[87]After the failure of their last attempt at reconciliation in the summer of 1112, the first task of Urraca was to reclaim all of Castilla, that of Alfonso of Aragón to hold what he had gained. The meseta of Castilla la Vieja is a unit extending from Astorga in the west to Burgos and Soria in the east and from the Cordillera Cantabrica in the north to the Guadarramas in the south. If El Batallador was not her husband then he was, of necessity, Urraca's rival and enemy for control of that single expanse of plain on which political divisions were never more than imaginary lines drawn by power.

The realm of Toledo was a secondary but important area of conflict. Since its reconquest by Alfonso VI the old Visigothic capital had become intimately linked with the imperial title and thus the claim to ultimate suzerainty in the peninsula for Christian Iberians. In addition, its successful defense against the Murâbits and its subsequent exploitation promised to add power to the legal title of emperor for whoever held it. Neither Alfonso, who continued to style himself "emperor," nor Urraca, who preferred to be called "queen of Spain," could afford to lose it to the other.

The Leonese queen could count on the loyalty of Asturias. Galicia, behind its mountain shield, had become almost a third power rather than a province, ruled in uneasy alliance by the bishop of Compostela and Count Pedro Froilaz. Her son, Alfonso Raimúndez, was the ward of those two and the ultimate basis of their practical ability to govern there in near independence of her. To secure their active support, Urraca had probably had to return physical custody of the boy king to them in the spring of 1112. But that problem [88]could, and had to, wait in 1113. Urraca had no little support in Galicia and could always secure more, even from the Raimundist faction, by displaying interest in a renewal of her relationship with the Aragonese king.

More threatening to the queen's position as heir of all her father's dominions was the de facto independence of Portugal under her half sister. What, finally, might be made of the lands stretching along the Atlantic from Braga to Coimbra, to which had been lately added modern Extremadura north of the Duero, Zamora, perhaps Salamanca, and a portion of what is now southern Galicia, running from Túy inland at least as far as Orense? Hindsight tempts us to see these lands as an inchoate, greater Portugal. But Teresa was, after all, a daughter of Alfonso VI. If some accident or illness carried off the young Alfonso Raimúndez, her own son, Alfonso Enríquez, would have no small prospect of succeeding his aunt. For the moment, though, the youth of both these potential claimants, successors, and rivals made them far less immediate threats than Urraca's former husband.

In the task of reclaiming all Castilla, Urraca was aided by the fact of her considerable support there among the nobility, especially the great nobility. On the other hand, whereas Alfonso of Aragón had garrisons in the more important towns like Carrión, Castrojeriz, and Burgos itself, the support of the restive burgher class in those towns, and probably some adherents among the lesser nobles, his situation was precarious from the first. Along his line of communication and reinforcement with Aragón proper, Murâbit Zaragoza lay dangerously close to the south. That line also passed through Nájera and the scarcely reliable lands of Rioja.

It is likely that his attempt to retain eastern Castilla was, from 1112 on, prompted by the needs of defense. Without eastern Castilla, to which he had but dubious title since the rupture of his marriage, he would have been hard pressed to retain Rioja on the upper Ebro. Similarly, in the south, without control of Toledo on the old military road from Córdoba along the upper Tajo and the Jalón to Zaragoza, the [89]prospect of reinforcement of the latter city from the south posed a constant menace. Political realities, then, demanded that he retain the imperial title and seek such an agreement with his former wife as would protect those essential interests.

Urraca's policy was much simpler. She had simply to retake from her formidable adversary the full inheritance that was rightfully hers now that the marriage was over. Although the chronology of "Las crónicas anónimas," is tangled, it seems that in September of 1112 she had forced the surrender of the Aragonese garrison in the castle of Ceia north of Sahagún.⁽¹⁾ That success had pushed the frontier with Alfonso back to the Río Carrión.

Perhaps at Sahagún or León, and probably toward the end of her Christmas court, Urraca issued a charter on January 4, 1113 that speaks to both her position and her intentions at that time. Confirming it were the faithful Bishops Pelayo of Astorga, Pelayo of Oviedo, Pedro of Palencia, and, surprisingly, Bishop Jerome of Salamanca. His presence probably indicates the existence at this date of negotiations with the Infanta Teresa.

Lay magnates who confirmed consisted of the solid, Leonese bloc of Counts Pedro Ansúrez and Froila Díaz, Pedro Díaz, Diego Sarracínez, Rodrigo Vermúdez, and Martín Ordóñez. Counts Pedro González and Rodrigo Muñoz, the latter of Asturias, also confirmed. Finally, Alvar Fáñez confirmed, indicating that the affairs of the realm of Toledo were of current interest to the crown.⁽²⁾

In terms of territory rather than personal adherence, the extent of Urraca's actual control at this time is difficult to ascertain. I am inclined to believe that it extended, however precariously, to Toledo. After April 1111, the Anales toledanos no longer speak of Alfonso of Aragón. Rather, it [90]appears that from July of 1111 Alvar Fáñez was practical ruler of the city and its territories.⁽³⁾ Such an assumption is borne out by another charter of Urraca, dated March 19, 1113, which gave the monastery of San Servando outside Toledo to that see. This was done "una cum consensu albari fanniz tunc temporis toletani principis."⁽⁴⁾

Her writ also ran in a salient eastward, south of Burgos, along the upper Duero. Bishops Raymond of Osma and Pedro of Palencia confirmed the charter, of March 19, along with Alvar Fáñez. Another charter of February 22, 1113, now apparently lost, granted land in San Esteban de Gormaz to a supporter,⁽⁵⁾ and a private document of June 13, 1113 mentions Count Pedro González as holding the fortress of Peñafiel somewhat farther west on the Duero.⁽⁶⁾

Still, Alfonso of Aragón had surrendered none of his claims. An original charter of his, dated April 13, 1113, recited his claims to rule Toledo, León, Castilla, and Aragón and named his supporter Aznar Aznárez as señor of San Esteban de Gormaz.⁽⁷⁾

[91] The attack against Burgos now being planned by Urraca would be risky, and she was soliciting aid in various quarters. On April 14, 1113 Pope Paschal II dispatched to Spain a letter threatening excommunication of those who plundered ecclesiastical goods.⁽⁸⁾ Its unspecified target may have been the Aragonese king, widely accused by his enemies of doing just that. On a more mundane level, Urraca had written to Bishop Gelmírez to request swift military assistance.⁽⁹⁾

Important reinforcements were forthcoming but not as swiftly as the queen desired. Gelmírez had first to attend to the consecration of his canons, Hugh and Muño, to the sees of Oporto and Mondoñedo. That was done on March 23 by Archbishop Maurice of Braga and was probably accompanied by guarantees that the Infanta Teresa would undertake no offensive action during the coming campaign. Not until May 30 did that expedition leave.⁽¹⁰⁾ Even then the state of relations between the queen and the magnates of Galicia is vividly reflected in our source. Only after much negotiation and discussion did they finally join Urraca at Carrión, which by this time had passed into the hands of the queen.⁽¹¹⁾

Here Urraca learned that the Batallador planned to reinforce the Aragonese garrison of the citadel of Burgos on the following day. Marching that night, her forces covered the eighty kilometers to Burgos in time to forestall the Aragonese intention. When Alfonso did approach within thirty kilometers of the city to attempt the relief of his garrison, the queen's forces marched east to meet him and he abandoned the attempt without battle. His forces in the castle of Burgos then agreed that, if he were unable to come to their aid within another fifteen days, they would surrender. This [92]they subsequently did and Burgos was Urraca's. According to the "Historia Compostelana," her husband had lost his last stronghold in Castilla.⁽¹²⁾

Exactly when these events took place is difficult to fix. There is reason to believe that the author of the "Historia Compostelana" both compressed them for dramatic effect and exaggerated the role of the Galician contingent. On June 17, 1113 Urraca made a donation to Vermudo Pérez, son of Count Pedro Froilaz, which was confirmed by her son.⁽¹³⁾ It is the first appearance of Alfonso Raimúndez in one of her charters since May of 1112; presumably he traveled from Galicia with that expedition. But the others who confirmed that charter were Leonese, and no one primarily identified with Galicia or with Burgos did. Seven days later, on June 24, Gelmírez preached a sermon in the church of Saint John the Baptist, then just outside Burgos. On July 8 Urraca and Gelmírez executed pledges of mutual assistance and fidelity, which pact is dated after the surrender of the Aragonese garrison. But on August 28 Urraca issued another charter that indicates strongly that she was still in Burgos, for the lands concerned are in the territory of that city and not only does Bishop García confirm it but so do a number of other minor figures identified with Burgos.⁽¹⁴⁾

