. 110-112.

7. CFIV, 1, pp. 93-95.

8. Barrios García, Alba de Tormes, no. 18, pp. 59-61; AM León, no. 49; MFIV, II, nos. 3-4, pp. 3-13; Luis G. de Valdeavellano, "Carta de hermandad entre los concejos de la Extremadura castellana y del arzobispado de Toledo en 1295," Revista portuguesa de historia 12 (1969): 57-76.

9. CFIV, 1, p. 95. Martínez was one of rhe personeros of León in the bermandad of 3 August.

10. Josefa Sanz Fuentes, "Cartas de hermandad concejil en Andalucía: El caso de Ecija," HID 5(1978): no. 1, pp. 413-418; Agustín Muñoz y Gómez, "Concejos de Córdoba, Sevilla y Jerez de la Frontera. Carta inédita de su hermandad en 1296," BRAH 36 (1900): 306-316; Nieto Cumplido, Regionalismo, nos. 23-25, pp. 169- 176; Suárez Fernández, "Hermandades," no. 4, pp. 52- 55; Carmen Argente del Castillo Ocaña, "Las hermandades medievales en el reino de Jaén," Andalucía medieval 2 (1978): 21-22; CODOM, III, no. 112, pp. 110- 116; BL, Add. MSS 9917, no. 47, fol. 160.

11. CFIV, 1, pp. 96- 100; González Mínguez, Fernando IV, no. 2, pp. 348- 352.

12. MFIV, II, no. 57, . 81--85; Sáinz Díaz, San Vicente de la Barquera, 472- 477; Gregorio de Balparda, Historia crítica de Vizcaya y sus fueros (Madrid 1924), III, no. 189, pp. 65-69; Álvarez Morales, Las hermandades, nos. 3-4, pp. 269-271; González Mínguez, Contribución al estudio de las hermandades en el reinado de Fernando IV (Vitoria 1974); Martínez Díez, "La hermandad alavesa," AHDE 43 (1973): no. 2, pp. 107-110.

13. CFIV, 2-4,pp. 107-111; CLC ,I,135-139; Loaysa,Crónica,76, p.178; MFIV, II, nos. 100, 112, pp. 140-143, 159; Nieto Cumplido, Regionalimio, no. 26, pp. 191-199.

14. CFIV, 4-9, pp. 111-122; Loaysa, Crónica, 78-85, pp. 180-192; CLC, I, 139-161.

15. CFIV, 10, 13, pp. 123-129, 137; Loaysa, Crónica, 87, p. 195; CLC, I, 161-165; MFIV, II, no. 213, pp. 311-313; Giménez Soler, Juan Manuel, nos. 46, 57, pp. 262-264, 273-274.

16. CFIV, 20, p. 169; CAXI, 1, 99-101, pp. 173, 233-236; GCAXI, 120- 122, vol. I, pp. 506-5 14; Poema de Alfonso XI, 489; Sánchez Albornoz, "Un ceremonial inédito de la coronación de los reyes de Castilla," in his Estudios, 739-763.

17. Chronique latine, 40, pp. 98- 100; Rodrigo, De rebus Hispaniae, IX, 10, 18, pp.200, 207; Anónimo de Sahagún, 76, pp. 361-362; CAX, l8, p. 13; Crónica de Jaume I, IX, 7-8.

18. González, Alfonso VIII, II, nos. 471, 499, pp. 808, 857-863; Chronique latine, II, pp. 39-40; Rodrigo, De rebus Hispaniae, VII, 24, p. 166.

19. OCallaghan, "Beginnings," 1520- 1521; Ballesteros, AlfonsoX, 50-52.

20. Piskorski, no. 1, pp. 196- 197; Daumet, Mémoire, no. 1, pp. 143-146.

21. Ballesteros, Alfonso X, 118- 119; Sánchez Albornoz, "Señoríos y ciudades," 456-459; López Ferreiro, Historia, V, no. 31, pp. 9 1-92.

22. CAX, 59, pp. 47-48; Fernández del Pulgar, Palencia, II, 344-345; Craddock, "La cronología de las obras legislativas de Alfonso X el Sabio," AHDE 51(1981): 401-403.

23. CAX, 61-67, pp. 48-53; Ballesteros, Alfonso X, 769, 785; Procter, Curia, 139, 230.

24. CAX, 67-68, p. 53; Loaysa, Crónica, 19-21, pp. 90-9 1; Anales Toledanos III, in ES, XXIII, 420; Bernat Desclot, Crónica (Barcelona 1949- 1951), ed. M. Coll i Alentorn, III, 10-13; Ballesteros, Alfonso X, 780-791; Procter, Curia, 140-142.

