Povijesni prilozi 54., 219-237 (2018.) 219 UDK: 929 Marija Terezija, hrv.-ug. kraljica 94(497.5:436)”1712” Primljeno: 4. 5. 2018. Prihvaćeno: 10. 5. 2018. Izvorni znanstveni rad DOI: 10.22586/pp.v54i1.70 Ivana Jukić * Why Was the Habsburg Princess Granted the Right to Rule the Kingdom of Croatia in 1712? Th is paper presents the new interpretations of Croatian historiographers concerning the so-called Croatian Pragmatic Sanction or Article 7:1712, promulgated by the Sab- or in March 1712. Th e Sabor’s decision granted the Habsburg female line the succes- sion right in the Kingdom of Croatia. Our focus has been on answering the question why this decision was made in 1712, instead of using the traditional interpretations of Croatian narrative historiography. Th e general interpretative context of this paper consists of two political trends present in the Habsburg Monarchy and the Kingdom of Croatia at the beginning of the 18th century: the early modern state-building pro- cess and the preservation of power of the Sabor elite. Keywords: Sabor, Croatian Pragmatic Sanction, Habsburg female succession, Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen, 18th century From historical rights to temporal interests When in the late 19th and at the turn of the 20th century the Croatian historians fi rst wrote analyses of the so-called Croatian Pragmatic Sanction or Article 7: 1712, promulgated by the Croatian diet, the Sabor, in March 1712,1 those anal- yses were all about the rights and privileges of the Croatian status et ordines. Th eir interpretations were largely guided by two perspectives or arguing points. Th e fi rst one concerned the question on what historical right(s) the Croatian no- bles based their legal and political power to declare the right of Habsburg female succession in the Kingdom of Croatia in case the male line became extinct. Th e * Ivana Jukić, University Department of Croatian Studies, Department of History, Borongajska cesta 83d, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia, E-mail: [email protected] 1 For the text of the Article, see: Zaključci hrvatskog sabora, sv. 2 (1693-1713), ed. Josip Buturac et al. (Zagreb: Državni arhiv NR Hrvatske, 1958), Article 7, 471-472. 220 Ivana Jukić, Why Was the Habsburg Princess Granted the Right to Rule ... second perspective was directed at explaining that all political actions taken in order to declare the right of Habsburg female rule stemmed from the political confl icts between the Hungarians and the Croatian nobility. It was all instigated by the Hungarian nobles, who attacked the rights and privileges of the Croatian nobility.2 Although a legal historical analysis of the so-called Croatian Pragmatic Sanction is important, and the existing interpretations could be complemented with some new facts and interpretative perspectives, this paper focuses on the question “why” and analyses the contemporary socio-political reasons behind the formu- lation of the legal decision in 1712. Th e main idea is that the Sabor’s decision in 1712, although based on the historical rights and privileges of the Croatian es- tates, was a product of the current socio-political situation and personal interests of both parties: members of the Habsburg family and the political elite within the Kingdom of Croatia. Th e main agenda behind it, concealed under the formula of “rights and privileges,” was to preserve the power of the Sabor elite within the regional elite network in the slow, but ongoing state-building process of the Habsburg Monarchy. When we look at these two processes – state-building and the preservation of power for the Sabor elite as the main element for the regional elite – then a legal decision such as Article 7:1712 becomes a historiographic story telling us who the members of the Sabor elite were and what their domain was, as well as how they communicated with the political centre, i.e. the Court of Vien- na. Th ereby the most interesting part of research is recognizing their overlapping interests, where both parties could play with the regional rights and privileges in order to accomplish particular political goals. In its fi rst two sections, this paper aims at presenting the specifi c context, that is, the problems which occurred simultaneously yet independently: a) to the members of the Habsburg family who were concerned about preserv- ing the vision of the Habsburg Monarchy in the Danube area, and b) to certain members of the Croatian political elite who were concerned about the preservation of the existing socio-political reality, in which the Kingdom of Croatia (i.e. Zagreb, Varaždin, and Križevci counties) was only within their or the Sabor’s scope of infl uence. 