Spanish succession issue of 1789

Spanish succession issue of 1789 was a series of debates and decisions, taking place and adopted prior, during and after the Cortes sittings. They were initiated by king Carlos IV, who suggested that the succession law in force be altered; the change would consist of giving preference to females of main descendant line over males of collateral lines. The proposal was accepted and formally adopted as Cortes’ petition to the king, but a corresponding law was not published until 1830, which triggered a dynastical conflict and a series of civil wars. The question whether the succession law was effectively changed in 1789 turned into a heated juridical, historical and political debate and continued well into the 20th century. In current historiography it is usually considered of secondary importance and dealt with in highly ambiguous terms.

Cortes swearing allegiance to prince Fernando, Madrid 1789

Background

Carlos IV

Carlos IV assumed the throne of Spain in December 1788 according to standard succession rules. In May 1789, he issued circular letters which convened the Cortes; the single declared purpose was to take the oath of allegiance to the heir to the throne, Prince Fernando, at the time 5 years old and the older one of two living sons of Carlos IV. The procedure was completely routine. The absolutist Borbonic rule even stripped Cortes of its fiscal prerogatives, and the formality of taking oath to the heir was the key reason why the diet used to meet few times across the 18th century.[1] However, the circulars enjoined also to see that the deputies, at that time called procuradores, were to be provided with sufficient powers to discuss and conclude unspecified other matters in case they should 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.[4] Those deputies started to arrive in Madrid in the summer, but the diet formally met for the first time on September 19, 1789. The deputies were addressed by the king, who confirmed principal objective of the convocation, adding also that they would "treat and conclude other matters".[5] Once the king had withdrawn, the president of the Cortes, Count of Campomanes, informed the gathering that the Cortes would remain open also after the ceremony of taking oath; the purpose was specified vaguely as "to take measures respecting the Law of Succession".[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. Another week passed on as deputies were attending various religious or royal feasts without the Cortes having been convened.[7] However, at least once, on September 28, the king met with Campomanes and Count of Floridablanca, head of Junta Suprema de Estado and effectively the prime minister of Spain. The three discussed disturbing news about ongoing events in France, but they also pondered planned changes to the law of succession, apparently the issue which had already been discussed earlier. The king, the prime minister and the Cortes president decided to launch the procedure of altering the succession regulations at the first Cortes session; they agreed also that it must be kept secret.[8]

September 30, 1789: succession law proceeded

Buen Retiro palace

The deputies formally met again in Sala de los Reinos of the Buen Retiro palace on September 30, either early or late morning.[9] With one minor exception which did not affect legality of the proceedings, almost all deputies entitled were present.[10] The president informed the gathering that the king expected them to take a strict oath of secrecy before the proceedings should start. The text, apparently pre-prepared, was read by the president; it specified that all the convened would never disclose anything to be discussed unless permitted by the king or by the president. The deputies acknowledged it with the collegial "amen".[11] None of the sources consulted specifies whether the secret mode of proceeding was exceptional, unusual or customary in the Cortes of that time.

Afterwards the president read to the chamber a text of royal proposal; its essence was that the 1713 succession regulations, which barred females from inheriting the throne save for extraordinary circumstances, be replaced with original Spanish medieval rules, which in terms of succession did not distinguish between sexes. 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.[12] The proposal was then followed by reading out a pre-prepared draft of a petition, to be adopted by the Cortes and directed to the king.[13] Its 2-paragraph text was relatively brief; it proposed that the king orders publication of a law which ordains that "Law 2, Title 15, Partida 2" is observed notwithstanding the changes introduced in later "Law 5, Title 7, Book 5".[14] The former, known as Ley de Partida, was the succession law of medieval statutory code; the latter was the 1713 regulation which established new succession rules upon Borbonic assumption of the Spanish throne, usually referred to as "Semi-salic law" or "Salic law".