25. Loperráez, Osma, III, no. 76, p. 212; Ballesteros, Alfonso X, 824, 841; MHE, I, no. 143, pp. 325-326; Daumet, Mémoire, no. 7, pp. 157-158.

26. Francisque Michel, ed., Histoire de la guerre de Navarre par Guillaume Anelier, in Collection de documents inédits sur l'Histoire de France (Paris 1856), 651-655.

27. Fray Juan Gil de Zamora, Liber de preconiis civitatis Numantine, in Fidel Fita, "Dos obras inéditas de Gil de Zamora," BRAH 5 (1884): 146; MHE, II, no. 228, p. 113; Ferotin, Recueil no. 230, p. 262; Procter, Curia, 143.

28. CAX, 68, 75-76, pp. 53, 59-60; Loaysa, Crónica, 14, p. 96; Procter, Curia, 146-147.

29. CAX, 75-76, pp. 60-61; MHE, II, no. 197, PP. 58-59; Ballesteros, AlfonsoX, 963-964, 994-996; Procter, Curia, 146-148.

30. CAX, 76, p. 61; Loaysa, Crónica, 298, p. 102; Ballesteros, Alfonso X, 966, 996.

31. Pereda Llarena, Burgos 1254-1293, no. 173, pp. 237-241; MHE, II, no. 198, pp. 59-63;Linehan, Spanish Church, 220-221.

32. CAX, 76, p. 61; González Diez, Burgos, nos. 118, 120-122, pp. 205- 210; MHE, II, no. 209, pp. 78-80; CODOM, III, no. 77, Pp. 70-71; González, Colección, VI, no. 83, pp. 231-233; Villar y Macías, Salamanca, I, no. 8, pp. 395-396.

33. MHE, II, no. 202, pp. 67-68; Ferotin, Recueil, no. 243, pp. 272-273; Escalona, Sahagún, no. 264, pp. 616-617; Berganza, Antigüedades, I,175; Luis Fernández, "La participación de los monasterios en la hermandad de los reinos de Castilla León y Galicia (1282-1284)," Hispania Sacra, 25(1972): 5-35.

34. MHE, II, no. 203, pp. 68-70; Quintana Prieto, Tumbo viejo de San Pedro de Montes, no. 374, pp. 481-482; Mañueco Villalobos and Zurita Nieto, Santa Maria la Mayor de Valladolid, III, pp. 27-29.

35. MHE, II, nos. 205-206, pp. 73-75; Nieto Cumplido, Regionalismo, nos. 9-11, pp. 131- 136; Colección de documentos inéditos para la historia de España, 112 vols. (Madrid 1842-1845), CXII, 3-6; Manuel González Jiménez, "La hermandad entre Sevilla y Carmona (Siglos XII a XVI)," Andalucía medieval. Actas del I Congreso de Historia de Andalucía (Córdoba 1978), II, p. 4, n. 6.

36. Quintana Prieto, San Pedro de Montes, no. 375, pp. 482-487; Escalona, Sahagún, no. 266, pp. 618-622; Alvarez Morales, Hermandades, no. 1, pp. 267-268.

37. Fernandez, "Participación," 25-27; MHE, II, no. 213, pp. 86-87; Martin, Salamanca, no. 389, pp. 487-488.

38. CAX, 76-77, pp.62-64; MHE, II, nos. 228-229, pp. 110-134; Gcorges Daurnet, "Les testaments dAlphonse le savant, roi de Castille," BEC 67(1906): 70-99; CODOM, III, no. 79, pp. 73-74.

39. MHE, II, nos. 220, 224, pp. 94-97, 102-103; Martín Salamanca, no. 391, pp. 489-490.

40. CAX, 77, pp. 64-65; Pereda Llarena, Burgos 1254-1293, no. 180, pp. 246-247; Gaibrois, Sancho IV, I, cli, clvii, clxxiii, and III, nos. 5, 83, pp. ii-iii. liii-liv.

41. Daumet, "Testaments," 87-89; MHE, II, no. 229, pp 122-134; Procter, Curia, 182.

42. CSIV, 1-2, l2-l3, pp. 69, 72, 89-90; Loaysa, Crónica, 33, p. 110; AM León, no. 24; Procter, Curia, 120, 149, 174, 179.

43. CFIV, 19, pp. 168-169; Giménez Soler, Juan Manuel, no. 231, p. 397.
 

44. CAXI, 104-105, p. 239; Ferotin, Recueil, nos. 352, 354, pp. 364-365; Palacio, Madrid, I, 248-249; Antonio C. Floriano, Documentación histórica del Archivo Municipal de Cáceres (1229-1471) (Cáceres 1987), no. 44, pp. 77-78; AM Murcia, Cartulario 1352-1382 Eras, fol. 99r, 106v.

