CHAPTER 3

Creating a Dynasty

Rey Tanto Quiere Dezir Commo Rregidor

Alfonso X defined his office in simple terms: “Rey tanto quiere dezir commo rregidor, ca sin falla, a el pertenesce el gouernamiento del reyno” (King means ruler, for certainly, the government of the kingdom is entrusted to him) (SP 2, 1, 6). The Alfonsine Codes described the qualities of a good king who attained that rank by hereditary succession and ruled by God’s grace. An overview of the accession ritual and the symbols of kingship may further elucidate his understanding of his position. As kingship was the family business, he had to carefully choose a queen to be his faithful companion and share the task of nurturing their children. In contrast to the ideal portrayed by the royal jurists, his brothers challenged his authority, and the plan of succession was subverted by the untimely death of his son and heir. The king’s task as lawgiver must be seen in those circumstances.

The Making of a King

Upon the king’s death, prelates, magnates, masters of the military orders, and good men of the towns should attend his funeral, give alms, and pray for his entrance into paradise. His debts and bequests should be paid and his wrongs redressed. Acknowledging his rightful heir as king, and declaring their vassalage, they should promise obedience, loyalty, and protection. In recognition of his sovereignty, they should kiss his foot and hand and surrender all offices, estates, and revenues that they held of his predecessor, so he could entrust them to persons having his confidence (E 2, 16, 2–3, 6; SP 2, 13, 19–20).

Those rituals seem to have been observed when Fernando III died at Seville on 31 May 1252 and Alfonso X, after a long apprenticeship, came to power at the age of thirty-one.1 Jofré de Loaysa, who was present, related that after the interment on 1 June, those assembled “raised up Don Alfonso as king and he became a knight.”² That ought to be understood figuratively, as it is unlikely that Alfonso X, given his sense of the majesty of kingship, was literally raised on a shield in accord with ancient Germanic custom.³ The fifteenth-century continuator of Lucas of Túy narrated that Alfonso X, after a triumphal procession through the streets, promised to give the people good fueros, to confirm their privileges, and not to impose any undue burden upon them. Although not a contemporary account, that is probably a reasonably accurate description of what transpired.⁴ Perhaps royal chamberlains scattered gold and silver coins or jewels among the crowds, as directed in the Partidas (3, 28, 48). During the Cortes of Seville in October 1252 the estates likely pledged allegiance, and he may have assured them of good fueros and confirmed their rights and privileges.⁵

At his accession, according to Jofré and the king himself, he received knighthood.⁶ Although Antonio Ballesteros proposed that, like Alfonso XI, he was knighted by a mechanical statue of Santiago, that seems improbable.⁷ As the recipient of knighthood was subordinated to the person conferring that honor, it is unlikely that anyone knighted him. Considering his neglect of the shrine of Santiago de Compostela, there is scant reason to believe that he would establish a special bond with that see (and, by implication, subservience to the archbishop) by receiving knighthood from a statue of St. James.⁸ As he remarked, the king or his heir, though not knights, could confer knighthood, “because they are the head of the knighthood” (SP 2, 21, 11). Imitating his father, he probably girded himself with his arms after one of the bishops blessed them.⁹

The accession lacked the religious characteristics associated with other monarchies. The French and English kings, anointed and crowned by an archbishop, were believed to receive a sacramental or priestly character and were endowed with the power to heal scrofula. In contrast, the Castilian ceremony consisted of acclamation and a pledge of allegiance by the assembled estates. Thus, Teofilo Ruiz spoke of a secular monarchy.¹⁰ Anointing, introduced in seventh-century Spain, was intended to protect the Visigothic kings against assassination. Several kings of Asturias-León were anointed in the ninth, tenth, and early eleventh centuries. In 1135 Alfonso VII crowned himself as emperor of León, but there is no record of his being anointed, nor were any of his immediate successors anointed or crowned.11 The troubadour Raimon Vidal de Bezaudon commented that Alfonso VIII “was neither anointed nor consecrated.”¹²

The royal jurists, citing Isaiah’s prophecy (Is 9:5–6) that the king of heaven and earth would bear his empire on his shoulders, and affirming that Jesus carried his cross on his right shoulder, declared that Christian kings holding Christ’s place on earth were anointed on the shoulder or back of the right arm. That “should be done as stated in the second book” (PPBM 1, 4, 13). The text from Biblioteca Real, 2 and 3, printed at the foot of the Academia edition, repeated that phrase (SPRAH 1, 4, 13), but SPGL did not. Neither the Espéculo nor the Second Partida mention anointing.¹³ After distinguishing the spiritual anointing of priests from the temporal anointing of kings, the Setenario (ley 89) stated that Jesus was anointed as priest and king and that anciently kings, occupying his place, were anointed. However, the Setenario did not say that the Castilian kings were anointed or should be.¹⁴ Thus, the ritual of anointing and coronation by an archbishop never become customary in Castile-León. European contemporaries commented on that anomaly.¹⁵