The campaign against Burgos and its aftermath, then, seems to have occupied the entire summer and to have ended in a complete success. Indeed, in her charter of August 28 Urraca claimed the rule of Toledo, Castilla, and León. For the moment, her achievement was so complete that Alfonso I made overtures to restore the marriage. This project Gelmírez opposed vehemently and with success. Nevertheless, support for such a reunion of crowns was so strong among the burghers of the city that he was in physical danger for taking such a position.⁽¹⁵⁾

[93] Having captured Burgos, the queen also felt strong enough to divert some of her forces to relieve the castle of Berlanga, southwest of Soria. That point was under attack by Muslim forces from Zaragoza, whose activity may also explain some of Alfonso of Aragón's apparent weakness during the summer.⁽¹⁶⁾ The Murâbits of Córdoba also were extremely active that year in the realm of Toledo, and Alvar Fáñez had all he could do to limit their successes; even so, he lost the castle of Oreja.⁽¹⁷⁾ Still, this ability of the realm, after two years of civil war and near dismemberment, to respond to such a variety of challenges points to the surprising strength and resiliency of its basic structures.

Yet no one could be oblivious to the real damage that had been done. The decision was also made at Burgos to hold a "general council" of the "bishops, abbots, dukes, princes, counts, and magnates" of the realm at Palencia on October 25. The matters to be considered were the restoration of peace, the relations of Urraca and Alfonso of Aragón, and the spoliation of the church. Although Bishop Gelmírez and Archbishop Bernard are credited with this initiative and our source emphasizes the ecclesiastical character of the projected meeting, the Council of Palencia should be perceived as a council of the realm rather than as simply a council of the church. In addition, there seems to have been no inclination to invite Alfonso of Aragón, who was regarded as merely an outsider and a problem.⁽¹⁸⁾

The general curia held at Palencia in October was to be a very significant event, but its potential for effectiveness was limited from the beginning by the decision of the Raimundist faction of Galicia not to attend. This is curious because Gelmírez is credited with the initial suggestion. It is also far from completely explicable.

Bishop Gelmírez successfully petitioned the queen for [94] permission to return to Galicia after the surrender of the citadel at Burgos. A good number of the Galician magnates, however, including the brother of Gelmírez, set off to the relief of Berlanga and returned when they found the Muslim had withdrawn. It is not clear from the account whether Gelmírez waited for them to return before making his departure from Burgos. The homeward journey of the Gallegan expedition is described as hazardous, with the burghers of Carrión and an Astorgan noble disposed to make difficulties for the bishop and his party. This narrative gives subsequent credibility to Bishop Gelmírez when he pleads his inability to journey to Palencia in safety.⁽¹⁹⁾ In fact, none of the bishops or magnates of Galicia appear to have attended that curia except the unfortunate Bishop of Lugo, who may have been a prisoner.

The absence of Gelmírez and his party from Palencia seems rather to have been the result of some rift with the queen or with Archbishop Bernard or both; it is clear that there had been very real tensions during the entire course of the expedition. But the young Alfonso Raimúndez had confirmed Urraca's charter of August 28, given at Burgos. Unless she had taken personal custody of her son, which seems unlikely, Gelmírez too was in Burgos at that late date.

From Burgos, the evidence suggests, Urraca returned to León. On September 7, 1113 a private donation to Bishop Diego of León was confirmed by the queen and by Alfonso Raimúndez.⁽²⁰⁾ On October 12, 1113 Urraca herself made a donation to Bishop Diego of León, which was again confirmed by the young Alfonso and by Bishop Gelmírez as [95] well.⁽²¹⁾ But if the bishop was at León on October 12, he could hardly have intended to proceed to Galicia and then return to Palencia on the twenty-fifth.

The general curia was held at Palencia on October 25, 1113. Besides the primate and Bishop Pedro of Lugo, who was deposed there, we can be sure only that the queen attended. Our source speaks only of many bishops and abbots. It is likely that its acts, perhaps in a slightly reworked form, are preserved in some twenty-five decrees of Bishop Gelmírez promulgated about this time. If this is so, then the curia at Palencia addressed itself in a very broad fashion to the problems of justice, administration, local trade, and pilgrimage,⁽²²⁾ all of which must have been exacerbated by the events of the past four years.

Of the question of the marriage of Urraca and Alfonso I, nothing appears in the record. Portuguese affairs were treated, however, and the actions taken amounted to a practical declaration of war. Archbishop Maurice of Braga was suspended, his suffragan Pedro of Lugo was deposed and the queen's chaplain, Pedro, chosen to replace him, and Gelmírez was authorized to consecrate him. The see of Mondoñedo was moved to Vallibriense without consulting Maurice as metropolitan. If there had been negotiations with the Infanta Teresa earlier in the year, they had come to nothing and a different, more aggressive policy replaced them.

The change was probably ill advised. Certainly both Archbishop Bernard and the queen had grounds for complaint, and they may have been flushed with success over the results [96]of the Burgos campaign, but their actions seem premature given the continuing unsettled conditions of the kingdom. It is possible that the adoption of such a policy was the price for the support of Bishop Gelmírez and the Galician party. The bishop of Compostela was about to launch a full-fledged campaign to replace Maurice of Braga as metropolitan of Galicia. Alfonso Enríquez, born about 1109 or 1110,⁽²³⁾ was the potential rival of Alfonso Raimúndez to succeed Urraca herself. The gesture of allowing Gelmírez to pass judgment on the canonical character of the election of the queen's chaplain to Lugo and then to consecrate him was designed both to implicate and to conciliate him. And he, of course, accepted.⁽²⁴⁾

Whatever the initiatives, Urraca chose to bid further for Gelmírez's support by holding her Christmas court in Galicia in 1113. On December 8, 1113 she made a donation of a village in the extreme south of Galicia to Pelayo Velásquez. That noble some years later became a supporter of the Infanta Teresa, but just then the queen was securing, or rewarding, his loyalty. The donation was confirmed almost exclusively by Galician magnates, including Count Pedro Froilaz and Bishop Alfonso of Túy.⁽²⁵⁾

On December 14, 1113 Count Pedro Froilaz made a donation to Cluny of the Galician monastery of San Martín de Jubia. Those who confirmed were again almost exclusively Galician magnates and members of the cathedral chapter of Compostela, including Bishop Gelmírez. But it was also confirmed by Archbishop Bernard of Toledo.⁽²⁶⁾ It is just possible [97] that a strong party of Galicians had traveled to the court of Urraca, but the probabilities run the other way.

The documentary record for the early part of the year 1114 is very scant. Urraca made a donation to the Castilian monastery of San Isidro de las Dueñas on January 18, 1114.⁽²⁷⁾ Those who confirmed, in addition to the predictable encourage, were Alvar Fáñez, Fernando Garciaz de Hita, and Fernando Garciaz de Pellica. Their presence suggests concern for the dangerous situation south of the Guadarramas. The first and the last of these also confirm another charter of Urraca, dated February 15, 1114. This diploma was issued at the fortress of Peñafiel on the Duero.⁽²⁸⁾ Their confirmation again points to the consideration of Toledan affairs.