There is no information available whether the proposal of such a fundamental change came as a shock to the deputies, whether it merely surprised them, or whether it was anticipated and caused no excitement at all.[15] The only record available states that the next to speak was Marqués de Villacampo, as the Burgos deputy traditionally speaking for the chamber; in name of the house he expressed concurrence.[16] The petition was then signed by all deputies and placed in the hands of Campomanes for further proceedings.[17] The gathering briefly discussed a number of other minor unrelated issues, and around 12 AM the session was closed. According to the present-day historian the debate on succession was "a matter of minutes".[18]

October 1789: further proceedings

Conde de Campomanes

The Cortes met again on October 3, 1789, when the record of September 30 proceedings was read and agreed to; there is no information of any discussion or difference of opinions having taken place.[19] Four days later, on October 7, 1789, the Cortes petition was inspected by the Catholic hierarchs, gathered earlier to assist in the ceremony of taking oath.[20] In 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 "original and natural order is re-established".[21]

At an unspecified time in October the petition was also reviewed on one or few meetings of a body named Junta de Asistentes de Cortes, serving as a board providing non-binding legal opinion.[22] In a separate address to the king, dated October 30, 1789, the Junta also fully endorsed the Cortes proposal.[23] At an unspecified time the address was acknowledged with written royal assent, also dated October 30, declaring "resolution corresponding to the accompanying petition" and enjoining that greatest secrecy be observed.[24]

Following the October 3 session the diet met on 5 other days, always discussing issues unrelated to the succession question: the agenda was almost entirely about agrarian regime, principally about huge landholdings named mayorazgos, their fiscal obligations and hereditary rules.[25] Some authors claim that as the news of the events unfolding in Paris arrived in Madrid, fearing unrest Campomanes dissolved the Cortes on October 17, which would have ended abruptly.[26] Authors of detailed studies claim that the Cortes proceedings went on as planned.

On October 31, 1789 the chamber met again; during the sitting the president informed the deputies that the king answered all petitions delivered. As to the succession issue, the procuradores were informed that the original petition had been appended with the royal resolution, stating that "I will ordain those of my Council to issue the Pragmatic Sanction which in such cases is expedient and customary, bearing in mind your petition and the opinions thereof taken".[27] During the same meeting of October 31 the deputies once again acknowledged the king's special injunction, pledged to observe it, and formally renewed their oath of secrecy. The written record of the session notes also that they expressed the wish that the succession law be secured in substance and in manner "until the publication of the Pragmática took place, at such time as H. M. might think proper".[28] The same day Campomanes announced the king's intention to close the Cortes on November 5. The meeting was terminated and the deputies re-convened as planned 6 days later, when in presence of the king the Cortes was formally dissolved as "having met its objectives".[29]

Afterwards

Fernando VII

Routine legislative procedure envisioned that once a law is approved, it is made public by printing out an appropriate document; 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, in terms of succession to the throne referred to the 1713 rule and contained no information on any alteration. Upon abdication of Carlos IV 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. The revolutionary Constitution of Cádiz, issued in 1812, did not distinguish between sexes in terms of royal hereditary rights;[30] it contained no official reference to the 1789 Cortes, though Junta Suprema of the Cádiz gathering was aware of its proceedings.[31] Once Fernando VII returned to power in 1813 the pre-revolutionary status quo ante was restored, though with no specific reference to succession law. The deposed Carlos IV died in 1819. As Fernando VII turned 40 and still had no issue, in the 1820s it was widely understood that in case he dies with no son, the throne would pass to his younger brother, Don Carlos. There were no participants of the 1789 Cortes alive when on March 29, 1830,[32] Fernando VII issued a document styled as publication of the 1789 succession law.

The 1830 document briefly referred the events of 1789 and noted that turbulent times did not allow "execution of those important designs";[33] it also claimed that with peace and tranquility fully restored, the "Pragmática-sanción" of 1789 is now being published and promulgated. The document, also named "Pragmática Sanción", was published along a few others, signed by Minister of Justice. Certified as based on original documentation stored in the ministry archive, they detailed the events of 1789 and until today they remain the key if not the only source on the succession debate during the Cortes of Charles IV.

