latristereina:The disnepsation validating the marriage of Fernando and IsabelTheir closest common an

latristereina:The disnepsation validating the marriage of Fernando and IsabelTheir closest common ancestor was John I of Castile, son of Henry II of Castile, the first ruler from the Trastámara dynasty, by his wife Juana Manuel. John I had two sons: Henry, who succeeded him as Henry III of Castile, and Ferdinand, known as Ferdinand de Antequera, who, by virtue of Compromise of Caspe from June 1412, became king of Aragon. Henry III was Isabel’s paternal grandfather, whereas Ferdinand I was Fernando’s paternal grandfather, making them second cousins. In order to enter into lawful union, the young couple needed a papal dispensation. Ferdinand’s father, king John II of Aragon, who was the main brains behind the wedding, was perfectly aware of this, as much as his son, Isabel and her advisers.According to Jaime Vicens Vives; “Historia crítica de la vida y reinado de Fernando II de Aragón”:John II took care of the negotiations [concerning the papal dispensation] at the court of Paul II, between 1467-1469, without satisfactory result. The Holy See was not interested in the project, firstly arguing that John’s declarations were ambiguous - he had proposed the bull that would authorize the possible wedding [of Fernando] with the princess of Castile, the infanta of Portugal and the daughter of the Marquis of Villena - and then, invoking the lack of consent on Henry IV of Castile’s part. The arguments that the will of Isabel’s grandfather, Henry III - who had favoured the marriages between the two branches, Castilian and Aragonese one, of the same dynasty - should prevail over that of her brother [Henry IV], did not affect Paul II at all, who proved to be supportive of the house of Anjou and their interests in the Mediterranean, and hence tried to block John II’s plans. The only thing that was promised by the Holy See, was that the dispensation would be granted after the wedding. On 5 September 1469, John II, during his stay at El Vendrell (Tarragona), at the very last moment, wrote to the governor of la Cámara de la Reina in Sicily, Pau Sabastida, who at that time was in Rome, to obtain the desired dispensation from Paul II. Such are the events. The famous bull signed by Pius II, from 28 May 1464, that was read out during Isabel and Fernando’s wedding ceremony, existed only in the minds of its forgerers, possibly, the papal legate Antonio de Véneris— who received his reward for doing so - and the Archbishop of Toledo, Alfonso Carrillo de Acuña. All other hypothesis can be debunked by the following arguments:- the negotiations to obtain the dispensation began in 1467 - date that coincides with the first steps of John II’s diplomat, Pierres de Peralta, in Castile - and not earlier,- neither John II, nor Paul II ever referred to this document,- the dispensation of 1464 was not mentioned in the real bull issued on 1 December 1471 by Sixtus IV.The truth is that the king of Aragon did not obtain the pontifical document to validate the marriage of his son and niece. But also, he took a risk to do so with intrepidness, that was characteristic of him. One of Isabel’s modern biographers, Retana, complicates such clear case, forcefully trying to defend the rectitude of the Princess. However, in the above mentioned letter from John II to Sabastida, it was put clearly that Isabel herself had written to Paul II, asking for the dispensation. Hence it is absurd to think she did not know the bull signed by Pius II, was a forgery.After the wedding, John II’s ambassadors continued seeking the dispensation, and Henry IV’s party tried to figure out whether the marriage of Isabel and Fernando was valid or not. It caused horror at the court of the young couple, in Valladolid, thus in mid February 1470 [when Isabel was already expecting their first child], Fernando wrote to the Archbishop of Monreal and his attorney in Rome that:“…given the state of matters over here, it is not wise to try to obtain or demand, by any means, the said dispensation, or approbation of the said marriage, because, as it is said, at the moment, it is not advantageous to us…”He wrote the same to his father, begging him to confirm his orders, that had been given to the Curia and at the court of Naples.The unexpected death of Paul II, on 26 July 1471, led to the election [on 9 August], of Francesco della Róvere, cardinal of San Pedro ad Víncula, as the next Pope, known as Sixtus IV. He was a man of great theological culture, and unsullied life but did not have any proper inclination towards the international policy, except certain dislike of the French, derived from his Genoese ancestry, and the desire to put an ultimate end to the Turkish threat, that under Mahomet II, was again thriving at the Balkans.At the beginning of this pontiff, the cardinal vice-chancellor, Rodrigo Borgia, began to enjoy great prestige. His vote was decisive for the election of the new Pope, hence Sixtus IV