As events were to demonstrate, there was real cause for concern. In mid-April Alvar Fáñez was killed in or near Segovia.⁽²⁹⁾ The terse statement of the chronicler gives no particulars, but it seems likely that there was a rising there against Urraca's rule. All the indications also point to Toledo's returning its allegiance to Alfonso of Aragón at this time, perhaps in search of more assistance than had been received the preceding year. Toledo, however, experienced yet another bad year; the city itself came under siege by the Muslim governor of Córdoba and its lands were ravaged in July and August.⁽³⁰⁾

Urraca's movements are difficult to trace. She and her son confirmed an exchange of land between Rodrigo Vermúdez and the see of León on April 10, 1114. The list of other confirmants indicates it was executed at court, but it is impossible [98] to tell whether the court was at León.⁽³¹⁾ Two charters of Urraca to the Castilian church of Husillos on May 28, 1114 indicate her presence in the Burgos area if they are to be accepted. The list of confirmants indicates a Castilian provenance.⁽³²⁾

In any event, by the latter part of July she was in Galicia. Urraca's charter of July 23, 1114 to the diocese of Mondoñedo was confirmed by Bishops Muño of Mondoñedo and Pedro of Lugo -- the queen's former chaplain -- and by Counts Pedro Froilaz, Muño Peláez, Rodrigo Vélaz, Suero Vermúdez, and Guter Vermúdez.⁽³³⁾ This charter provides substantiation of an abortive coup against Bishop Gelmírez described in the "Historia Compostelana," further documented by a private charter of León to which Azevedo first called attention.⁽³⁴⁾

Faced with the defection of Segovia and Toledo, Urraca decided in midsummer to consolidate her position in Galicia. The independent policy followed by the bishop of Santiago inhibited her own, and she determined to deprive him of the virtually independent barony that the "honor" of Santiago constituted. To achieve this she enlisted the aid of the confirmants [99] of the charter mentioned above, whose own territories lay north and east of the lands of Gelmírez. Count Pedro Froilaz had often been the ally of Gelmírez but this was not the first instance of a breach between them. Bishop Muño had been a canon and, perhaps, a friend; the charter may have been the price of his allegiance to the plot.

According to the "Historia Compostelana," the queen first came to Compostela and made charges against the bishop, against which he successfully defended himself. She then retired south to fisc lands around Salnes and made plans to seize his person by force when he was at Iria Flavia, the port of Compostela and former site of the bishopric. Warned of her intention by a secret message from Count Pedro Froilaz, we are told, Gelmírez returned to Santiago and opened negotiations with his queen. Balked of her purpose for the time, Urraca then swore to respect the bishop's person and his "honor." Similar oaths are recorded for Counts Pedro Froilaz, Muño Peláez, and Rodrigo Vélaz, as well as for Bishop Muño of Mondoñedo.⁽³⁵⁾

Despite the failure of the attempt against Gelmírez, perhaps even because of it, the pressure on Portugal continued. [100] At some point in 1114, probably after the events just recited, Bernard of Toledo forwarded to the bishop of Compostela the bull of Paschal II, dated April 17, 1114, which upheld the primate's suspension of Maurice of Braga. Bernard asked that Bishop Gelmírez publish the suspension to Maurice's suffragans and to the Infanta Teresa.⁽³⁶⁾

Conceivably the primate's action may have come after the council held at León on October 18, 1114. There is no evidence of further action taken there against Braga except that bishops and abbots from his province were summoned to it, and Archbishop Maurice himself may have been. A letter of Bernard of Toledo in early 1115, excusing his absence to the abbot of San Tirso in the Oporto diocese, indicates that at least Bishop Hugh of Oporto obeyed the summons.⁽³⁷⁾

The bishops of Galicia, who were Braga's suffragans but more frequently were influenced by Gelmírez, did not attend. Instead, they met at Compostela on November 17 with the bishop of Compostela and his faithful assistant, Bishop Hugh of Oporto, and there promulgated the canons of the Council of León. Bishop Gelmírez carried the attack against Braga one step further by appending to the canons a provision by which those present agreed to meet annually in mid-Lent at Compostela for the correction of wrongdoings.⁽³⁸⁾ It was to be an informal synod of the Braga province under his own presidency.

The canons of the Council of León reflect more emphasis on the affairs of the church proper than did those of Palencia the preceding fall. They were also promulgated by Bernard, in his capacity as Roman legate, for León, Castilla, Portugal, Galicia, the trans-Duero, and Aragón. Indeed, in his summons to the council the primate stated that he had been negotiating with Urraca and Alfonso of Aragón over the peace [101] of the realm but had been unable to secure the agreement of Alfonso.⁽³⁹⁾

Another piece of evidence also points to the continuance of negotiations between Urraca and Alfonso. Count Bertran of Risnel, cousin of Alfonso of Aragón, confirmed the charters of Urraca given at Burgos on August 28, 1113 and at Peñafiel on February 15, 1114.⁽⁴⁰⁾ But if both Segovia and Toledo had transferred their allegiance to Alfonso I in the spring of 1114, one might well expect that his attitude hardened toward the queen.

Actions taken at the council in León were to create further opportunities for the Aragonese monarch. Bishop García of Burgos died on October 4, just before the council opened. The council proceeded to elect, or recognize, Paschal as bishop there. The disgruntled burghers of Burgos, however, refused to accept his election, resumed their allegiance to Alfonso I, and elected his brother, Ramiro, to the episcopate. At least, some of them did.⁽⁴¹⁾

It appears likely that the burghers of Sahagún also were summoned before this council. Since the withdrawal of Alfonso I and his brother, Ramiro, in the summer of 1112, continual difficulties had erupted there as the returned abbot tried to reassert his rights. On the appeal of the abbot, Bernard of Toledo had finally leveled an interdict on the district. Now, faced with the summons to what must be a hostile council, the burghers of Sahagún again chose to transfer their allegiance to Alfonso I. The village seems to have passed under his control, and it is likely that the town of Carrión followed the lead of Burgos and Sahagún.⁽⁴²⁾

[102] By the end of 1114 the attempts to capitalize on too many opportunities and on too many fronts had created a very serious situation for the queen's government. Portugal was locked in total opposition.⁽⁴³⁾ The powerful bishop of Santiago de Compostela was suspicious. Central Castilla and its major towns had reacted to royal policy by turning to Alfonso of Aragón. In addition, Toledo, Segovia, and the trans-Duero had declared for the Aragonese earlier. The gains of the Burgos campaign of the preceding year had vanished, and the queen seemed as close to utter defeat as she had been in the years 1111-1112. Fortunately for Urraca, her former husband lacked the means to capitalize on this situation. Simply as king of Aragón, he had neither the power nor the prestige to consolidate his hold on this awkward and extensive empire beyond the Ebro and the Duero.

Urraca seems to have reacted to these threatening developments by wintering in her stronghold at Palencia in the east and conducting extensive negotiations there. Her charter of October 28, 1114 to the church of Palencia shows her in the company of her son, the bishops of Toledo, León, and Osma, the new bishop-elect of Burgos, and a large number of the secular magnates of the east. Its confirmation also by [103]Count Bertran indicates that negotiations continued with Alfonso I.⁽⁴⁴⁾

On January 3, 1115 Urraca was still at Palencia and was drawing even more of her supporters into these negotiations. On that date she made a donation to the church of Santiago de Compostela of extensive lands from the royal fisc in central Galicia. The charter was issued jointly with her son, whose dignity was emphasized and who confirmed.⁽⁴⁵⁾

Ecclesiastical confirmants were the bishop of Palencia, of course, the bishops of León and Astorga, and the abbot of Sahagún. The presence of the latter three in Palencia was probably testimony to the startling resurgence of the power of the Aragonese king in the north. Similarly, among the secular magnates are Jimeno López and his brother, Pedro López, of Rioja, who now found court more congenial than the family lands and for the same reason. The Pelayo Suárez who confirms may be the noble of the same name frequently identified with the court of Count Henry of Portugal and then of the Infanta Teresa. Given the straits to which the queen was reduced at this time, negotiations with her half sister would have been attractive.

During 1115 the equally vital ecclesiastical affairs of the realm were also developing dangerously for Urraca. Already on December 4, 1114 Pope Paschal II had confirmed the boundaries of the church of Braga to Archbishop Maurice, [104] indicating that the papal suspension had been lifted.⁽⁴⁶⁾ Papal opinion was in the process of turning against Archbishop Bernard, Urraca's chief adviser and support.

This trend continued through 1115. In April of that year the pope directed a reconsideration of the double election at Burgos. In July he advised Archbishop Maurice of Braga that he was willing to hear objections to the translation of the see of Mondoñedo to Vallibriense. In August he complained of the overhasty consecration of Bishop Paschal to Burgos. Finally, in November, in a very severe letter that recounted Archbishop Bernard's transgressions in detail, the pope relieved him of his legatine powers over the province of Braga. At the same time he directed the bishop of Coimbra, over which Bernard claimed jurisdiction, to accept the authority of Braga or face suspension.