The 1830 regulation was rendering also a would-be daughter of Fernando VII a potential heir to the throne. At the moment of its publication the document seemed pointless, as the king had no children at all and the throne was expected to pass to Don Carlos anyway. However, in May 1830 it was announced that the queen was pregnant, and in October 1830 she gave birth to a daughter. At this point the 1830 document would have relegated Don Carlos to the second-in-succession; he refused to recognize its legality and the dynastic crisis ensued. As it overlapped with political conflict between pro-liberal and anti-liberal groupings, the crisis turned into an open conflict, resulting in a series of civil wars which kept rocking the country and lingered until the 20th century.

Was the 1713 law changed?

Don Carlos

Though proceedings of the 1789 Cortes have been consigned into nearly perfect oblivion for the lifetime of almost one generation, starting the 1830s they turned into the point of extremely heated political, juridical and historical debate. The question of what had actually been decided, and more specifically whether the 1789 Cortes abrogated the 1713 succession law, became perhaps the most controversial constitutional issue in the 19th century Spain. In the 1830s "rivers of ink"[34] were spilled over the problem, taking shape of countless booklets, leaflets and press articles, produced by those claiming the 1713 law had been changed in 1789[35] or it had been not.[36] The debate continued during the following decades, recording another climax in the late 1860s and early 1870s.[37] In the 1880s and afterwards the question was eclipsed by a number of ongoing juridical issues and became a historical rather than a legal one, though debates persisted well into the 20th century, animated mostly by longevity of Carlism.[38]

The opinion that the 1789 Cortes had not altered the 1713 regulations seems to support dynastic claims of Don Carlos and his followers; hence, scholars holding such opinion are usually either auto-defined or labeled as Carlists. They quote an enormous list of arguments supposed to prove their point: the key one is that as the 1789 accord between the Cortes and king was not formally published as a law, it did not enter into force.[39] Other arguments, some of them contradictory, claim that deputies were not legally entitled to discuss the issue as their 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 1 year old in 1789, that proceedings would have been legal prior, but not after swearing allegiance to prince Fernando, that Carlos IV has never formally endorsed the Cortes petition, that there is no such thing as "secret laws", that Novisima Recopilación of 1805 confirmed binding legal status of the 1713 regulations, that the 1789 draft could have been declared law until 1808 but no later, as Cortes entitled only Carlos IV, and not his successors, to make it binding, that most documentation on 1789 events was released in 1830 and could have been tampered with, that the whole process was sort of a coup agreed between Floridablanca and Campomanes, and other points.[40]

The opinion that the 1789 Cortes had altered the 1713 succession law supported the dynastic claim of Fernando's descendants; hence, scholars holding such opinion were usually deemed Cristinos, Isabellinos or Alfonsinos. They repudiated arguments pointing to non-binding legal character of the 1789 events; the key line of reasoning was that Carlos IV in full agreement with the Cortes adopted a new law, and publication was a minor technical issue. They advance other claims, some of them also contradictory: that deputies were specifically asked to come equipped with powers to discuss all issues, that the law was not applied retroactively as Fernando's daughter Isabel had not been born at the time, that Carlos IV formally approved of the Cortes petition, that author of Novisima Recopilación was not aware of the 1789 law, and that Fernando as the son of Carlos IV inherited also the right to publish the law at the time he deemed proper. Some claim that the law entered into force in 1789 and refer to "Pragmatic Sanction of Carlos IV/of 1789",[41] some claim that it entered into force upon publication in 1830 and refer to "Pragmatic Sanction of Fernando VII/of 1830",[42] some refer to both.[43]

Current historiographic reading

Though the object of heated debate in the 19th century, today the question of succession law of 1789 generates little interest among professional historians; the last identified dedicated monograph comes from 1978.[52] Some authors consider the succession issue the only important point of the 1789 Cortes,[53] some discuss it as a minor problem, second to questions of rural rent, mayorazgos and other agrarian issues.[54] In some syntheses the 1789 debate is not at all noted in chapters dedicated to Carlos IV, only briefly referred to when discussing the 1830 document of Fernando VII.[55] In general, most historians tend to avoid normative pronouncements on the 1789 process, though wording used in different works can vary enormously and might suggests distinct interpretations.

