Marcus is correct: of course he was self serving. One could adduce many examples from the "hijacking" of Alexander's corpse to his cynical espousing of the "freedom of the Greeks" (certainly no less cynical than Antigonus). On that latter, being disappointed of his ambitions in Greece in 308 he settled with Cassander on terms that saw him keep the Greek cities he was holding - along with garrisons in key poleis. Ptolemy was little different to the other Successors: he sought the lot as means and opportunity allowed. Diodorus is clear on this (20.37.4):ruthaki wrote:Everyone has their own opinions of Ptolemy and I've even read some that called him 'self-serving'.
I don't recall Ptolemy ever refusing Cleopatra's hand in marriage and the above claims he sought such (along with others). The reason the marriage did not take place is because Antigonus had the ageing "legitimacy-in-waiting" murdered before Ptolemy could consummate the proposal (20.37.5-6)Because of the distinction of her descent Cassander and Lysimachus, as well as Antigonus and Ptolemy and in general all the leaders who were most important after Alexander's death, sought her hand; for each of them, hoping that the Macedonians would follow the lead of this marriage, was seeking alliance with the royal house in order thus to gain supreme power for himself.
Many cite the Curtius passage along with Pausanias 1.6.2 as evidence that Ptolemy was a son of Philip II. Whilst Pausanias might claim "the Macedonians consider" Ptolemy the son of Philip, the Macedonians who counted - those involved in the succession crisis - knew nothing of the sort. It is inconceivable that both Alexander's bastard Heracles and the mentally deficient Arrhidaeus could be proposed whilst a fully competent supposed half brother - available and at hand - was passed over in absolute silence.