granted him abundant benefits. This atmosphere of confidence, let Rodrigo Borgia obtain the dispensation, on 1 December 1471 [the bull Oblatae nobis], that would authorize the absolution of the kings of Sicily [Isabel and Fernando] of the sentence of excommunication, that they had incurred into, for getting married wihout valid dispensation, and to wed them again, after a separation of bodies.According to Father Tarsicio de Azcona; “Isabel la Católica: Vida y reinado”:It is certain that since 1467 John II of Aragon insisted on getting a multivalent dispensation to validate the marriage of Fernando. Paul II continued denying to issue such document. Along the way, the bull, issued [allegedly] by Pius II on 28 May 1464, and executed by bishop Arias Dávila on 4 January 1469, was forged. There is other data that is still being considered by the specialists, but it neither deserves credit, nor convinces. The case has been examined from another angle, pointing to the papal legate, Antonio Giacomo Venier, who would have [supposedly] granted the secret dispensation in the code of the conscience, to proceed with the marriage. This hypothesis seems to be seductive but, unfortunately for Isabel and her defenders, is based on sand, not on the documentation. This is true that Pierres de Peralta wrote to John II of Aragon:“Your Majesty, we lack nothing in the spiritual matter. The legate is at our side.”It seems that the phrase is clear; but when it came to the negotiations, it turned out to be ambiguous and confusing. What kind of credibility can be given to Pierres, who on 23 November 1469, merely a month after the wedding [of Isabel and Fernando], altogether with his men, murdered the bishop of Pamplona, Nicolás de Chavarri? Pierres does not deserve any credibility in regards to the canonical issue of Isabel’s marriage.In accordance with his diplomatic business in Castile, everything indicated that Venier had been drawn to, and won for the marriage of Isabel and Fernando. The legate was lavishly rewarded in Aragon, for his backing of it.But the issue of the dispensation was not resolved, given the legate did not have such authority, as can be deduced from the study of the granted dispensation and from later actions of the monarchs and the king of Aragon.Henry IV’s party quickly employed the lack of the dispensation, as an argument against the marriage of the young Princes. But above all, John II of Aragon, who was particularly interested in this case, acted with obsession to obtain the dispensation from Paul II, that he eventually received from Paul’s successor, Sixtus IV, on 1 December 1471, and not as a bull of re-validation, but original dispensation, that almost certainly was brought personally by the legate cardenal vice-chancellor, Rodrigo Borgia.My point of view in regards to this unpleasant issue, is that Isabel, aged 18, and with the succession on her back, did not take pre-marital courses, just accepted the proposal of her advisers. She acted with clear coinscience, like she later would write, she had “her conscience cured” and it seems that she deserves credit.Her conduct can be defended by placing her in the context that surrounded her, without the necessity to distort history. The leaders of her party acted how and when it was convenient, in accordance with the circumstances, not the law. The marriage was subjectively canonical, althought objectively it was invalid, which was later fixed by the Pope. Her offspring was never affected by this circumstance.It is [also] certain that Paul II changed his attitude towards Spain at the beginning of 1471. A letter of Auziàs Despuig, archbishop of Monreal and ambassador of John II of Aragon at the Curia in Rome, is a proof of it: the Pope would not take any action against the Princes; the ambassador believed the Pope was rather inclined to help them than oppose them; if he did not show it, it was because he did not want to fall out with the kings of France and England. That’s why the Pope did not grant the dispensation for quite a time; if they managed to impose themselves in Castile, he would not let the marriage of Juana of Castile [La Beltraneja] with any French noble to be concluded.According to Manuel Fernández Álvarez; “Isabel la Católica”:And I again come to recall the opinion of Jaime Vicens Vives, that was expressed in 1952, and does not cease to be valid. It is naive to think that the Princes were ignorant of such insolent action. How could they believe that a bull, signed by pope Pius II, who had died five years before, was valid? In the persons of Isabel and Fernando, historian finds two of the most magnificent minds of the Renaissance, which they would prove throughout their reign. They doubtlessly knew how important was such document, if it were not them, who demanded the dispensation [to be forged] from the prelates, who surrounded them, particularly from archbishop Carrillo. The decline [of the request] from Rome could not stop them. -- source link

More pics about