One group of works sort of imply that in 1789 the succession law was effectively changed. There are authors who claim that Carlos IV decreed the Pragmatic Sanction, though he kept it secret;[56] others tend to agree vaguely that the 1713 law was effectively altered in 1789, though the decision was not published.[57] Another group of works is fathered by students who wrote highly ambiguous paragraphs; some note that the 1713 law was indeed changed in 1789, but the decision was put into effect in 1830,[58] some point that the 1713 law "was modified during the reign of Carlos IV" but also that the new regulation was promulgated in 1830;[59] some claim that Carlos IV did not promulgate a corresponding law, but at the same time refer to "Pragmatic Sanction of Carlos IV".[60] Yet another group of authors mention neither any "law of 1789" nor "changing the 1713 law", but prefer to dwell upon the Cortes approving of the draft,[61] upon Carlos IV "returning to traditional law",[62] upon procuradores agreeing the petition,[63] upon Cortes "registering the proposal"[64] etc. Finally, there are historians who more or less clearly suggest that the new law was "formulated" or "agreed" in 1789, but it did not enter into force at that time;[65] this is the position shared also by most historians related to Carlism, though these add also that neither the 1830 promulgation was legally binding.[66] The author of the latest monograph on the issue adopts one more 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.[67]

gollark: <@&704975580810182746>

gollark: E

gollark: Spawners take upward of 320RF/t.

gollark: Yes, a backup power source.

gollark: How do you plan to make enough? Endergenics seem the best approach.