As Alfonso X seemed determined not to allow any ecclesiastic to claim superiority over him, he probably crowned himself at his accession, but I believe that he also did so during the Cortes of Toledo in the spring of 1254. In attendance were prelates, nobles, and townsmen, and his vassals, the Muslim emirs of Granada, Niebla, and Murcia. In 1274, when transferring the remains of the Visigothic king Wamba to the city, he declared that Toledo was the head of Spain, “where anciently the emperors were crowned.”¹⁶ None of the Visigothic kings employed the imperial title, but some tenth-and eleventh-century rulers of Asturias-León-Castile, claiming to be their heirs, did so. After conquering Toledo in 1085, Alfonso VI styled himself “imperator toletanus” (emperor of Toledo), but there is no record of his coronation there.¹⁷

Toledo, with its memories of peninsular hegemony, would have been an appropriate site for Alfonso X’s coronation. The placement of Toledo immediately after Castile in the royal intitulation acknowledged its importance. The poet Gil Pérez Conde’s reference to an undated instance “in Toledo, when you took the crown there,” suggests that the king crowned himself during the Cortes in 1254.¹⁸ That he did so is also implied by the fact that Sancho IV, after being acclaimed at Ávila, hastened to Toledo where he received the crown from four bishops and declared that his successors should be crowned there.¹⁹ Although his son Fernando IV was acclaimed at Toledo, it is not evident that he was crowned or anointed.20 By opting to crown himself in Toledo, Alfonso X may have wished to emphasize that he, like his Visigothic predecessors, exercised supreme authority over the entire peninsula, but his Christian neighbors did not consider themselves his subordinates.

Not only did Alfonso X reject the quasi-priestly character conferred on a king by episcopal anointing and coronation, but he also repudiated the notion of the royal touch, the claim that the French and English kings could cure scrofula by touching the afflicted person.²¹ In CSM 321 he dismissed as “nonsense” the idea that a king could heal a Córdoban girl suffering from lanparones, a tumor of some sort, or scrofula.²² That probably reflected his natural skepticism but may also have been provoked by the intrusion of Philip III of France into Castilian affairs after 1275.

When speaking of the secular character of the Castilian monarchy, one does not mean that it was irreligious or lacking a spiritual element. The preambles to royal charters, the numerous royal donations to churches, and the text of the First and Second Partidas make clear that the Castilian kings, ruling by God’s grace, believed that the promotion of true religion was a paramount obligation. They expressed their religious fervor by founding monasteries, going on pilgrimage, or dedicating themselves to the war against Islam. Presenting himself as defender of the orthodox faith, Alfonso X also upheld the spiritual authority of the pope. Thus, Alfonso X, whose Cantigas de Santa Maria reveal his devotion to the Virgin Mary, was no less devout than any of his contemporaries.²³

The chancery formula “rex Dei gratia” or “rey por la gracia de Dios” (king by the grace of God) signified the religious character of monarchy. The claim to rule by God’s grace stressed that the king was appointed by God to whom he was directly accountable. As God’s temporal representative on earth, he was expected to govern his people justly, but as he did not derive his authority from them, he was not answerable to them. To challenge him was tantamount to challenging God. Only God could remove him from office.²⁴

Following that formula, Alfonso X identified himself as king of Castile, Toledo, León, Galicia, Seville, Córdoba, Murcia, Jaén, and the Algarve.²⁵ That list summarized several centuries of historical development and Fernando III’s and Alfonso X’s more recent extension of the frontier into Andalucía and Murcia.²⁶ Alfonso X described this accumulation of kingdoms as “nuestros rregnos” and “nuestro sennorio” (“our kingdoms” and “our lordship”) (E pr.). The list seemed to suggest that his power and prestige were greater because of the many states subject to his rule. Although he proclaimed that king and people formed one body, he did not govern a unified state. Not only were the legal and institutional differences between Castile and León significant, but so too were the differences between them and the southern realms that had once been petty Muslim kingdoms. The task of unifying those diverse elements was challenging, but Alfonso X, while accepting the disparities, attempted to make them function in a coherent harmony.

Contemporary portrayals of the king and the symbols of kingship provided a visual illustration of his power.27 So that his royal status would be readily manifest, the Partidas instructed that he should wear silken garments with gold and jewels, as well as spurs and saddles of gold and silver and precious stones. When holding the Cortes, he should wear richly adorned golden crowns (SP 2, 5, 5).

The PPBM depicted a seated king, bearded and crowned, bearing a sword in his right hand and a book in his left. Around him were gathered bishops, magnates, courtiers, and others seated at his feet who were probably towns-men assembled in the Cortes. This royal pose is reminiscent of Justinian’s statement that “imperial majesty ought to be adorned not only by arms but also by laws.”²⁸ Sancho IV painted an extraordinary picture of a king (perhaps his father) whom he said he had seen. His golden crown was set with rubies, emeralds, and sapphires, symbolizing the virtues of fear of God, true belief, good habits, benignity, chastity, knowledge, and memory. Robed in cloth of gold and silk set with jewels, the king wore golden armlets and sat on a seat covered with gold, silver, and precious stones. In his right hand he held a sword “to display the justice in which [he] ought to maintain his people.” In his left hand was a golden apple surmounted by a cross representing the kingdom. To enable the king “to render to each one his law,” a servant presented him with a book of laws while another held a scepter used to punish the wicked.²⁹