2 For various interpretations in the Croatian historiography, see: Vjekoslav Klaić, “Hrvatska prag- matička sankcija”, Rad JAZU 206 (1915); Ivan Beuc, “Kojim pravom postaje Marija Terezija hrvatskim kraljem?,” Vjesnik Kraljevskog državnog arkiva 8 (1939). As for the Austrian historiography, see: Gu- stav Turba, Die Grundlagen der Pragmatischen Sanktion I-II (Leipzig; Vienna: F. Deuticke, 1912); Tur- ba, Die Pragmatische Sanktion. Authentische Texte samt Erläuterungen und Übersetzungen (Vienna, 1913); Turba, Die pragmatische Sanktion – mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Länder der Stephankrone. Neues zur Entstehung und Interpretation 1703-1744 (Vienna, 1906); Turba, Reichsgraf Seilern aus La- denburg am Neckar 1646-1715 als kurpfälzischer und österreichischer Staatsmann (Heidelberg, 1923). Povijesni prilozi 54., 219-237 (2018.) 221 Th ese issues motivated the Court of Vienna and the regional elite to create time and space for an intense political dialogue on the succession law in the Kingdom of Croatia in 1711/1712, as a solution for both parties. Th e third section analyses the course of the bargaining process between the Court of Vienna and the members of the regional elite, naming the main char- acters in the process, emphasising the infl uence of personal connections in those activities, and presenting the fi nal result of the dialogue. Th e fi nal section poses the following question: did the Sabor elite use the political profi t gained by the declaration of the so-called Croatian Pragmatic Sanction for achieving the much needed socio-political change in the Kingdom of Croatia in the decades aft er 1712? Family issues and the state-building process Th e main problem and trauma for the Habsburg family – and for the dynasty as well – was created in 1711, when Joseph I (1705-1711) died without a male succes- sor. His brother Charles, or Charles III, who was at the time the King of Spain, and was in war with France in order to keep his Spanish legacy, was thus forced to return to Austria and take over the reins of the Empire and the Austrian Mon- archy. Th at moment signifi ed the end of the War of the Spanish Succession and the loss of the Spanish crown and its territories. Th e only territory the Habsburgs were able to keep as part of their Spanish territorial legacy were their Italian and Dutch areas.3 Th e main reason for such an outcome for the Austrian House was the European powers’ intolerance regarding the possibility of reviving the Uni- versal Monarchy in Europe, since it had always presented a great disturbance for the balance of power, especially in 18th-century Europe. Th e Spanish experience showed that Europe had entered into a more distinct phase of its political be- haviour. Gradually, it was the balance of power and laws that began to shape the political map of Europe, rather than family issues. Nevertheless, the aggressive politics of the European powers still counted on the biological mishaps of royal families in order to extend their territories.4 To avoid the Spanish scenario in the Austrian Monarchy, which was not political fi ction, the Habsburg family policies preferred to rely on the binding agreements between family members than on bi- ological luck. In 1703, a family agreement between Leopold I, Joseph, and Charles was signed – Pactum mutuae successionis – showing that the Court of Vienna 3 For a general overview on this subject, see: John P. Spielman, Leopold I of Austria (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1977), 169-178. 4 During the 18th century, the European powers were quite oft en involved in diff erent wars of succes- sion, such as the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714), the War of the Quadruple Alliance (1717- 1720), the War of the Polish Succession (1733-1735), the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748), and the War of the Bavarian Succession (1778-1779). 222 Ivana Jukić, Why Was the Habsburg Princess Granted the Right to Rule ... did not try to build its future on hopes and expectation. Th e main idea behind the agreement was, of course, the right of mutual succession to the Spanish and Austrian thrones between Joseph and Charles. Th e novelty was the right of suc- cession for the female line, and Joseph’s daughters had precedence.5 Th e agree- ment was kept secret from the European powers because there was a possibility that mutual succession might unite the Spanish and Austrian crowns under one family member, which would lead to the revival of the much-hated Universal Monarchy in Europe. On the other hand, the end of the War of the Spanish Suc- cession made Central Europe, i.e. the Empire and the Hungarian lands, to the Habsburgs’ key territories, the real base of their future power and their status as a European power. Th e foundation of dynastic power in these “Eastern parts” was the Habsburgs’ hereditary and elective right to rule, but only for the male mem- bers of the family. Th e Habsburg female succession right met with serious legal obstacles in those parts, and so did the Habsburg supremacy.