In distinct contrast to the troubles of the primate and his sovereign, Bishop Gelmírez achieved two successes in August. At that time, one papal letter exempted the diocese of Oporto and his friend and associate, Bishop Hugh, from the authority of Archbishop Maurice of Braga. Another directed the bishop of Coimbra to return disputed territory to Hugh of Oporto under pain of suspension and interdict.

Whether Toledo returned to Urraca's allegiance during this troubled year is uncertain. To be sure, its adherence to Aragón had not spared it from extensive raids in 1114. The only two surviving documents present conflicting evidence. A private donation of Toledo, dated to March 1115, cites Alfonso of Aragón as ruling.⁽⁴⁷⁾ But on March 13, 1115 Urraca donated property in Toledo to the cathedral, and her son confirmed the charter. The fact that the bishops of Palencia, [105] Osma, and Salamanca also confirmed indicates a broad allegiance in the trans-Duero region. The confirmation of Fernando Garciaz de Hita and his brother suggests that the eastern portion of Toledo remained faithful to Urraca.⁽⁴⁸⁾

Regardless of who formally held the reign of Toledo, the year saw brilliant successes for local forces there, a complete reversal of the pattern of the preceding three years. In March a Toledan expedition raided the territory of Córdoba, whose governor, the Emir Mázdali, was defeated and killed. On June 26 another raid defeated and killed his son and successor, Muhammad ben Mázdali. Finally, on November 17 another Christian raid defeated the newest governor of Córdoba.⁽⁴⁹⁾

Meanwhile Urraca was conducting negotiations with Alfonso I in which she seems to have been at a considerable disadvantage. Count Bertran, the cousin of Alfonso, had confirmed her charter of March 13. On April 4, 1115 a private document of Sahagún reads "regnante adefonso rege in aragone et in castella et urraka regina in legione et in gallecia." Though a private donation, it was also confirmed by Archbishop Bernard, Bishop Gelmírez, and Bishops Diego of León and Pedro of Palencia, as well as Counts Pedro Ansúrez, Pedro González, and Froila Díaz. Also notable are the confirmations of no less than six nobles associated with the cause of Alfonso I.⁽⁵⁰⁾

A few weeks later, on April 28, another private document of Sahagún records an actual meeting of the rivals: "regnante rege adefonso aragonese in castella et urraka regina in legione qui cf." It was also confirmed by five of the most important lay members of Urraca's court, by Archbishop [106]Bernard, and by the bishops of León, Astorga, and Salamanca.⁽⁵¹⁾ The subjects of these negotiations are unknown, but they seem to have come to nothing.

Subsequent to this meeting the abbot of Sahagún was forced by circumstances to come to terms with the Aragonese monarch. Alfonso came again to Sahagún and placed his cousin, Count Bertran, in command.⁽⁵²⁾ The defection of the abbot of the monastery that was at once the pantheon of the royal family and the center of extensive fisc lands threatened Urraca profoundly. Nevertheless, it remained to be seen whether her husband could maintain his control so far west. Moreover, the disasters affecting the Murâbits in the environs of Córdoba itself were bound to suggest to the Batallador the growing vulnerability of Zaragoza and the desirability of concentrating his forces against it.

Urraca was still not totally without resources in Castilla, as a charter of hers, dated May 22, 1115, bestowing land there on a supporter indicates. The list of confirmants also establishes that there had been no other serious defections from her court, and the presence of Fernando Garciaz de Hita and his brother is particularly important evidence of her continuing support in the Toledan territories.⁽⁵³⁾

Even so, a charter of the loyal Count Pedro Ansúrez, dated April 16, 1115, claims only the rule of León and Galicia for her.⁽⁵⁴⁾ Another charter of the count, dated June 27, 1115, claims Castilla and the trans-Duero as well, so that her position may have improved marginally by then.⁽⁵⁵⁾ Certainly Alfonso I did not share that perception. In his charter of August 1115, he [107] used the imperial title and claimed the rule of both Toledo and Castilla.⁽⁵⁶⁾

The queen, however, ultimately proved herself able to outmaneuver her former husband in ecclesiastical matters. Sometime in late spring or early summer she had secured the consecration of Bishop Paschal to Burgos. Both king and pope would complain, but eventually both had to accept that determination.

In the fall, a private document of Astorga, dated October 15, 1115, records a new initiative. It cites Urraca as ruling in Castilla as well as León and Galicia, and the list of confirmants indicates the meeting of a general curia or council of the realm. The primate and at least the bishops of Astorga, Compostela, León, Oviedo, and Salamanca were there. So were the Infantas Sancha and Elvira, the queen's half sisters.⁽⁵⁷⁾ It is likely that this council authorized the journey of the abbot of Sahagún to Rome in order to bring papal authority to bear on the recalcitrant burghers of that village. The abbot subsequently met with Alfonso of Aragón before [108] proceeding to Rome, and the king granted him a safe-conduct.⁽⁵⁸⁾ Nevertheless, although he could not openly oppose the abbot's intention to appeal to Rome, the success of such an action was bound to undermine the king's position at Sahagún, which had always depended on the support of the townsmen for his garrison.

Meanwhile Urraca again moved south into the troubled trans-Duero region. On November 26, 1115 in the vicinity of Segovia she made yet another donation of lands to the church of Santiago. Like the charter of January 3, the donation was made jointly with Alfonso Raimúndez and emphasized his dignity. It was also confirmed by the Infantas Sancha and Elvira.⁽⁵⁹⁾

By the year's end Urraca seems to have recovered enough support to celebrate her Christmas court at León. A charter of Bishop Diego of León, dated January 8, 1116, is confirmed by the queen, her son and daughter, her two half sisters, Archbishop Bernard of Toledo, and the bishops of Compostela, Astorga, Oviedo, Palencia, and Salamanca.⁽⁶⁰⁾ She continued to buy support in Castilla. On January 20, 1116 she made a donation of lands to the monastery of San Isidro de las Dueñas, also confirmed by her son, her half sister Sandia, Archbishop Bernard, and the bishops of Palencia and Burgos.⁽⁶¹⁾ She seems to have been making a demonstration [109] in the east at this time, for on February 9, 1116 she made a donation to the church of Palencia, in which she was surrounded by a great concourse of her followers from both the east and west of her realm.⁽⁶²⁾

Urraca also felt strong enough to take measures in early 1116 to strengthen her position in the west. A charter of hers that survives only as a notice in a later confirmation, to the Galician monastery of San Juan de Poyo, is dated February 29, 1116.⁽⁶³⁾ Another charter to the same monastery, dated March 31, 1116, was confirmed solely by local figures, placing her securely in Galicia.⁽⁶⁴⁾

The distribution of largesse was a small part of her activity, however. The "Historia Compostelana" tells of an expedition south to the Limia against one Menendo Nuñez, who had rebelled against her and was ravaging that district.⁽⁶⁵⁾ Nuñez was a border figure who had appeared in the documents of Count Henry and confirmed three of Urraca's charters and some eight of the Infanta Teresa. Her purpose accomplished, the queen once again moved to seize the person of Bishop Gelmírez and deprive hm of his "honor," but again the plan miscarried because Count Pedro Froilaz warned the bishop.

Nevertheless, once again the queen and her fractious bishop worked out a pact of alliance to be guaranteed by her supporters not only in Galicia but also in León and Castilla. Urraca then returned to León by way of Lugo but never supplied the necessary oath-helpers, whereupon Bishop Gelírez [110] notified her that he considered the pact void.⁽⁶⁶⁾ The royal confirmation of a private document of León, dated April 24, 1116, indicates the queen's presence there.⁽⁶⁷⁾

At this time Count Pedro Froilaz and her son were campaigning in the trans-Duero and Toledo regions, surely at the request of Urraca.⁽⁶⁸⁾ When they learned of the attempted coup against Gelmírez and the subsequent failure of his pact with the queen, they opened negotiations with the bishop and returned in open rebellion to Galicia, where the prelate received them.⁽⁶⁹⁾ Upon hearing of these developments the queen hastily marched for Galicia by way of the pilgrim road through Triacastela and Mellid, gaining important support as she went. The count and her son had fortified Compostela, but with the citizens ready to rise against the bishop and the unexpected support gained by Urraca, they evacuated the city and she occupied it.