In the Cantigas de Santa Maria the king often appears on his knees with his hands clasped in supplication before Mary’s statue. His clothing, though simple in form, was richly made and intended to differentiate him from his people.³⁰ In some miniatures, the clean-shaven king, with brown shoulder-length hair, wears a golden crown and a blue tunic trimmed with gold and a red mantle (CSM pr. A and B). Other texts portray a crowned king, seated or mounted on a horse, and wearing a tunic quartered in castles and lions, the symbols of Castile and León.³¹ His great seal of 1255 shows him, mounted and crowned, with a sword in one hand and in the other a shield marked with castles and lions.³² The royal throne was usually depicted as a simple chair or bench.³³ A statue of the king in the cathedral of Toledo holds a scepter topped by an imperial eagle in his right hand and the sword of justice in his left.³⁴ A stained-glass portrait in the cathedral of León also shows the scepter with an eagle.³⁵

In 1282, after being abandoned by his family and fellow monarchs, Alfonso X, in return for a loan of one hundred thousand gold dinars, pledged his crown to the Marinids. Although Ibn Khaldūn (d. 1406) saw it in the royal palace in Marrakech, it has since disappeared.36 In his last will the king bequeathed to his heir crowns with stones, cameos, and jewels.³⁷ His effigy in the cathedral of Seville, according to an account of 1345, wore a golden crown set with precious stones; in his right hand was a silver scepter with an imperial eagle on top and in his left hand a golden apple surmounted by a cross. In 1579, a “sword, scepter, crown, a staff of emperor,” and an “imperial crown with stones” were found in his tomb, but those objects subsequently disappeared.³⁸ These depictions stressed the duties of his office: the enactment of laws, the administration of justice, the defense of the realm, his learning, and the task of educating his people.

A Primer of Queenly Conduct

In order to transfer his power to his heirs, the king had to choose a suitable spouse. The union of Alfonso and Violante, the daughter of Jaime I, was intended to draw Castile and Aragón together. Their spousal mass was celebrated at Valladolid in 1246, and their marriage was solemnized there three years later, when he was twenty-eight and she was thirteen.³⁹ Eventually they had eleven children: Berenguela (1253–1313?); Beatriz (1254?–1280); Fernando de la Cerda (1255–75); Leonor (1256?–75); Sancho (1258–95); Con-stanza (1259?–?); Pedro (1261–83); Juan (1264–1319); Isabel (1265?–?); Violante (1266?–?); and Jaime (1267–84).

Prior to his marriage Alfonso X had several illegitimate children, including Berenguela (b. 1240–41), born to María Alfonso, an illegitimate daughter of Alfonso IX; and Alfonso Fernández, or Alfonso el Niño (ca. 1242–81), the son of Elvira Fernández de Villada. Mayor Guillén de Guzmán, probably the love of his life, gave birth to Beatriz (1244–1303) who married Afonso III of Portugal and became the mother of Dinis (1279–1325).⁴⁰ Urraca Alfonso and Martín Alfonso were mentioned in his will.⁴¹

Violante represented her husband in several critical situations. In 1264 she appealed to her father to suppress the Mudéjar uprising in Murcia. In the Cortes of Burgos in 1272 she headed a commission to consider the demands of the prelates and magnates, and she negotiated the return of the exiled magnates from Granada. Mistreated by the king who was afflicted with a debilitating illness, in 1278 she fled to her brother Pedro III of Aragón. Although she was reconciled to her husband and returned to Castile, she broke with him again in 1282 and supported Sancho’s rebellion. Alfonso X did not mention her by name in his poetry, but it would be unwise to assume that he was indifferent to her. After making a pilgrimage to Rome in 1300, she died at Roncesvalles on the return journey.42

Prior to considering the queen’s role, the royal jurists cautioned the king against relationships with dissolute women. If he had children by them, he would commit a grave sin, set a poor example, and dishonor himself and his realm. Whereas the children of a man “blessed by God stand around his table like the branches of new olive trees” (Ps 128:3–4), illegitimate children shamed them and him. Moreover, should he “overindulge in wine and women” (Sir 19:2–3), God would withhold his blessing in this life and punish him in the next (SP 2, 5, 3). Sancho IV repeated those admonitions when counseling his son.⁴³ However, the Espéculo (2, 3, 1), admitting the king’s liaisons with several women, stressed that if he had a mistress, though that was contrary to church law, she ought to be protected against all harm.

The harmonious union between king and queen was perceived as a source of stability and good government.⁴⁴ If his bride was endowed with good lineage, beauty, virtuous habits, and riches, he would love her more deeply; their children would be comely and genteel and the family held in great esteem; and her wealth would redound to his benefit and that of the kingdom. Beauty and riches were transitory and might be dispensed with, but good lineage and honest character were essential. The queen who was loved, honored, and protected by her husband would love, honor, and care for him, and thus offer a good example to everyone. Placed in the company of virtuous men and women, she would learn to conduct herself appropriately and to avoid anything unseemly (SP 2, 6, 1–2). Anyone who induced her to betray her husband by engaging in promiscuous behavior committed treason. Should she have an affair, she would offend the king’s honor, dishonor herself, and bring into question the legitimacy of her children (E 2, 3, 1–3; SP 2, 14, 1). A double standard prevailed, however, because Alfonso X suffered no punishment for his disloyalty to her.

