Petronila’s father was a monk when he inherited the throne. He “had” to abandon the monastery and he married. When his daughter Petronila was 1 year old, he betrothed her to the Count of Barcelona, who was to rule the Kingdom. Then, he retired back to the monastery.
So, no other option.
When Juana became Fernando’s heir, the Cortes of Aragon were reluctant to swear her in as heir. They did after being pressured.
What law applied there? I believe that that kingdom also had a queen regnant (Petronila), but as you say, it was her husband who ruled. Still, I'm wondering about the exact law, principle, or terms under which she inherited the throne. Whether it could be called male-preferred primogeniture or semi-Salicism ... I took a look at the genealogy, and noticed that there weren't many surviving male heirs in any given generation of the Habsburgs, when they ruled Spain. So the question of whether a king's daughters took precedence over his younger brothers would have been moot. It was only later on, when you saw a more extensive male line of the ruling house develop -- as happened after the Bourbons came to the Spanish throne -- that it became an issue. If King Fernando VII had no surviving brother, then the succession of his elder daughter would have been clear. As it was, a massive succession war ensued, with his brother attempting to claim the throne ... Of course, it has been repeated that Carlism had more to do with politics than genealogy. Ditto for Miguelism in Portugal ... Both are too complex to address here ...
1
Message Thread
« Back to index