A new, hasty alliance was now arranged between Urraca and Bishop Gelmírez.⁽⁷⁰⁾ It is impossible to date these events precisely, but the alliance is probably to be associated with the charter granted by the queen to the bishop of Compostela on May 18, 1116, which was confirmed by the bishops of Mondoñedo, Túy, and Orense, and by Counts Rodrigo Vélaz, Muño Peláez, and Pedro Froilaz.⁽⁷¹⁾ The confirmation of Froilaz indicates that he was drawn into the negotiations[111] but, as events would soon indicate, not placated by them.

Urraca now undertook another campaign in the south of Galicia against one Gomez Nuñez. A noble of that name had confirmed six charters of Count Henry, appearing as his majordomo in that of April 12, 1112.⁽⁷²⁾ More recently, as "count," had confirmed Urraca's charter of November 26, 1115.⁽⁷³⁾ His territories around the town of Túy controlled the best access to Galicia from Portugal. In the south the queen was surprised and briefly besieged in the castle of Sobroso by the combined forces of the Infanta Teresa and Count Pedro Froilaz. She had to retreat to Compostela and from there turned to León.⁽⁷⁴⁾

Although she certainly had not achieved everything that she wished, in three months of campaigning Urraca had made substantial headway in Galicia. Twice she sad demonstrated her superior strength in that region to the potential adherents of her son. Twice she had penetrated to and campaigned on the Portuguese border. If the second of these ventures had drawn a counterstroke by the Infanta Teresa, a serious invasion of the Portuguese border in the south by the Murâbits in early July would have kept her half sister occupied here rather than in the north.⁽⁷⁵⁾ She had played off her opponents in Galicia one against the other. Behind her she left Bishop Gelmírez at odds with Count Pedro Froilaz and chastened by the unexpected rise to power in his episcopal city of a hermandad of its citizens, which reduced the doughty Bishop to effective dependence on her.⁽⁷⁶⁾

Back in León, the queen enlisted the support of the new [112]order of the Hospitalers in the border province of Zamora. On June 3, 1116 she granted them at least one charter.⁽⁷⁷⁾ Two weeks later, on June 17, 1116, she made a donation to the see of León which was confirmed by Alfonso Raimúndez, her half sister Sancha, and most of the regular members of her curia.⁽⁷⁸⁾ The following day she confirmed a donation of Bishop Diego of León prepared by her own notary.⁽⁷⁹⁾ By July 5, 1116 she seems to have been in Castilla, where she made a donation to the monastery of Oña confirmed by purely Castilian figures.⁽⁸⁰⁾

While the Leonese monarch had been busy in the west, Alfonso of Aragón seems to have concentrated on consolidating his rule in Aragón, Rioja, and eastern Castilla. A charter of January 1116 places hm at Fitero on the Río Pisuerga, which was as far west as he ventured.⁽⁸¹⁾ In February 1116 another puts him in Villamayor near Nájera in Rioja.⁽⁸²⁾ In both of these he claims the rule of Castilla and Toledo, and the second cites his brother as bishop of Burgos. Two charters of March 1116 were granted in Astorito near Huesca in Aragón⁽⁸³⁾ and at Montearagón farther to the north.⁽⁸⁴⁾ In [113] April he was northeast of Burgos at Cerezo⁽⁸⁵⁾ and also in Nájera.⁽⁸⁶⁾ In both of these charters, too, he claimed Castilla and Toledo. In May he was at Biel⁽⁸⁷⁾ in Aragón and in July at Pancorbo⁽⁸⁸⁾ in eastern Castilla making the same claim.

On August 6, 1116 he gave fueros to Belorado, on the border of Castilla and Rioja, in which he claimed the rule of Carrión, Sahagún, and Toledo.⁽⁸⁹⁾ Finally, sometime in August 1116 at the castle of Haro in Rioja he issued yet another charter "quando Didacus Lopez erat in guerra cum rege iam dicto Adefonso."⁽⁹⁰⁾

Revolt in Rioja was by then not the only problem the Aragonese king had to face. In Rome Pope Paschal II not surprisingly had taken the side of the abbot of Sahagún against the burghers. On March 21 and 22 of 1116, he issued three letters to that effect.⁽⁹¹⁾ At the request of the burghers, who anticipated the papal decision, Alfonso had the abbot and his party intercepted at Estella in Vizcaya and held them prisoners for five weeks. He was finally convinced, however, of the impossibility of achieving his aims in that fashion and released the abbot unconditionally.⁽⁹²⁾

Continuing on to Sahagún, the abbot was able to use his papal support to overawe the townsmen, at least initially, [114] and they accepted both his jurisdiction as abbot and the rule of Urraca, who reentered the town. But the reconciliation soon foundered on the questions of the restoration of the monastery's property and of the charter of the town. The chronology of "Las crónicas anónimas" is not entirely clear, but apparently in August Urraca drew a siege line around Sahagún. Since Alfonso I had lost both the town and castle of Burgos, we are told, the chance of aid was slight.

Nevertheless, the Aragonese monarch still had a garrison in Carrión, only thirty-five kilometers distant, and plans were made to betray the village to the Aragonese in September. But the plot was betrayed and the attempt failed on the night of September 29. Urraca then seized those involved and expelled them from the town.⁽⁹³⁾ Her control there was once again complete and Burgos, too, was in her lands.

By the fall of 1116 negotiations of the most important sort were also in train between the queen and the supporters of her son, now eleven years old. These are described in the "Historia Compostelana," whose author, as usual, exalts the role of Bishop Gelmírez in the process and may also have misstated the terms somewhat. As described, however, the agreement then struck was to last for three years. It provided for the de facto division between them of authority in the realm and gave assurances of mutual aid and cooperation. The portions of the kingdom that each was to rule are not specified, except that Galicia is said to be a portion of Alfonso Raimúndez.⁽⁹⁴⁾

The "Historia Compostelana" identifies the supporters of the young king as Bishop Gelmírez and members and relations of the house of Pedro Froilaz, those of the queen as Count Pedro González of Lara and the powerful Galician counts Muño Peláez and Suero Vermúdez.⁽⁹⁵⁾ It also identifies Sahagún as the place in which a general curia of the realm worked out the terms. The bishops of León, Astorga, [115] Oviedo, Mondoñedo, and Granada are said to have attended.⁽⁹⁶⁾ Without doubt this is the curia at which, on October 15, 1116, Urraca issued a grant of minting privileges to Sahagún. Confirmants to the charter include the two Infantas Sancha -- Urraca's half sister and daughter-- Archbishop Bernard of Toledo, and the bishops of Compostela, León, Astorga, Oviedo, Palencia, and Burgos.⁽⁹⁷⁾

It seems most doubtful, given the situation as we know it, that Urraca need have agreed to recognize her son's authority in Galicia. The depth of her own support there had been demonstrated time and time again. In the past year she had managed to divide her usual opponents, Count Pedro Froilaz and Bishop Gelmírez. The bishop of Santiago de Compostela, moreover, had suffered a revolt in his own episcopal city that reduced his authority to the merely nominal. He was forced to bid against the insurgents for the support of Urraca, a circumstance that must have been delightful to the queen, who had so often been in desperate need of his assistance.⁽⁹⁸⁾ Other than her own son, the only effective center of opposition to her rule in Galicia at this time was Teresa of Portugal. It would have been foolhardy to reinforce the faltering party opposed to her direct rule there by formally recognizing her son's rights in that province.

We have merely the testimony of the "Historia Compostelana" that she did so, and the testimony of that source is sometimes skewed by its clear preference for her son. On the other hand, of the seventeen known charters that Alfonso Raimúndez issued in the next ten years, of the six that are concerned with Galicia only one genuine diploma falls within the period 1116-1122. Even if Urraca did, perhaps, recognize her son's formal rights in the province of the northwest, she fully intended to rule there directly, as subsequent events make [116]clear. Indeed, that is the entire point of her policy as it was developing at that time.