Footnotes

throughout the 18th century Cortes was convened 6 or 10 times, counting depends upon whether one counts full-size of limited-size gatherings, Rosario Prieto, Las Cortes de 1789: el orden sucesorio, [in:] Vicente Palacio Atard, Manuel Espadas Burgos (eds.), Estudios sobre el siglo XVIII, Madrid 1978, p. 266.
there are numerous works which quote in extenso the documents referred to, see e.g. Placido Maria de Montoliu y de Sarriera, ¿Don Alfonso ó Don Carlos? estudio histórico-legal, Madrid 1872. The most complete English-language set of translations is in William Walton, Spain! Or, Who is the Lawful Successor to the Throne?, London 1834, p. 12. Some scholars note that when issuing the circular letters, particular attention was paid to the deputies being equipped in all powers, Prieto 1978, p. 295.
the name was to distinguish the body from other gatherings also named Cortes and specific for some regions of the country.
detailed discussion of composition of the Cortes in Longares Alonso 1974, pp. 138-142, Prieto 1979, pp. 262-296.
Prieto 1978, p. 294.
Walton 1834, p. 14.
Prieto 1978, p. 302.
Prieto 1979, pp. 328-329.
earlier historiographical works suggested that the deputies gathered around 11 AM, Longares Alonso p. 115, claims they met around 8 AM.
the one missing was a deputy from Teruel, who felt unwell, Antonio Aparisi Guijarro, La cuestión dinastica, Madrid 1869, p. 47.
Walton 1834, p. 15.
Walton 1834, p. 16, Montoliu Sarriera 1872, pp. 97-98.
it is believed that it had been drafted by Count of Floridablanca, Jesús Longares Alonso, Las últimas Cortes del Antiguo Régimen en España (19 septiembre - 5 diciembre de 1789), [in:] Estudis: Revista de historia moderna 3 (1974), p. 159.
full text in Montoliu Sarriera 1872, p. 99.
Prieto 1978, p. 320.
Walton 1834, p. XI.
Walton 1834, p. 17.
Longares Alonso 1974, p. 159.
Montoliu Sarriera 1872, p. 43.
none of the sources consulted clarifies whether in terms of legislative routine this was a routine or extraordinary step.
"restituir las cosas a su primitivo ser natural", Montoliu Sarriera 1872, p. 101-103, Prieto 1978, p. 325.
The Junta was composed of the Cortes president and 4 members of Council of Castile.
full text Montoliu Sarriera 1872, p. 100.
Walton 1834, p. XII. In one modern Castellano version the text reads "He tomado la resolucion conforme con la peticion adjunta, y encomiendo que se guarde provisionalmente el mayor secreto porque asi conviene mi servicio", quoted after Montoliu Sarriera 1872, p. 43-4, slightly different version is "He tomado la resolucion correspondiente á la súplica que acompaña, encargando por ahora el mayor secreto, por convenir así á mi servicio", Aparisi 1869, p. 50.
Longares Alonso 1974, pp. 117-138, 155-158.
Enrique Martínez Ruiz, La España moderna, Madrid 1992, ISBN 9788470902772, p. 561.
Walton 1834, p. XIII. In Spanish "Habiendo tenido en consideracion vuestra peticion y los pareceres tomados en este negocio, respondo que mandaré á los miembros de mi Consejo experid la pragmática-sancion de derecho y constumbre en tales casos", referred after Montoliu Sarriera 1872, p. 44, or "A esto os respondo: que ordenaré a los del mi Consejo expedir la Pragmática-sancion que en tales casos corresponde y se acostumbra, teniendo presente vuestra súplica y los dictamenes que sobre ella haya tomado", Aparisi 1869, p. 50. See also Testimonio de las actas de Córtes de 1789 sobre la sucesión en la Corona, Madrid 1833, p. 22.
Walton 1834, p. XIII.
The information widely provided by older works, compare e.g. Pedro Sabau y Larroya, Ilustración de la ley fundamental de España: que establece la forma de suceder en la corona y exposición del derecho de las augustas hijas del Señor Don Fernando VII, Madrid 1833, p. 70, though also by present-day scholars, compare Longares Alosno 1974, p. 117. The title of his work, Las últimas Cortes del Antiguo Régimen en España (19 septiembre - 5 diciembre de 1789), appears to contain a curious error.
Capitulo II, articulo 176 of the 1812 constitution read: "En el mismo grado y línea los varones prefieren a las hembras y siempre el mayor al menor; pero las hembras de mejor línea o de mejor grado en la misma línea prefieren a los varones de línea o grado posterior'.
