In medieval Castile, language and propaganda were key aspects of political disputes. Some chroniclers and poets contributed to legitimisation and delegitimisation processes by representing both sides in their works. This paper presents a comparative view of the discursive strategies used to discredit the nobles who questioned whether Henry IV of Castile and, later, his successor, Isabella I, were rightful monarchs. The tactics of two chroniclers in particular will be examined, both of whom were solid defenders of the royal authority: Diego Enríquez del Castillo and Fernando de Pulgar. Their texts, as with other coetaneous chronicles, have never been compared in depth from the perspective suggested above; as such, an analysis could offer some interesting conclusions on the matter.