On the other hand, that she granted to her heir the titular rule of the trans-Duero and Toledo is fully documented. This move was to redound to her benefit, as she doubtlessly foresaw. Her own position there was tenuous at best in 1116, and any gains made by her son would be essentially at the expense of Alfonso of Aragón.⁽⁹⁹⁾ Her son had at least been paraded through those territories in the spring, and the boy had a natural appeal for the opponents of Alfonso of Aragón. The imperial title linked to the old city of Toledo had, even more than the royal dignity, essentially masculine connotations, and so Alfonso Raimúndez had a particular claim that his mother lacked. Finally, any gains made by his party would be consolidated by Archbishop Bernard of Toledo, who now begins to emerge as the mentor of the eleven-year old boy king. That situation could only aid Urraca, whose unswervingly faithful adviser the primate remained until his death in 1125.

Indeed, perhaps the greatest advantage of this agreement was that it largely severed the connection between the young heir and the old particularist party of Galicia. He ceased to be the ward of the count of Traba and the bishop of Compostela and was elevated to a much grander destiny than any that they could offer him.⁽¹⁰⁰⁾ His absence from Galicia and the formation around him of a new and more cosmopolitan court with which he would increasingly identify his possibilities sapped the vital legitimacy of Gallegan opposition to Urraca.

The new dignity and direction of Alfonso Raimúndez are signalized by the issuance of his first known diploma on November 27, 1116. It was granted far to the south of Villabañez [117] on the Duero in the lands of Urraca's loyal servant, Count Pedro Ansúrez. The latter confirmed, as did Alfonso's sister, the Infanta Sancha, and the bishops of Toledo, Palencia, and Salamanca; no Galicians appear in his entourage.⁽¹⁰¹⁾

One reaction to Urraca's new, more formalized recognition of Alfonso Raimúndez as her coruler and heir appeared almost immediately in the far west of the peninsula. Up to this time Urraca's half sister Teresa had been content to style herself "Infanta." The first evidence that she had perhaps begun to employ the queenly title is a letter of Paschal II of June 18, 1116, addressed in part to "T reginae."⁽¹⁰²⁾ The beginning of Teresa's own regular use of that title, however, dates to an original charter of May 1117.⁽¹⁰³⁾ It is clear that Teresa was moving to improve her position and that of her son, Alfonso Enríquez, rendered anomalous in this new state of affairs. She did not, however, call herself queen of Portugal until November 1117.⁽¹⁰⁴⁾

The movement toward an independent realm of Portugal, then, appears to have begun as a reaction by the Portuguese infanta to the loss of any real hope of securing the crown of León-Castilla for herself or her son. There was, too, a real Portuguese particularism or provincialism that could be built upon. Moreover, it may fairly be said that Count Henry had worked to strengthen his own power within the county and to minimize that of the crown. Finally, from 1109 to 1116 [118] Portugal enjoyed effective independence as a result of the troubles that beset Urraca. But all these factors could become fully operative only under the direction of a member of the dynasty itself, and until 1116 the lure of possible accession to the greater dignity inhibited the development of a policy to create a more circumscribed one. Even after 1116, movement toward creation of a separate realm was tentative and largely a continuing reaction to failures in the wider arena.

Meanwhile, as winter came in 1116, Urraca had once again reclaimed most of Castilla from Alfonso of Aragón. She had consolidated her position in Galicia. She had also temporarily diverted southward the energies of her son's supporters in such a way that the trans-Duero and Toledo regions might be strengthened by an influx of new warriors. At last she might be free to move to reduce the virtual independence of Teresa in Portugal or at least to restrict the area of her authority. This last depended on the possibility of achieving some sort of understanding with her former husband that would end or suspend the strife in Castilla.

Fortunately for Urraca's purposes, Alfonso I was beginning to conceive the project of the conquest of Zaragoza. To free his hand to that end he was willing to negotiate. For Urraca, entering upon such a policy meant breaking with an older one of her father, which envisioned the great city on the Ebro as the eventual prize of León-Castilla. But if the Aragonese ruler failed to take and hold Zaragoza, Urraca lost nothing and would gain a considerable respite for Castilla and her other purposes. If he succeeded, she and León-Castilla would face a far more formidable Aragón. Surely it must have been with mixed feelings that she began negotiations, probably in November and December of 1116.

1. Puyol y Alonso, ed., BRAH 76 (1920):350.

2. AC León, no. 9.277, an original. Bishop Diego of León also confirmed, but the location of his name on the document makes it likely that he did so subsequently.

3. Ambrosio Huici y Miranda, ed., Las crónicas latinas de la reconquista, 2 vols. (Valencia, 1913), 1:345 and 358.

4. AHN, Sección de Códices, 987B, fol. 41, and 996B, fols. 54v-55r. Both copies are dated to 1083. Fidel Fita, "El monasterio toledano de San Servando: Examen crítico de una bula de Pascual II y de un diploma de la reina Doña Urraca," BRAH 48 (1906):492-500, published the text and established the correct date. January 23, 1113; AHN, Sección de Clero, carp. 893, no. 8, a private document of Sahagún, reads "regnante regina horracha cum suo filio in toleto et in legione" and also "sanxio iohannes revelato in ceia." The latter's name appears subsequently in two charters of Alfonso of Aragón. The document is a copy and is dated to 1112. Other citations make that date impossible, but 1113 would be acceptable.

5. Cited in Francisco de Berganza, Antiguedades de España, 2 vols. (Madrid, 1719-21), 2:15-16, and Juan Loperráez Corvalón, Descripción historica del obispado de Osma, 3 vols. (Madrid, 1788), 1:98.

6. AHN, Clero, carp. 893, no. 10.

7. AHN, Clero, carp. 1.405, no. 15; published in Antonio Durán Gudiol, ed., Colección diplomdtica de la catedral de Huesca (Saragossa, 1965), 1:135-136, from a copy in that archive. Another private document, dated March 31, 1113, cites Alfonso as ruling in León but the dating formula is flawed; published in Eduardo Jusué, ed., Libro de regla o cartulario de la antigua abadía de Santillana del Mar (Madrid, 1912), pp. 90-91.

8. Enrique Flórez, ed., HC, ES, vols. 1-27 (Madrid, 1747-72), 20:167; J.P. Migne, ed., PL, 122 vols. (Paris, 1844-64), l63:32l-322; J-W, 6350.

9. Flórez, HC, ES, 20:152-153.

10. Ibid., pp. 153-154.

11. Ibid., pp. 154-157. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this portion of the HC is not an eyewitness account, so precise is its detail and so familiar its general tenor. A private document of Sahagún, dated April 23, 1113, AHN, Clero, carp. 893, no. 9, mentions Count Pedro Ansúrez as holding Carrión that early.

12. Flórez, ES, 20:157-169.

13. AC León, Particulares, no. 19.

14. Published in Berganza, Antigüedades, 2:454.

15. Flórez, HC, ES, 20:163-167.

16. Ibid., p. 168.

17. Julio González, Repoblación de Castilla la Nueva, 2 vols. (Madrid, 1975), 1:103-104 and n 22.

18. Flórez, ES, 20:163.

19. Ibid., pp. 169-170 and 172-174. That the kingdom was unsettled is reflected in the documents. A private document of Burgos that bishop García witnessed cited Urraca as ruling Toledo, León, and all Castilla on August 29, 1113. BN, Sección de Manuscritos, 5.790, fol. 70, published in Luciano Serrano, El obispado de Burgos y Castilla primitiva desde el siglo V al XIII, 3 vols. (Madrid, 1935), 3:142-143. On September 6, 1113 a private document of Aguilar de Campoo reads "regnante rex adefonsus de aragona usque in astorga"; AHN, Clero, carp. 1.647, no. 5.

20. AC León, Particulares, no. 1.379, an original.

21. AC León, 1.005, a possible original, published in Luis Sánchez Belda, "Notas de diplomática: La confirmación de documentos por los reyes del occidente español," RABM 59 (1953):85-116 and accompanying plate. There is a donation of Bishop Gelmírez to the Compostelan monastery of San Payo de Antealtares dated October 3, 1113. It is listed in the catalog of the ARG, Particulares, no. 27, as an original but the script employed is Carolingian, which would be most unusual for this date. If it is a copy the dating may be defective. If original, it may have been done at court, which would not have been unusual.

22. Flórez, HC, ES, 20:175-181.

23. See the consideration of the date of his birth in Luiz Gonzaga de Azevedo, História de Portugal (Lisbon, 1940), 3:240-243.