Prieto 1978, pp. 339-340.
the document was signed March 29 and published March 31, 1830.
in original "ejecución de estos importantes designios".
Jordi Canal, El carlismo, Madrid 2000, ISBN 8420639478, p. 52.
best known early works are Juan Donoso Cortes, Memoria sobre la situación actual de la Monarquía, Madrid 1832; Marqués de Miraflores, Memoria histórico-leqal sobre las leves de sucesión a la Corona de España, Madrid 1833; José de la Peña Aguayo, Discurso histórico-legal sobre el derecho de la princesa Isabel Luisa a la sucesión de la corona por el fallecimiento sin hijos varones de su padre el Sr. D. Fernando VII, Granada, 1833; Reflexiones sobre el derecho que tiene a la Sucesión del Trono la Serma. Señora Infanta doña María Isabel Luisa, hija primogénita del Señor D. Fernando VII y de la señora doña María Cristina de Borbón, Madrid 1833; Pedro Sabau y Iaproya, Ilustración de la ley fundamental de España que establece la forma de suceder en la corona, y exposición del derecho de las augustas hijas del Señor Don Fernando VII, Madrid 1833; Francisco Fernandez del Pino, Testimonio de las Actas de Cortes de 1789 sobre la sucesión en la Corona de España y de los dictámenes dados sobre esta materia, Madrid 1833.
best known early works are Anti-carte a un amigo sobre las reflexiones publicadas en Madrid en favor del derecho que tiene a la sucesión del trono la Serenísima Señora infanta Doña María Isabel Luisa, Ramalhao 1833; Carta y protesta del infante don Carlos Contestación del Rey Fernando. Opinión del señor Bonald y del Señor Clausel de Coussergues sobre la abolición de la Lev sálica y la protesta del Rey de Nápoles contra el reconocimiento de la princesa María Isabel, Madrid 1833; Jean Claude Clausel de Coussergues, Nouvelles considérations sur la succesion au trone d’Espagne, Paris 1833; Dialogo histórico legal sobre el modo de suceder en la corona de España. por un español amante de la paz y felicidad de la Patria, Perpiñán 1833, Extracto de los fundamentos en que se apoya opinión sostenida por los llamados carlistas, Paris 1833; Refutación del papel titulado "Reflexiones sobre el derecho que tiene a la sucesión del Trono la Serma. Sra Infanta Doña María Isabel Luisa y Doña María Cristina de Borbon" y demostración del incontestable que asiste al infante don Carlos María Isidro, Paris 1833; José Ruiz de Luzuriaga, Cuatro verdades de un lego a los suyos y a los doctos sobre la sucesión Real y la revolución de España, Paris 1833; La sucesión vindicada. Demostración del derecho que asiste al serenísimo señor Infante don Carlos, Burdeos 1833; Contra-gaceta de la Gaceta de Madrid del 7 de abril de 1833, o refutación de los datos histórico—legales en cuyo cumplimiento se manda reconocer y jurar a la primogénita del señor don Fernando VII, Burdeos 1833; Doce párrafos de doce mil y más que pueden escribir, Burdeos 1833; Problemas sobre la Sucesión Real de España, Burdeos 1833; Bali Cosimo Andrea Sanminiatelli, Sulla recente abrogazione della Legge Salica Operata in Spagna, 1833, Barón de Los Valles, La verite sur les événements qui ont eu lieu depuis la maladie du Roi, par un légitimiste espagnol a tous les légitimestes d’Europe, Paris 1833.
perhaps the best works of that period representing "1789 was not legal" and "1789 was legal" positions were respectively Antonio Aparisi Guijarro, La cuestión dinastica, Madrid 1869, and Placido Maria de Montoliu y de Sarriera, ¿Don Alfonso ó Don Carlos? estudio histórico-legal, Madrid 1872.
compare the works of Francisco Elías de Tejada, due to his erudite standing perhaps the most prestigious and outspoken exponent of the Carlist juridical reading of the late 20th century, e.g his Il Carlismo, Palermo 1979.
especially that the enactment of June 12, 1714, specified that "all the laws of the Kingdom which have not been expressly abrogated by subsequent ones, shall literally be observed", Walton 1834, p. 20.
review of typical arguments used by both sides in Alfonso Bullón de Mendoza, La primera guerra carlista [Ph.D. thesis Universidad Complutense 1991], pp. 76-77.