As described in the Alfonsine Code, the queen’s court was much like that of her husband. Chaplains said daily mass and the liturgical hours; a chancellor handled her correspondence, and a mayordomo managed her finances. Minor functionaries performed other tasks. Female relatives and noble wives and daughters attending upon her or being raised under her direction also resided with her. Sheltered from wicked men and women, their honor and security was guaranteed. Peeping toms or illicit lovers were charged with treason. The misconduct of a woman nursing the royal children was particularly reprehensible because of the possibility, according to ancient wise men, that her milk might cause illness or death—a notion foreign to modern medicine (E 2, 15, 1–13; SP 2, 14, 3–4). Immoral behavior by the queen, her children, or the ladies of her household affected the king because of the indissoluble bond of marriage and, in the most extreme cases, was punishable as treason.

Although the royal jurists did not describe the dress appropriate to a queen, Alfonso X, determined to curb extravagance, in the Cortes of Seville in 1252 (arts. 5–10) curtailed luxurious feminine apparel. Perhaps these restrictions did not apply to the queen. No woman was permitted to wear a dress or belt of gold, pearls, a chemise embroidered with gold or silver, serge or embroidered clothing, or a toque or headdress bordered with gold or silver, or of any color but white. She might wear ermine or otter fur and, if she wished, the sleeves of her gown might be wide open. The fine for violating this law was twenty maravedís per day. The price for a silk headdress, with or without golden decoration, was three maravedís. The fine for charging or paying more was ten maravedís and the buyer lost the toque. The price for six pairs of gilded women’s shoes was one maravedí (arts. 6–7, 10). CSM 64 illustrates women’s clothing.45

Educating Royal Children

Responsibility for rearing their children and arranging suitable marriages for them rested with the king and the queen, but perhaps more so with the queen in the early years. The progeny of a lawful marriage were called fijos (lat. filii). As fijos included sons and daughters, much of what was said about raising children applied to both sexes, though training appropriate for boys was distinguished from that for girls. Even when adults, princes were called infantes, and princesses, infantas. Loving them as “members of his own body,” the king expected them to continue his good deeds. If they proved better than he, he should not think less of himself, but rather take pride in their accomplishments (SP 2, 7, 1). That comment recalls the deathbed counsel of his father, Fernando III:

My son, you are richer in lands and good vassals than any other king in Christendom. Strive to do well and to be good, for you have the wherewithal. My Lord, I leave you the whole realm from the sea hither that the Moors won from Rodrigo, king of Spain. All of it is in your dominion, part of it conquered, the other part tributary. If you know how to preserve in this state what I leave you, you will be as good a king as I; and if you win more for yourself, you will be better than I; but if you diminish it, you will not be as good as I.⁴⁶

Impressed by that lesson, Alfonso X quoted Proverbs 23:24: “The father of a just man will exult with glee; he who begets a wise son will have joy in him.”

As his children guaranteed the future of the dynasty, they had to be cared for by honest and refined persons. Just as animals strive to give their young what is needed for survival, so human beings, who surpass animals in wisdom and intelligence, should do likewise. Children who were carefully reared would be healthy and strong, and learn to attend to important matters, leaving aside those of lesser concern. If the king neglected this and they fell into error, he had no one to blame but himself (SP 2, 7, 2; E 2, 4, 1–7; 2, 15, 1–8).

Once the child (niño) left its mother’s womb, a healthy woman of good habits and family should be selected as a nurse (ama),47 to suckle it until it was weaned.⁴⁸ If the nurse was handsome, graceful, and even-tempered, the child would love her and be more easily guided. Frightened by harsh words and blows, a child could become depressed and succumb to sickness and perhaps die. When boys reached puberty (mancebía), and became moços,⁴⁹ they were commended to a tutor (ayo), a person of good family, well mannered, discreet, intelligent, and loyal, and possessing a calm temperament and sound judgment. As the monarch was a peripatetic ruler, children, for reasons of tranquility and security, were cared for in a quiet place often far away from the court. However, as visits probably were restricted to great festivals, the process of bonding between parent and child was limited. Only in his teens did the child reside at court and travel with the king.⁵⁰ The most notable tutor was Juan Gil de Zamora (d. 1318), a Franciscan friar and a graduate of the University of Paris, assigned the task of educating the future Sancho IV. His Liber de preconiis Hispanie, dedicated to his pupil, is a mirror of princes extolling the glories of Spain.⁵¹ As small boys were like wax on which an engraved seal could leave its mark, the tutor had to teach them to act with propriety (SP 2, 7, 3–4).

