Actually, to kill the debate, You're both wrong.
See: Treaty of Caltabellotta.
Charles II, ancestor of Charles III forfeited all claims to the Kingdom of Sicily, which was unformally renamed Trinacria. (There was still only one actual kingdom that both occupied half of.)
The Treaty of Caltabellota was signed by Frederick II of Sicily (who called himself III), Charles II of Naples, and also signed by the Papacy, therefore completely legitimizing the House of Barcelona as the monarchs there.
Charles III has no claim, because Charles II relinquished his own.
On the other hand, Maria and Frederick have several claims on Naples, one even stems from the above treaty.
According to the terms of the treaty, Frederick "III" (II) of Sicily married Eleanore d'Anjou, daughter of King Charles II.
Let's face it. We captured Charles I, we captured Charles II, we captured three of Charles II's sons, we beat them repeatedly in battle on sea and on land, and we even took Charles II's daughter in marriage.
Sicily > Naples.
See: Treaty of Caltabellotta.
Charles II, ancestor of Charles III forfeited all claims to the Kingdom of Sicily, which was unformally renamed Trinacria. (There was still only one actual kingdom that both occupied half of.)
The Treaty of Caltabellota was signed by Frederick II of Sicily (who called himself III), Charles II of Naples, and also signed by the Papacy, therefore completely legitimizing the House of Barcelona as the monarchs there.
Charles III has no claim, because Charles II relinquished his own.
On the other hand, Maria and Frederick have several claims on Naples, one even stems from the above treaty.
According to the terms of the treaty, Frederick "III" (II) of Sicily married Eleanore d'Anjou, daughter of King Charles II.
Let's face it. We captured Charles I, we captured Charles II, we captured three of Charles II's sons, we beat them repeatedly in battle on sea and on land, and we even took Charles II's daughter in marriage.
Sicily > Naples.