«The Catholic Monarchs were very close to the Spanish»
—Following the murder of Pedro I the Cruel at the hands of his brother Enrique II of Trastámara, at the beginning of the book you comment that the dynasty “sealed with blood” its fate. Which of all the episodes of violence surprised you the most, because of how improbable and far-fetched it was?
—The accession of Isabel and Fernando to the throne came about thanks to a long series of unexpected deaths. Neither one nor the other was called to reign in the first place. Characters such as the Marquis of Villena and his brother, Enrique IV, the Infante Alfonso, the Prince of Viana, etc., had to die for the path to be paved. It is not that the Catholic Monarchs were murderers, since there is no way to prove their hand in any of these strange episodes, but it is undeniable that they benefited greatly and that the Spain in which they moved was mined with poisons and enemies. The road to the throne was not easy or short, in fact, it took them almost more years than they later reigned. Interestingly, they are remembered only for their reign and not for their eventful rise.
—What is the moment in which the Trastámara House was closest to destroying the future union of the Catholic Monarchs and endangering the existence of the Spanish Empire?
—During the proclamation in Segovia of Isabella as Queen of Castile, without having asked for permission or even notifying her husband, she put their marriage on the ropes. Isabel feared that Fernando, also Trastámara, could take away his rights to the throne and gave an acceleration that almost cost the Trastámara alliance and everything that later happened in her reign. That was the biggest crisis of their entire relationship, but, in the most romantic way, it was resolved in the offices with a new agreement to define the power that would correspond to each one.
—As is the case with many other periods, the history of the Catholic Monarchs has also been politicized, especially with regard to the colonization of America and the debate about their responsibility for the birth of Spain. Do you think these debates should be overcome?
—We live in a time where history is more politicized than ever. The Catholic Monarchs, the Reconquest or the conquest of America are topics that, on the lips of politicians of both spectrums, jump to public opinion in the form of controversy almost every week. This had not happened for many decades, partly because the Transition decided to place the debates on the history of Spain, in the absence of consensus, in the background in pursuit of a shared history of reconciliation, Europeanism, autonomy and economic progress. The spell of the Transition broken, history has abandoned its rightful place, the history books, and has jumped onto the public battlefield. This has especially affected the Catholic Monarchs, some late medieval leaders with an idea of Spain and the world radically different from that of Vox or Podemos. Any attempt to use their quotes, their figures or their behavior in terms of current politics is complete nonsense.
—What was the main change carried out by the Catholic Monarchs with respect to their ancestors?
—The Catholic Monarchs put an end to the farmhouse that a few families had set up. They regained power for the crown, developed the first tools for a modern state, dared to emulate Portugal in its Atlantic adventures, and homogenized their kingdoms at a time when politics and religion were the same thing. They left Spain in an unbeatable position for the Modern Age. In addition, they were very traveling and close kings, which left a feeling of longing among the Spaniards after their death, who saw in their successors much more distant and foreign figures. Their secret is that they formed an unbeatable tandem, where the virtues of one made up for the defects of the other, and where love and mutual trust prevailed when they had to face great challenges. If one was impulsive, the other asked for reflection; if one looked only at foreign policy, the other did so within.