Given their social position and the obligation to give good example, royal princes had to learn proper table manners. A law summarizing the admonitions of parents in every age cautioned children to avoid gluttony and to chew their food thoroughly, not stuffing it into their mouths, or speaking or singing with their mouths full. Before and after eating, they should wash their hands and dry them on towels and not on their clothing.⁵² Learning how to drink wine in moderation, mixing it with water, was important. Wine was a demon that produced harmful effects that are all so familiar: irritation, insubordination, indolence, headaches, lightheadedness, blurred vision, slurred speech, bodily weakness, trembling of the limbs, poor judgment, drowsiness, irrational behavior, and lasciviousness. Modern medicine, I suspect, would reject the conclusion that too much drink causes brain tumors or that intercourse in a state of intoxication leads to small and weak children (SP 2, 7, 5–6).53

Young men had to be taught to speak properly and politely. As speech and reason distinguish men from animals, human beings, but especially those in high position, should strive to be rational, because people remember what they say more than others. One ought not to speak loudly, too low, too rapidly or slowly, or flail one’s arms, a sign of boorishness. As the situation required, one should use words necessary to convey one’s meaning, but not so few as to impede understanding. As a confident air was a sign of nobility and grace, the tutor also had to teach them good manners. Thus, when spoken to, they should not gape with their mouths open. They ought to walk with assurance, not stooping, dragging their feet, or slumping in a chair. Their clothing, bridles, saddles, and horses ought to be elegant and suitable to the seasons. The tutor ought to speak to them in a kindly tone, because persons of good breeding learn more easily by words rather than by blows (SP 2, 7, 7–8).

Besides God and their teachers, the infantes should learn to know, love, and fear their parents and their oldest brother, their natural lords. The reference to their brother indicates that this law was written after the birth in 1255 of Fernando de la Cerda, the heir to the throne. As Sirach (23:7–15) warned against habitual cursing and swearing, they should always speak truthfully and swear only when undertaking obligations that they could meet. Cursing ill became any man and suggested little respect for God or oneself. Should the king and queen fail to teach their sons, they would sin gravely against God, themselves, their sons, and the people (SP 2, 7, 9).

Just as one had to lengthen a boy’s clothes as he grew, so the king’s sons, on entering young manhood and becoming donceles,⁵⁴ had to learn many new things. Literacy was essential because it facilitated learning and better enabled them to keep their secrets. Lest they focus entirely on the unattainable, they ought not to covet what they could not or should not have. They ought to desire what was good; to be merry, but not immoderately so; and to be protected from sadness. Learning about the lineage, station, and character of other men and how to talk to them was also important. As befitted a king’s sons, they should be instructed in the arts of chivalry, learning how to ride and hunt, to play games, and to wield all sorts of weapons. They ought not be overly given to eating and drinking, nor should they make use of women, as such behavior was unbecoming and harmful. If they were educated in this manner, they would be men of good habits who would not treat others improperly. In that case their tutors would have fulfilled their responsibilities (SP 2, 7, 10).

As well as educating his sons, the king should settle them in good marriages and give them estates so they could live honorably. If he failed to endow them suitably so that they were not as wealthy as his other vassals, they might seek compensation elsewhere or perhaps go into exile. That notion perhaps reflected the minimal endowment that Fernando III conferred on his youngest son Infante Manuel. Lastly, the king should use their services in peace and war and punish them when they erred (SP 2, 7, 13).

Although he had much more to say about the education of his sons, King Alfonso also discussed the upbringing of his daughters. Whereas his sons might learn much by traveling about the realm, the infantas were more closely guarded. Great care had to be taken in choosing nurses and governesses to be their daily companions. As women of intelligence, loyalty, and honesty, they not only had to protect the young ladies, but also instruct them in good manners, so that they would respect themselves and their husbands and give good example. They should be taught to read, especially the canonical hours and the psalms, to eat, drink, and speak in a refined manner, and to dress suitably. They should especially learn to curb their anger, a sign of a wicked disposition that “more than anything else, leads women to do wrong.” On the contrary, by learning the tasks proper to noble ladies, they would be happy and free of wicked thoughts (SP 2, 7, 11).

Perhaps the most significant responsibility of the king and queen toward their daughters was the selection of suitable husbands. By virtue of marriage, a girl passed from her father’s protection to that of her husband. Thus it was all the more important that as soon as she reached the appropriate age, an honorable marriage should be arranged. Just as good lineage, beauty, upright habits, and wealth were qualities desirable in a prospective queen, so too were they valued in the young man chosen to marry an infanta. At minimum he ought to be a man of virtue from a good family. As a final admonition, the king was cautioned to guard his daughters against any occasion of sin, and they were warned not to engage in dishonest alliances that might result in the birth of illegitimate children (SP 2, 7, 12). Anyone who had illicit intercourse with an infanta would be condemned as a traitor. She would be disinherited and imprisoned at the king’s mercy. By losing her good reputation, she could not marry appropriately to her rank (E 2, 4, 2; SP 2, 14, 2).

