Frente al palacio había una estatua antigua que a mi hija le llamó mucho la atención.

This is a location phrase meaning in front of the palace or opposite the palace.

Spanish often puts place or time information first to set the scene. So:

• Frente al palacio había una estatua antigua... = scene first
• Había una estatua antigua frente al palacio... = also correct

Both are natural, but the version in your sentence feels very good for narration or description.

Because a + el contracts to al.

So:

• frente a el palacio → incorrect
• frente al palacio → correct

This only happens with el, not with la:

• frente al museo
• frente a la iglesia

Because haber is used to say that something exists or is/was there:

• Había una estatua = There was a statue

Using estar would not normally work here:

• Estaba una estatua... sounds wrong in standard Spanish

So the difference is:

• había = there was / there were
• estaba = was located / was in a state

You could say:

• La estatua estaba frente al palacio = The statue was in front of the palace

But once the statue is being introduced for the first time, había is the natural choice.

Había is the imperfect, and here it gives background description. It sets the scene:

• Frente al palacio había una estatua antigua...

This is exactly the kind of thing Spanish often uses the imperfect for: describing what was there, what the setting was, what the situation looked like.

Hubo would sound more like a completed event or occurrence, not simple background description. In this sentence, había is much more natural.

In Spanish, adjectives often come after the noun.

So:

• una estatua antigua = an old/ancient statue

This is the normal, neutral order.

If you said una antigua estatua, it would sound more literary or could even slightly change the nuance. With antiguo/a, position can matter:

• una estatua antigua = a statue that is old/ancient
• una antigua estatua = less neutral; possibly stylistic or emphatic

So in your sentence, estatua antigua is the straightforward choice.

Que is a relative pronoun here. It connects una estatua antigua with the information that follows.

So:

• una estatua antigua que...
• literally: an old statue that...

The full idea is:

• una estatua antigua que a mi hija le llamó mucho la atención
• an old statue that really caught my daughter’s attention

In English, that is sometimes optional. In Spanish, que is normally required here.

Because mi hija is the person affected by the action, and in Spanish that person is introduced with a in this structure.

The expression is:

• llamar la atención a alguien
• literally: to call attention to someone
• actually meaning: to attract someone’s attention / catch someone’s eye

So:

• a mi hija = to my daughter

This a is very common before people in object functions.

Yes, they point to the same person, and this is completely normal in Spanish. It is called clitic doubling.

• a mi hija names the person explicitly
• le repeats that person as an indirect object pronoun

So:

• a mi hija le llamó mucho la atención

This is not redundant in a bad way; it is a standard Spanish pattern, especially with people.

English usually would not do this, but Spanish often does.

Spanish word order is more flexible than English word order. Putting a mi hija before the verb gives it a bit of prominence and sounds very natural.

So this sentence highlights my daughter as the person whose attention was caught:

• que a mi hija le llamó mucho la atención

A more rearranged version is possible:

• que le llamó mucho la atención a mi hija

But your sentence sounds smoother and more natural.

It is a very common expression meaning:

• to attract attention
• to catch someone’s attention
• to stand out
• sometimes to strike someone

So here:

• le llamó mucho la atención = it really caught her attention

You should learn it as a fixed expression, not word by word.

Even though llamar usually means to call, here llamar la atención is idiomatic.

Because llamar la atención is a fixed expression, and the article la is part of it.

So the normal form is:

• llamar la atención

not usually:

• llamar atención

Think of it as one unit of meaning.

Because the subject of llamó is una estatua antigua.

If we unpack the sentence:

• Una estatua antigua llamó mucho la atención a mi hija

So the statue is what did the action of catching attention.

That is why the verb is singular:

• la estatua llamó

If the subject were plural, the verb would be plural too:

• unas estatuas antiguas... le llamaron mucho la atención

Because mucho modifies the verbal idea: it caught her attention a lot.

• le llamó mucho la atención = it really caught her attention

Muy is used with adjectives and adverbs, not directly like this with a verb phrase.

Compare:

• muy antigua = very old
• llamó mucho la atención = caught a lot of attention / really caught attention

It is possible in some contexts, but it changes the feel.

• Había una estatua antigua introduces the statue as part of the scene: there was an old statue
• Estaba una estatua antigua is much less natural for introducing something new

If the statue has already been mentioned, then estaba works better:

• La estatua estaba frente al palacio

So in your original sentence, había is the best choice.

They are close, but not always identical in nuance.

• frente a often suggests facing or opposite
• delante de often means in front of

In many everyday contexts, both can work. Here, frente al palacio sounds very natural and elegant.

So you can think of it roughly as:

• Frente al palacio = in front of / opposite the palace

They show stress and also help distinguish forms.

• había = imperfect form of haber
• llamó = preterite, he/she/it called

Without the accent, llamo would mean I call.

So the accent in llamó is important because it tells you this is a past-tense form.

In había, the accent helps show the correct pronunciation: ha-BÍ-a.