24. Flórez, HC, ES, 20:182-184.

25. AHN, Clero, carp. 1.794, no. 1, an original.

26. Alexandre Bruel, ed., Recueil des chartes de l'Abbaye de Cluny, 6 vols. (Paris, 1876-1903), 5:255-257. Charles Julian Bishko, "The Cluniac Priories of Galicia and Portugal: Their Acquisition and Administration," SM 7 (1965):323, sees in the donation the reflection of Cluny's acceptance, at this point, of Urraca's sole rule with Alfonso Raimúndez as the heir. Urraca then begins a series of donations to the great Burgundian abbey and its dependencies as a substitute for the defaulted annual payment pledged by Alfonso VI. Peter Segl, Königtum und Klosterreform in Spanien (Kallmünz, 1974), pp. 86 and 154-155, follows Bishko's interpretation.

27. BN Manuscritos, 720, fols. 277v-278r.

28. Luciano Serrano, ed., Cartulario de San Millán de La Cogolla (Madrid, 1930), pp. 301-302.

29. Ambrosio Huici y Miranda, ed., Las crónicas latinas de la reconquista, 2 vols. (Valencia, 1913), 1:345.

30. González, Repoblación, 1:105-106.

31. AC León, Particulares, no. 1.380; published on Justiano Rodríguez Fernández, "El señorio eclesiástica de Valmadrigal," AL 11 (1957): 151-153.

32. BN, Manuscritos, 705, fols. 19 and 200v-201r. The first preserves the list of confirmants, which must be questioned because one Pascharius appears as bishop of Burgos. It is possible that he confirmed the document later or that it is simply a scribal error. The second document has no list. The overall characteristics of the two convince me that at least they are based on one genuine charter of this date.

33. July 23, 1114; Instituto Valencia de San Juan, Fondo antiguo de pergaminos, B.A. 2/1, the original; and a copy in Acad. Hist., Colección de Catedrales de España, Mondoñedo, 9-25-1-C-3, fol. 15, published in Pedro Floriano Llorente, ed., "El fondo antiguo de pergaminos del Instituto Valencia de San Juan," BRAH 168 (1971):459-460.

34. Gonzaga de Azevedo, História de Portugal, 3:212, cites a private document of the cathedral of León, dated July 26, 1114, that reads "regnante regina domna Urraca cum filio suo donno Adefonso in espanie regno discordia tamen inter eos manente."

35. Flórez, ES, 20:189-190, 194-197, and 200-202. The text is difficult to follow. The oath of Count Pedro Froilaz is placed first, before comments on and the canons of the Council of León. These are followed by a papal letter, dated by Flórez to 1115 but actually of 1114, and an undated letter of the papal chancellor, John of Gaeta. See Campelo, ed., Historia Compostelana trans. Manuel Suárez (Santiago de Compostela, 1950), p. 189, n. 3. The story of the conspiracy is then given, beginning "interea," that is, between the papal letter of June 1114, and the Council of León in October 1114. The tale of the plot is followed by one version of Urraca's oath. Next follows an account of Gelmírez's provision for the defense of the coast against Muslim pirates. This relation, at least, is a later insertion in the text. Then come the texts of the comital oaths, another version of Urraca's oath, and that of Bishop Muño. The second version of Urraca's oath is dated "post obitum Regis bonae memoriae Dni. A. in octavo anno ejus mortis facta fuere in Era MCLIII." But given the death of Alfonso VI on June 30, 1109, the eighth year afterward would run from June 30, 1116 to June 29, 1117. Whether this oath is of 1115 or 1116, it probably represents another reconciliation and also another later insertion in the text.

36. Flórez, HC, ES, 20:184-185.

37. Carl Erdmann, Das Papsttum und Portugal in ersten Jahrhundert der portugiesischen Geschichte (Berlin, 1928), p. 53.

38. Flórez, HC, ES, 20:191-192.

39. Ibid., pp. 190-191.

40. See notes 14 and 28. For Count Bertran, see Luis Salazar y Castro, Historia de la casa de Lara (Madrid. 1694), p 101, and José María Lacarra, "Los franceses en la reconquista y repoblación del valle del Ebro en tiempos de Alfonso el Batallador," CH 2 (1968):71, n. 15.

41. Migne, PL, 163:380; J-W, 6455. This letter is the chief source for the entire dispute.

42. Puyol y Alonso, "Las crónicas anónimas de Sahagún," BRAH 76 (1920):406-408. The source speaks of Alfonso's sending "por suçesor de Guillelmo Falcon a Giraldo." Given the source's tendency to skip back and forth in time, I do not believe that it has to be read as an immediate successor.

During this year Alfonso I's claims seem to be muted, perhaps because he was negotiating. His single known diploma, dated April 1114, claims for him only Aragón, Pamplona, Sobarbe, and Ribagorza; published in Durán Gudiol, Colección de Huesca. 1:139-140. A private document dated only to 1114, which may reflect the situation at year's end, reads "regnante rege Aldefonso in Toleto et in omni Castella"; published in Juan de Alamo, ed., Colección diplomática de San Salvador de Oña (Madrid, 1950), 1:169-170.

43. Peter Feige, "Die Anfänge des portugiesischen Königtums und seiner Landeskirche," GAKS 29 (1978):142, calls attention to the fact that Teresa of Portugal first used the queenly title in a charter of June 1, 1114. However, the document is a copy and "regina" appears only in the dating formula, not in the body of the text. It is probably a later interpolation.

44. AHN, Sección de Microfilmas, Palencia, armario 3, legajo 10, rollo 1.727, fols. 5r-6r. In the text she seems to have emphasized her claims by styling herself "totius hispaniae imperatrix," but we are dealing with a copy. The redaction of the diploma by a canon of Palencia also indicates that the court was in that city. Another of her charters of this period also suggests Palencia as her residence, December 23, 1114. BN, Manuscritos, 13.063, fol. 9.

45. AC Santiago, Tumbo A, fols. 31v-32r, published in Antonio López Ferreiro, Historia de la Santa Apostolica Metropolitana Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela, 11 vols. (Santiago de Compostela, 1898-1911), 3:95-96 app. The language of the text reads "una cum filio meo dno. adefonso in regni fastigia iam benedicto et consecrato...."

46. Manuel Risco, ES, vols. 28-42 (Madrid, 1774-1801), 40:351; Migne, PL, 163:361-362; J-W, 6414. Pierre David, Études historiques sur la Galice et le Portugal du VI^e au XII^e siècle (Paris, 1947), p. 463, believed that Maurice visited Rome in early 1114. This and other ecclesiastical developments will be documented fully in a subsequent chapter on the church in León-Castilla.

47. AHN, Códices, 996B, fol. 99r.

48. AHN, Códices, 987B, fols. 9v-l0r.

49. González, Repoblación, 1:106-107.

50. AHN, Clero, carp. 893, no. 12. Bishop Gelmírez must have departed almost immediately thereafter for Galicia. On April 15, 1115 he made a donation to the Galician monastery of San Martín Pinario whose purely local confirmants suggest that it was issued in Compostela; published in López Ferreiro, Historia, 3:102-103 app.

51. AHN, Clero, carp. 893, no. 13; published in Romualdo Escalona, Historia del real monasterio de Sahagún (Madrid, 1782), pp. 510-512.

52. Puyol y Alonso, "Las crónicas anónimas," BRAH 76 (1920):419 and 512-513.

53. BN, Manuscritos, 720, fols. 275v-276v.

54. AHN, Clero, carp. 1.740, no. 11.

55. Manuel Mañueco-Villalobos and José Zurita Nieto, eds., Documentos de la Iglesia Colegial de Santa María la Mayor de Valladolid (Valladolid, 1917), 1:106-107.

56. AHN, Clero, carp. 800, no. 6; published in José María Lacarra, ed.. "Documentos para el estudio de la reconquista y repoblación del valle del Ebro," EEMCA 5 (1952):526-527.

57. AHN, Códices, 1.195B, fols. 52 and 53. The first of these copies also lists as confirmants Archbishop Maurice of Braga and Bishop Pedro of Palencia. The diplomatic of the second is more regular, but the presence of the prelate of Braga would indicate some greater willingness of Urraca and Bernard to compose their quarrel with Portugal in response to the support the latter had gained at Rome.