45. CAXI, 95, 137, pp. 230, 264; GCAXI, 159, vol. II, pp. 15, 934; Ferotin, Recueil, nos. 357, 359, pp. 366-367.

46. Martínez Marina, Teoría, BAE, CCXIX, 217-228; Piskorski, 109-118; Pérez Prendes, Cortes, 115-122.

47. CAX, 59, pp. 47-48; Ballesteros, Alfonso X, 683-687; Procter, Curia, 135- 136.

48. CFIV, 1, pp. 94-95; CLC, I,130-135; MFIV, II, no. 22, p. 40.

49. CAXI, I, p. 173; GCAXI, 1-2, vol. I, pp. 276-278; Giménez Soler, Juan Manuel, nos. 249-255, 258, 262-263, pp. 413-420; Juan Ignacio de la Peña, "La hermandad leonesa de 1313," León medieval (León 1978), 139- 164.

50. 50.Giménez Soler, Juan Manuel, nos. 265-266, pp. 424-427; CAXI, 1-2, pp. 174-175; GCAXI, 2-3, vol. I, pp. 278-281; Bullarium Ordinis Militiae de Calatrava (Madrid 1761) 498-500; Nieto Cumplido, Regionalismo, no. 29, pp. 205-2 12; Argente del Castillo Ocaña, "Hermandades," II, 32.

51. CAXI, 3, pp. 175-176; GGAXI, 4, vol. I, pp. 282-283; Giménez Soler, Juan Manuel, no. 263, pp. 423-424.

52. CLC, I, 221-233 (Juan), 233-247 (Maria and Pedro).

53. CAXI, 4-6, pp. 176-178; GCAXI, 5-7, vol. I, pp. 285-290; Giménez Soler, Juan Manuel, nos. 272-273, 276-278, pp. 431-432, 435-436.

54. Giménez Soler, Juan Manuel, nos. 282, 286-294, 296-298, 302- 303, pp. 438-448, 450-455; Pereda Llarena, Burgos 1294-1316, no. 474, pp. 327-333.

55. Pereda Llarena, Burgos 1294-1316, no. 475, pp. 332-333; Loperráez, Osma, III, no. 100, pp. 251-252; López Ferreiro, Historia, V, nos. 56-57, pp. 159-165; Suárez Fernández, "Hermandades," nos. 7-8, pp. 58-60.

56. CLC, I, 247-271 (hermandad), 271-292 (cortes); CAXJ, 7-8, pp. 178- 180; GCAXI, 8-9, vol. 11, pp. 293-295.

57. CAXI, 9-10, p.l80; GCAXI, 11-13, vol. I, pp.299-301; CLC, I, 299- 329.

58. CAXI, 12, p. 182; GCAXI, 14-16, vol. I, pp. 302-307; CLC, 1, 330- 336 (Medina del Campo); Barrios García, Alba de Tormes, no. 29, pp. 97-99.

59. 59.CAXI, 13-20, pp. 182-188. GCAXI, 17-27, vol. I, pp.308-334 Giménez Soler, Juan Manuel, nos. 347-349, 353-355, pp. 478-479, 484- 488; AM Cuenca, 17-1, fol. 74ff.

60. CAXI, 27, pp. 191-192; GCAXI, 34, 37-38, vol. I, pp.345-346, 350-351; Giménez Soler, Juan Manuel, no. 368, pp. 71, 496-498; Fidel Fita, "El concilio de Palencia en 1321," BRAH 52 (1908): 17-48.

61. CAXI, 38, p. 198; GCAXI, 50, vol. I, pp. 373-375, and 35, vol. II, pp. 473-475; CLC, I, 337-372; Giménez Soler, Juan Manuel, nos. 371, 380, 385-387, pp. 499, 504, 506-510; Juan Manuel, Chronicon, in MFIV, I, 678.

62. Joaquim Ferreira, História de Portugal (Porto 1951), 195; Chronique catalane de Pierre IV dAragón, ed. Amedée Pagès (Toulouse 1941), 77-83.

63. Chronique de Pierre IV, 153; William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, 4th ed. (Oxford 1883), II, 378-381.

64. Colección de documentos inéditos del Archivo general de la Corona de Aragón (Barcelona 1847-1910), VI, nos. 50-52, pp. 180-189; Edouard Perroy, The Hundred Years War (New York 1965), 71-76; Chronique de Pierre IV, 240-244.