Political considerations were of primary importance when marriages were negotiated. If the couple developed a mutual love, that was a bonus. In 1254, for example, the king arranged the marriage of his sister Leonor to Prince Edward of England, but his expectation of English aid for his African crusade was unfulfilled.55

Considering an alliance with France as paramount, in 1256 Alfonso X betrothed his oldest child, Berenguela, then two, to Louis IX’s son Louis, a boy of twelve, but the latter’s death in 1259 ended the proposed union.56 A later account stated that about a year later the Mamlūk sultan of Egypt asked for Berenguela’s hand in marriage, but she reportedly refused on account of the religious difference.⁵⁷ As she was only about seven or eight, her parents likely rejected such a fantastic idea. Even in the desperation of his last years, it is hard to imagine that Alfonso X would consent to marry his daughter to a Muslim prince. Endowed with the lordship of Guadalajara, Berenguela appears never to have married.⁵⁸ The king made another attempt at a French alliance by marrying his oldest son, Fernando de la Cerda, to Blanche, Louis IX’s daughter, at Burgos in 1269. The marriage was cut short, however, by Fernando’s sudden death in 1275. In the subsequent dispute over the succession, Philip III of France became Alfonso X’s archenemy rather than his ally.⁵⁹

To advance his claims to Gascony, the king betrothed Sancho, his second son, to Guillerma de Moncada, daughter of Gastón VII, viscount of Béarn, but Sancho refused to marry her. In 1282 he wed his cousin María de Molina, daughter of Alfonso de Molina, a younger brother of Fernando III.⁶⁰ Hoping to solidify support for his imperial ambitions, in 1271 Alfonso X married his daughter Beatriz, then seventeen, to William, marquess of Montferrat, a widower in his forties. The king’s fourth son, Juan, wedded William’s daughter Margarita in 1275. The purpose of the union of his third son, Pedro, and Marguerite, sister of Aimery, viscount of Narbonne, was to secure assistance in opposing Philip III.⁶¹

The most significant royal marriages were intended to establish a firm relationship with France, but in the end, because of the quarrel over the succession, the opposite occurred. Political calculation prompted the other marriages, but none of them (other than the marriage of his illegitimate daughter Beatriz to Afonso III of Portugal) linked Castile with another royal house. Spouses from Béarn, Montferrat, and Narbonne were persons of distinction, wealth, and good family, but not among the most distinguished in Europe.

Brotherly Love

The bond of consanguinity obliged the king to love, honor, and protect his relatives and utilize their services. In return for the benefits he bestowed on them, they ought to love, obey, and protect him. However, just as one might amputate a rotting part of one’s own body lest it corrupt the rest, so ought the king to dissociate himself from a disobedient and disloyal relative (SP 2, 8, 1–2).

The reality prompting that law was as follows. Fernando III granted Enrique, his third son, lordship of Morón and Cote and promised to exchange it for Jerez, Arcos, Lebrija, and Medina Sidonia once they were captured. However, in 1249 Enrique refused to do homage for that lordship to his older brother Alfonso. Thus, Alfonso X, considering Enrique’s lordship a threat to his authority and a likely obstacle to his projected African crusade, canceled his father’s charters in 1253. Dispossessed, Enrique was forced into exile in 1255 and entered the service of the emir of Tunis. While opposing Charles of Anjou’s ambitions in southern Italy, he was captured in 1268 and released only in 1294. Returning home, he participated in the regency of Fernando IV, until his death in 1304.62

Around 1240 Fernando III sent his second son, Fadrique, to the court of his cousin Frederick II in southern Italy to obtain the duchy of Swabia, his mother’s inheritance, but without success. Joining Enrique in Tunis in 1260, Fadrique also opposed Charles of Anjou in Sicily and helped to defend Tunis in 1270 against Louis IX’s crusade. Returning to Castile in 1272, he was executed five years later for reasons never fully explained. The king’s other brothers Felipe and Sancho were intended for ecclesiastical careers. Felipe, educated at Paris and archbishop-elect of Seville, had no inclination to the priestly life and, with the king’s consent, married Kristin, daughter of the king of Norway, in 1258. That projected Norwegian alliance came to naught when she died in 1262. Felipe later led the rebellious magnates against the king, but died about 1274. Sancho, archbishop-elect of Toledo, died in 1261. Manuel, the youngest brother and Alfonso X’s favorite, also joined Sancho’s revolt and died in 1283.⁶³

Thus, Alfonso X’s relationships with his brothers steadily worsened and led to Enrique’s exile, Fadrique’s execution, Felipe’s rebellion and alliance with the king of Granada, and, at the end, Manuel’s repudiation of his allegiance. The royal herald expressed the king’s sense of the disgrace brought on the family when he upbraided Felipe: “You, as the son of King Fernando and Queen Beatriz and brother of King Alfonso, ought to better guard the lineage whence you come and the duty that you have toward it.”⁶⁴ The king might have similarly reproached his other brothers who betrayed him in equal measure. Although he accepted his familial and legal obligation to love them, he was adamant in declaring that if they turned against him he would sever all ties with them. That he did.