Javier Tussell, Historia de España, Madrid 2001, ISBN 8430604359, p. 44, Manuel Tuñón de Lara, Julio Vadeón Baruque, Antonio Domínquez Ortiz, Secundino Serrano, Historia de España, Valladolid 1999, ISBN 8481830496, p. 417.
Miguel Artola (ed.), Enciclopedia de Historia de España, vol. 5, ISBN 9788420652412, p. 741.
even the names applied to various documents are contested. Most Alfonsist historians refer to the 1713 regulation as "Auto Acordado", while most Carlist historians claim that such a nomination is conscious attempt to play down importance of the regulation, which should rather be named "Ley Fundamental", compare Aparisi 1869, pp. 57-58. Legal scholarly discourse in Santos M. Coronas, De las leyes fundamentales a la constitución política de la monarquía española (1713-1812), [in:] Annuario del Historia del Derecho Español LXXXI (2011), pp. 14, 18-20.
Prieto 1978, pp. 314-5, 319, Longares Alonso 1974, p. 160.
Prieto 1978, p. 311, Enrique Giménez López, El fin del Antiguo Régimen. El reinado de Carlos IV, Madrid 1996, ISBN 8476792980, p. 14.
Prieto 1978, p. 313, Longares Alonso 1974, pp. 160-161.
Fernando García de Cortazar, Historia de España, Barcelona 2004, ISBN 8408042599, p. 182.
Longares Alonso 1974, p. 161.
Prieto 1978, pp. 327-330.
Antonio Domínguez Ortiz, España, tres milenios de historia, Madrid 2013, ISBN 9788415817024, p. 260.
Prieto 1978, pp. 261, 324.
Prieto 1978.
"aquellas Cortes fueran disueltos precipitamente sin haber hecho otra cosa importante sino proponer la derogación de un auto promulgado por Felipe V. [...] Carlos IV admitió la petición pero no llegó a promulgar la ley correspondiente", Manuel Tuñón de Lara, Julio Vadeón Baruque, Antonio Domínquez Ortiz, Secundino Serrano, Historia de España, Valladolid 1999, ISBN 8481830496, p. 352.
Longares Alonso 1974 dedicates 40 pages to rural issues discussed during the Cortes and 7 (last) pages to dynastical question.
perhaps the best example is a monumental series Historia de España Memendez Pidal; the volume dedicated to the reign of Carlos IV did not mention the 1789 debate, which was only briefly referred when discussing the 1830 regulations, compare José María Jover Zamora (ed.), Historia de España, vol. XXXII, Madrid 1992, ISBN 842394980X, p. 925.
"En abril de 1830 se mandó publicar la Pragmática Sanción, decretada por Carlos IV en 1789 pero mantenida en secreto su contenido, al autorizar la sucesión femenina, evitaba cualquier posibilidad de que don Carlos se convirtiera en rey', Javier Tussell, Historia de España, Madrid 2001, ISBN 8430604359, p. 44. "In 1789 Ferdinand's father, Carlos IV, had used a secret session of the Spanish Cortes to issue a decree opening up the royal succession to female as well as male heirs. This broke with the Salic Law which the Bourbon victor of the 1701-1713 War of the Spanish Succession, Philip V, had conferred on his new dynasty", M. Lawrence, Spain's First Carlist War, 1833-40, New York 2014, ISBN 9781137401755, p. 3. "los diputados votaron también una pragmática que [...] restableciá el antiguo orden sucesorio; pero por motivos no muy claros [...] no fue promulgada", Antonio Domínguez Ortiz, España, tres milenios de historia, Madrid 2013, ISBN 9788415817024, p. 260.
"Las Cortes de 1789 restablecieron el antiquo orden sucesorio, pero su no publicación como pragmática impidió que fueron conocido adecuadamente este restablecimiento", Enrique Martínez Ruiz, Enrique Giménez, José Antonio Armillas, Consuelo Maqueda, La España moderna, Madrid 1992, ISBN 8470902776, p. 561.
"Esta ley [of 1713] no fue modificada hasta 1789, en que las Cortes votaron a favor de la restauración del regimen fijado en las Partidas, en que no se hacian distinción de sexos. El voto de las Cortes no fue publicado y la Novisima Recopilación, por tanto, no lo reconoció. En 1830 Fernando decidió publicar la Pragmática Sanción con objeto de dar fuerza legal a la decisión de las Cortes", José María Jover Zamora (ed.), Historia de España, vol. XXXII, Madrid 1992, ISBN 842394980X, p. 925.