In 1115 a general council of the realm is also supposed to have been held in Oviedo; BN, Manuscritos, 1.513, fols. 110r-113v; published in Risco, ES, 38:266-274. The text consists of three canons generally concerned with public order and justice and an absolutely fantastic list of confirmants including bishops from the as yet unrestored sees of Ávila, Segovia, and Sigüenza. Franciso Fernández Conde, El libro de testamentos de la catedral de Oviedo (Rome, 1971), pp. 39-41, demonstrates that the document cannot possibly be accepted for what it purports to be. Nevertheless, there has been considerable reluctance to abandon the idea of a general council held then. Most recently it is accepted by Feige, "Die Anfänge," pp. 141-142, and by Manuel Recuero Astray, Alfonso VII, Emperador (León, 1979), pp. 57-58, n. 28.

58. Puyol y Alonso, "Las crónicas anónimas," BRAH 76 (1920):517.

59. AC Santiago, Tumbo A, fol. 31v, published in López Ferreiro, Historia, 3:104-105 app. She had apparently swung west to Astorga first. A private document of that church, dated November 6, 1115, was confirmed by her. The confirmation may not be contemporary, however; BN, Manuscritos, 4.357, fols. 26v-27r.

60. AC León, Tumbo, fols. l00r-l0lv; and Acad. Hist., Catedrales, 9-25-1-C-4, fols. 84r-88v; published in Risco, ES, 36:100-103.

61. BN, Manuscritos, 720, fols. 278r-279r; and Acad. Hist., Colección Velázquez, 4, no. 1.397. Another donation to San Isidro, dated only to 1116, may have been made about this time. It is cited in Gregorio de Argáiz, La soledad laureada por San Benito y sus hijos en las iglesias de España (Madrid, 1675), 4:204v.

A private document dated February 15, 1116 cites Urraca as ruling in León, Toledo, and Castilla but there is a discrepancy in the dating formula; Jusué, Santillana del Mar, pp. 92-93.

62. AHN, Sección de Microfilmas, Palencia, armario 3, legajo 10, rollo 1.729, fols. 34r-35r.

63. See Luis Sánchez Belda, ed., Documentos reales de la edad media referentes a Galicia (Madrid, 1953), pp. 94-95.

64. AHN, Clero, carp. 1.857, no. 13; BN, Manuscritos, 712, fol. 226; and Acad. Hist., Colección Salazar y Castro, O-16, fol. 250.

65. Flórez, ES, 20:204. Campelo, Historia Compostelana, p. 199, n. 1, confuses this trip to Galicia with one later in the spring by identifying a reference to a charter in the text with the charter of May 18, 1116. If he is correct in his identification, then the confusion over the time of the donation rests with the original author.

66. Flórez, HC, ES, 20:204-208.

67. AC León, Tumbo, fol. 103.

68. The HC, ES. 20:208, puts it: "puerum commorantem in Extremitatem Comes P. Froylaz." A private document of Burgos dated May 8, 1116 states: "regnante eo tempore Adefonso aragonensium rege in regno suo en Nazara atque Burgis regina vero Urraca in legione atque galicia et infans eius filius apud toletum et extrematuram"; Serrano, Obispado, 3:145-146, who would redate the document to 1118.

69. Flórez, HC, ES, 20:208-211.

70. Ibid., pp. 211-215.

71. AC Santiago, Tumbo A, fol. 32r; published in López Ferreiro, Historia, 3:106 app. The dating is further complicated by a donation of Urraca to the Castilian monastery of Oña, dated May 19, 1116, confirmed by Castilian figures only; AHN, Clero, carp. 272, no. 15, a copy; published in Alamo, Colección de Oña, 1:172-173.

72. Rui Pinto de Azevado, ed., DMP (Lisbon, 1958), 1:40-41. See also Goonzaga de Azevedo, História de Portugal, 3:107; Luis Sánchez Belda, ed., Chronica Adefonsi Imperatoris (Madrid, 1950), pp. 234-235, and Bishko, Cluniac Priories," pp. 327-329.

73. See note 59.

74. Flórez, HC, ES, 20:216-217.

75. David, Études, pp. 302 and 308.

76. Flórez, HC, ES, 20:217-221.

77. BN, Manuscritos, 714, fol. 138r; and Acad. Hist., Colección del Conde de Mora, 9-6-4-0-3, p. 225,. notices with confirmants. Notice of another charter, dated only to 1116, is to be found in Jean Delaville le Roulx, ed., Cartulaire général de l'Ordre des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, 1110-1310 (Paris, 1894), 1:34.

78. AC León, no. 1.006, Tumbo, fols. 95v-96r; and Acad. Hist., Catedrales, 9-25-l-C-4, fols. 89r-90r.

79. June 18, 1116; AC León, Particulares, no. 1.381.

80. AHN, Clero, carp. 272, nos. 16 and 17; Códices, 16B. p. 12; published in Alamo, Colección de Oña, 1:173-175.

81. Acad. Hist., Manuscritos, Cartulario de Alaon, 9-25-4-C-67, fol. 76r. Now, Itero del Castilla.

82. Published in Amancio Rodríguez López, El real monasterio de Las Huelgas de Burgos y el hospital del Rey, 2 vols. (Burgos, 1907), 2:239-330. See also Pascual Galindo Romeo, "Un documento de Alfonso I de Aragón en la cancillería real castellana," Homenaje a Don Augustín Millares Carlo (Grand Canary, 1975), 2:129-142.

83. Durán Gudiol, Colección de Huesca, 1:145-147.

84. Lacarra, "Documentos de la reconquista," EEMCA 5 (1952):528.

85. Ibid., p. 529.

86. AHN, Códices, 105B, fol. 115; published in Ildefonso Rodríguez de Lama, ed., Colección diplomática medieval de la Rioja, vol. 2, Documentos, 923-1168 (Logroño, 1976), pp. 108-109.

87. Lacarra, "Documentos de la reconquista," EEMCA 3 (1947-48):513-514.

88. lbid., p. 514.

89. Published in Juan Antonio Llorente, ed., Noticias históricas de las tres provincias vascongadas, Alava, Guipúzcoa, y Vizcaya, 4 vols. (Madrid, 1806-08), 4:19-21, and Tomás Muñoz y Romero, ed., Colección de fueros municipales y cartas pueblas (Madrid, 1847), pp. 410-412.

90. Serrano, Cartulario de San Millón, pp. 302-303.

91. Puyol y Alonso, "Las crónicas anónimas," BRAH 76 (1920):518-519 and 77 (1921):53. AHN, Códices, 988B, fol. 5v; published in Luis Fernández, "Villafrades de Campos: Señorio del abad de Sahagún," AL 27 (1973):252-253.

92. Puyol y Alonso, "Las crónicas anónimas," BRAH 77 (1921):51-52.

93. Ibid., pp. 53-59 and 151-155.

94. Flórez, HC, ES, 20:221-226.

95. Ibid., p. 225.

96. Ibid. The presence of a bishop of Granada is inexplicable and there is no other contemporary evidence for a Christian bishopric there.

97. AHN, Clero, carp. 893, no. 16; published in Escalona, Historia de Sahagún. pp. 512-513.

98. Flórez, HC, ES, 20:217-224.

99. Recuero Astray, Alfonso VII, Emperador, p. 62, appreciates this aspect of the policy although in general he badly underestimates the strength of Urraca.

100. After 1116 Count Pedro confirmed but four of the heir's documents and Gelmírez confirmed only three.

101. Marius Férotin, ed., Recueil des chartes de l'Abbaye de Silos (Paris, 1897), pp. 37-38.

102. Published in Carl Erdmann, ed., "Papsturkunden in Portugal," Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft zur Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse, n.s. vol. 20 (Berlin, 1927), pp. 169-70; J-W. 6527.

103. Azevado, DMP, 1:59-60. In the dating formula of a charter of June 1, 1114 she is cited "imperante Portugalis regine Tarasie," but she neither is so titled in the text itself nor does she confirm as queen. A copy, the document may have been interpolated. For a careful survey of the documentary evidence for a developing claim to royal status, see Feige, "Die Anfänge," pp. 163-165.

104. Azevado, DMP, 1:60-62.