The Heir to the Throne

Aside from the queen, the king’s most important relationship was with his eldest son and heir (E 2, 4, 1–7). Justifying the principle of primogeniture, the royal jurists emphasized that every firstborn male was holy and belonged to God (Ex 13:1–2) and cited Isaac’s words directing Jacob, whom he thought, in his blindness, to be his oldest son, to be master of his brothers (Gen 27:29). Alfonso X’s hand is evident in those laws that were written when his relations with his brothers Enrique and Fadrique were fractured. One can imagine him apprising them of his superiority and their obligation to obey him. The royal jurists also argued that the custom of every realm where kingship was reserved to the eldest son precluded division of the kingdom among his siblings. As Jesus said, “every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste” (Mt 12:25; Lk 11:17; Mk 3:24–25). Therefore, the kingdom, undivided, should pass to the eldest son or, in default of sons, to the oldest daughter. If the oldest son died before ascending the throne, the principle of representation stipulated that his legitimate son or daughter should inherit his rights, but if all his children died, his nearest male relative should do so (E 2, 16, 1–3; SP 2, 15, 2).

This law touched on two crucial issues, namely, the territorial integrity of the realm and the right of female succession. The dangers of partitioning the kingdom were revealed when Alfonso VII divided León and Castile between two sons in 1157. Unity was not restored until Fernando III, king of Castile since 1217, also became king of León in 1230.65 Alfonso X, however, fearing that his kingdom might be dismembered, nullified his brother Enrique’s lordship. Ironically, in later years, despite his insistence on maintaining unity, he proposed to divide his dominions.

The right of succession was not exclusive to males. In the twelfth century Urraca ruled as queen of León-Castile in her own right.⁶⁶ Alfonso VIII’s heir presumptive was his daughter Berenguela, but her place was taken by her brother Enrique I (1214–17). After his sudden death, she was acknowledged as queen but opted to cede authority to Fernando III, her son by Alfonso IX of León. However, her regal status was recorded in his charters until her death in 1246.⁶⁷

Thus, Berenguela, Alfonso X’s first child, born in 1253, was accepted as heir to the throne by a General Curia or Cortes at Toledo in March 1254, in accordance with “royal sanctions and the custom of Spain.” If the king should die without leaving a legitimate son, the assembled archbishops, bishops, barons, and chief men of his court and the procurators of the cities and towns pledged to accept her as his heir and successor. The king explained on 5 May 1255 that according to the general and approved custom of Spain, inheritance of the undivided kingdom belonged to the firstborn child if all the children were male or if all were female. However, if there were both males and females, the oldest son would always take precedence. Lamenting the desolation that would occur if his dominions were divided, he referenced the Gospel admonition concerning a house divided against itself and cited Lucan’s phrase “every power is known to be impatient of having a partner.”68 Here the king repeated the principles set down in the Alfonsine Codes (E 2, 16, 1; SP 2, 15, 2).⁶⁹ Jerry Craddock suggested that the law in the Espéculo recognizing the right of the king’s oldest daughter was written when Berenguela was his only heir.⁷⁰

The royal jurists also stated that lest the tranquility of the realm be imperiled during a royal minority, everyone had to obey the guardians to whom the deceased king, either orally or in writing, entrusted his heir and the kingdom. If he had not done so, then the prelates, magnates, and good men of the towns should assemble and choose one, three, or five guardians. Natives of the realm and royal vassals, they should be intelligent and reputable men, who would not treat the king’s property as their own. Whatever the majority decided should be valid. They should swear to protect the child-king, to act for his best interest and that of the realm, to uproot evil, to preserve the unity of the realm, and to maintain it in peace and justice until the king reached the age of twenty. If a daughter inherited the crown, they would serve until her marriage. If the child’s mother were alive, she should be the most important of his guardians, provided that she did not remarry (SP 2, 15, 3).

These laws were prompted by recent dynastic history. In 1158 Alfonso VIII, then just two years old, became king after the sudden death of his father Sancho III. During the ensuing eleven years the Lara and Castro families contended for custody of the child, and for a time his uncle Fernando II of León was recognized as his tutor but never had control of his person. After Alfonso VIII’s death, his eleven-year-old son Enrique I became king, under the guardianship of his older sister Berenguela. She entrusted him to Count Álvaro Núñez de Lara, provided that he not wage war against any adjacent kingdom, confiscate anyone’s estates, or impose any tribute without her consent. However, as the self-styled procurator regis et regni he followed his own aims until the boy-king’s accidental death.⁷¹

The succession attained critical importance in July 1275, while the king was absent from the realm seeking papal recognition as emperor. Fernando de la Cerda, not yet twenty, died suddenly while preparing to halt the Marinid invasion. Marinid victories over the Castilians at Écija on 7 September and at Martos on 10 October compounded that disaster. Infante Sancho, then seventeen, reorganized the defense, and hostilities were temporarily suspended.⁷²

Thus, Alfonso X had to prepare for a new invasion and decide whether to acknowledge Sancho as his heir, instead of Fernando de la Cerda’s son Alfonso, a five-year-old. The Partidas (2, 15, 2) favored the latter, stating that if the king’s oldest son predeceased him, his son (the king’s grandson), representing the direct line of succession, should inherit the kingdom. (The corresponding law in E 4, 16, 3 does not mention the right of representation.) However, an interpolation inserted after 1276, perhaps with the king’s consent, affirmed the rights of the king’s second son. The original version (SP 2, 15, 3) stated that a royal minority should end when the king reached the age of twenty, but the interpolation, as Jerry Craddock pointed out, fixed it at sixteen. As Sancho was already seventeen and would be twenty in May 1278, there would be no need for a regency upon his father’s death.73 Manuel González Jiménez remarked that this law demonstrates that the Partidas were regarded as the law of the land and that the supposition that they were not operative during Alfonso X’s reign is incorrect.⁷⁴ Moreover, the alteration of the text reflects the king’s assertion that he could amend the law when necessary.

