Spanish succession issue of 1789

The primary objective of the Cortes was to swear an oath of allegiance to the heir to the throne, Prince Fernando, at the time five years old and the elder of the two living sons of Carlos IV.

[1] However, the circulars also urged the deputies, at that time called procuradores, to be provided with sufficient powers to discuss and decide on unspecified other matters, were such to be proposed.

[2] In the late 18th century, the Spanish Cortes Generales[3] consisted of 70-odd members, delegated according to different local procedures, including elections, by councils of municipalities entitled to representation.

[6] The procuradores gathered again on September 23, when the pompous and solemn ceremony of swearing allegiance to Prince Fernando took place as planned in the church of San Gerónimo in Madrid.

[7] However, at least once, on September 28, the king met with Campomanes and the Count of Floridablanca, head of the Junta Suprema de Estado and effectively the prime minister of Spain.

[8] The deputies formally met again in the Sala de los Reinos of the Buen Retiro palace on September 30, early or late morning.

The text noted that the 1713 rules had been born out of circumstances which no longer existed, that they were incompatible with traditional Spanish customs, and that they had resulted in numerous conflicts, having been a threat to peace.

[20] In the presence of Conde de Floridablanca, 14 bishops and archbishops acknowledged the proposal with their own document, which fully endorsed the changes suggested and recommended that the "original and natural order" be re-established.

[23] The address was then acknowledged with written royal assent, also dated October 30, declaring the resolution to "correspond to the accompanying petition" and enjoining that greatest secrecy be observed.

The agenda was dominated by issues concerning the agrarian regime, principally the huge landholdings, named mayorazgos, their fiscal obligations and hereditary rules.

[25] Some authors claim that as the news of the events unfolding in Paris reached Madrid, fearing unrest Campomanes dissolved the Cortes on October 17, ending it abruptly.

The written record of the session notes also that they expressed the wish for the succession law to be secured in substance and in manner "until the publication of the Pragmática takes place, at such time as H. M. might think proper".

In this case, however, no law on changing succession rules was published, be it as Ley Fundamental, Pragmática Sanción, Auto Acordado, or in any other format.

The periodical re-edition of an updated set of key legislation, published in 1805, known as Novisima Recopilación and confirmed by Carlos IV, referred, in terms of succession to the throne, to the 1713 rule and contained no information on any alteration.

Upon Carlos IV's forced abdication in 1808, the throne was assumed by his son, Fernando VII; as he had no issue, no ceremony similar to the 1789 taking-of-oath took place.

As Fernando VII turned 40 and still had no issue, in the 1820s it was widely understood that if he were to die without a male heir, the throne would pass to his younger brother, Don Carlos.

After the proceedings of the 1789 Cortes had been kept almost completely under wraps for a generation, starting in the 1830s they turned into the point of an extremely heated political, juridical, and historical debate.

In the 1830s "rivers of ink"[34] were spilled over the problem, taking the shape of countless booklets, leaflets, and press articles, arguing either that the 1713 law had been changed in 1789[35] or that it had not.

[39] Other arguments, some of them contradictory, include the contentions that the deputies were not legally qualified to discuss the issue as they lacked a so-called mandato imperativo; that Campomanes abused the will of Carlos IV; that according to the lex retro non agit rule the law could have not affected Don Carlos, who was already one year old in 1789; that the proceedings would have been legal prior to, but not after the swearing of allegiance to Prince Fernando; that Carlos IV never formally endorsed the Cortes petition; that there is no such thing as "secret laws"; that the Novisima Recopilación of 1805 confirmed the binding legal status of the 1713 regulations; that the 1789 draft could have been declared law until 1808 but not later, as the Cortes entitled only Carlos IV, and not his successors, to make it binding; that most documentation on the 1789 events was released in 1830 and could have been tampered with; that the whole process was a sort of coup agreed between Floridablanca and Campomanes; and other points.

[43] Apart from the problem of the legally binding or non-binding nature of the 1789 events, in particular two questions stand out, namely the motives for launching the procedure to change the 1713 law, and the reasons for keeping the process and its outcome secret.

In September 1788, Prince João, upon the unexpected death of his older brother, became heir to the Portuguese throne, and his wife Carlota Joaquina, daughter of Carlos IV, became a queen-in-waiting.

It is supposed that Carlos IV feared the adverse reaction of the courts in Paris and Naples, especially that both monarchs would protest to Madrid should news of the 1789 agreement leak out despite the renewed secrecy oath.

[51] Though the object of heated debate in the 19th century, today the question of the succession law 1789 generates little interest among professional historians; the last identified dedicated monograph dates from 1978.

[54] In some syntheses the 1789 debate is completely absent from chapters dedicated to Carlos IV, and only briefly referred to when discussing the 1830 document of Fernando VII.

[55] In general, historians tend to avoid normative pronouncements on the 1789 process, though the wording used in different works can vary enormously, possibly suggesting diverging interpretations.

[66] The author of the latest monograph on the issue presents it under yet another perspective, namely that the 1789 events should not be viewed in isolation but analyzed as one of 8 phases, starting with the law of 1713 and ending with the decree of 1832.