"El Auto acordado de 1713, que excluía a las mujeres de la sucesión mientras hubiese descendencia masculina en las ramas diracta o colateral, fue modificado en tiempos de Carlos IV. Las Cortes votaron en 1789 a favor de restaurar los viejos usos sucesorios fijados en la Ley de Partidas, segun la cual no debía introducirse ninguna distinción de sexos. Esta modificación, sin embargo, no se publicó, por lo que la Novísima Recopilación de 1805 no llegaría a incorporarla. En marco de 1830, el rey Fernando VII dio simplemente el paso siguente a la aprobación en Cortes, esto es, promulgar la ley", Canal 2000, pp. 52-53.
"aquellas Cortes fueran disueltos precipitamente sin haber hecho otra cosa importante sino proponer la derogación de un auto promulgado por Felipe V. [...] Carlos IV admitió la petición pero no llegó a promulgar la ley correspondiente", proceeding later to claim that "Fernando VII reiteraba por decreto la Pragmática Sanción de Carlos IV", Manuel Tuñón de Lara, Julio Vadeón Baruque, Antonio Domínquez Ortiz, Secundino Serrano, Historia de España, Valladolid 1999, ISBN 8481830496, p. 417. Also "Since Pragmatic Sanction of Carlos IV in 1789, seeking to reverse the law [of 1713], was never promulgated, this eighteenth-century novelty [of 1713] survived to give the Carlist pretenders of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries their claim to legitimate kingship", Martin Blinkhorn, Carlism and Crisis in Spain 1931-1939, Cambridge 1975, ISBN 9780521207294, p. 4.
"las Cortes Generales de 1789, convocadas por Carlos IV en el Salón de los Reinos de Palacio del Buen Retiro y presidiadas por el conde de Campomanes, ecordaron derogar el Auto Acordado de 1713 y restablecer le sucesión de acuerdo con las Partidas. Aunque las Cortes aprobaron el proyecto real por unanimidad, la correspondiente pragmática no fue promulgada y así no fue recogida pod la Novisima Recopilación de 1805. Promulgada por Fernando VII el 29 marzo de 1830..." Miguel Artola (ed.), Enciclopedia de Historia de España, vol. 5, ISBN 9788420652412, p. 741.
"En 1789 Carlos IV, con el consentimiento de las Cortes, volvió al derecho tradicional, pero omitió promulgar la pragmática correspondiente. [...] Por una pragmática sanción promulgada un poco despues [of the 4th marriage of Fernando VII] el ley modificó el orden de sucesión", Joseph Pérez, Historia de España, Barcelona 1999, ISBN 847423865X, p. 452.
"se pidió a los 74 procuradores que rechazaron la ley sálica [...], petición inspirada por la preocupación hacia las tradiciones españolas, y que los procuradores aceptaron sin discusión", John Lynch, La España del siglo XVIII, Barcelona 2004, ISBN 8484325873, p. 339.
"En 1789 las Cortes que proclamaron a Fernando VII heredero registraron la propuesta de Campomanes para derogar el Auto Acordado pero esta propuesta no llegó ser promulgada", Alfredo Comesaña Paz, Hijos del Trueno: La Tercera Guerra Carlista en Galicia y el Norte de Portugal, Madrid 2016, ISBN 9788416558254, p. 8.
"the king [Fernando VII] swiftly promulgated the Pragmatic Sanction, which his forebear Carlos IV had formulated in 1789 but had never put into effect", Jeremy MacClancy, The Decline of Carlism, Reno 2000, ISBN 978-0874173444, p. 2. "En los últimos días de marzo de 1830, Fernando VII hizo publicar la Pragmática Sanción, que habia sido aprobada en 1789 pero no promulgada. La Pragmática, al anular la Ley Sálica, vigente desde reinado de Felipe V, introducía cambios sustanciales en la cuestión sucesoria", Canal 2000, p. 52.
Historians related to both Progressist and Traditionalist vision agree on the issue, see respectively José Carlos Clemente, Los carlistas, Madrid 1990, ISBN 9788470902321, pp. 43-44, and Román Oyarzun Oyarzun, Historia del carlismo, Valladolid 2006, ISBN 9788497614481 (re-edition of the earlier work), pp. 12-13.
the chain of events would be composed of 8 phases: 1) Auto Acordado of 1713; 2) derogation of 1789; 3) not publishing of the 1789 derogation; 4) Novissima Recopilacíon of 1805; 5) pronouncement of Juna Suprema de Cádiz; 6) Pragmatica of 1830; 7) Codicilo of 1832; 8) Declaración de Palacio of 1832, Prieto 1978, p. 340.