Alfonso de la Cerda’s pretensions seemed strong on legal grounds. During the Cortes of Burgos in 1274, Alfonso X, planning his papal visit, designated Fernando de la Cerda as regent. The Cortes pledged to accept him as king if his father should die. It is also likely that the Cortes, in accordance with an agreement between Alfonso X and Philip III, the boy’s maternal grandfather, acknowledged Alfonso de la Cerda as the presumptive heir in case of his father’s death.⁷⁵ Commenting on that agreement, Infante Manuel made the case for Sancho, in what González Jiménez called “una bella sentencia”:

Lord, the tree of kings is not ended by an agreement; nor is the one who descends according to nature disinherited thereby. If the oldest one descending from the tree dies, the branch under him ought to rise to the top. Three things there are that are not subject to an agreement: law, king, and kingdom. Anything done contrary to any one of these is not valid and ought not to be held or observed.⁷⁶

Rejecting the law of the Partidas (2, 15, 2), Manuel upheld an earlier tradition favoring the succession of brother to brother. He also knew that Sancho, given his age, would be better able than the child Alfonso de la Cerda to face the Marinid challenge, especially considering the king’s recurring illness. Also comprehending that reality, Alfonso X, in the Cortes of Burgos in 1276, set aside the law of the Partidas and appointed Sancho as his heir.⁷⁷ In 1283 he explained that he followed “the ancient law and the law of reason according to the law of Spain.”⁷⁸

As his health deteriorated, in the Cortes of Segovia in 1278 he conferred greater authority on Sancho, who, according to Juan Gil de Zamora, began to reign jointly with his father. In 1283 Alfonso X stated that he gave Sancho “greater power than any king’s son had in his father’s lifetime.” He probably made that decision because Sancho, now twenty years old, would be able, according to the Partidas (2, 15, 3), to reign without a regency should his father die.79 Nevertheless, the king, anxious to secure French assistance against the Marinids, proposed to cede the kingdom of Jaén to Alfonso de la Cerda to hold in vassalage of Castile. He had previously rejected partition as destructive of the unity of the realm, stating that “anciently they made a fuero and statute in Spain that the sovereignty of the kingdom should not be divided nor alienated” (SP 2, 15, 2, 5).

When he announced that intention during the Cortes of Seville in 1281, Sancho strenuously objected. In the spring of 1282, backed by the estates assembled at Valladolid, he deprived his father of royal authority, though leaving him the title of king. Responding bitterly, Alfonso X denounced and disinherited him.⁸⁰ In his final will in January 1284, he made matters worse by failing to name anyone as his heir, referring only to “the one who will inherit our kingdoms.” He further dismembered his dominions by granting the kingdoms of Seville and Badajoz to his son Juan, and the kingdom of Murcia to his son Jaime, both to be held in vassalage of Castile.⁸¹ When Alfonso died in April 1284, Sancho succeeded as Sancho IV, but the partisans of the Infantes de la Cerda kept their claims alive into the early fourteenth century. By favoring Alfonso de la Cerda and allotting Infantes Juan and Jaime a share in his inheritance, Alfonso X assured that Castile and León that he had done so much to develop would be thrown into disorder for many years.

Cabeça del Reyno llamaron los Sabios al Rey

The preceding pages describe an ideal order in which the king, as cabeça del reyno or head of the kingdom, as wise men called him (SP 2, 9, 16), presided over a carefully structured society seeking the common good. To facilitate that, the law prescribed the ritual of king-making, the virtues of a good queen and the ladies of her household, the proper upbringing of royal children, the qualities desirable in their tutors and future spouses, the bond of love between the king and his brothers, the right to the throne of the oldest son or, lacking male heirs, of the oldest daughter, and the regulation of a royal minority. The law codified the behavior appropriate to the king and his family and sought to guarantee the transmission of power from one generation to the next with the least upset. If that ideal had become reality, Castile-León would likely have enjoyed an era of peace and tranquility. Yet the everyday world impacted the life of the king and his family in ways that made the achievement of that ideal elusive. The orderly house erected in the Partidas collapsed with the invasion of the Marinids, the king’s ongoing illness, and the succession crisis precipitated by Fernando de la Cerda’s death. In order to save his kingdom from devastation by the Marinids, he set aside the law in the Partidas and declared Sancho as his heir. However, the law had not taken into account the possibility that an ailing king might not be able to fulfill his duties. To resolve that dilemma, Sancho, abetted by Violante and Infante Manuel and with the assent of the estates, divested the king of his authority. Thus, the well-ordered and prosperous kingdom that he envisioned in the Partidas dissolved into chaos.