Off the top of my head, I can name only three exmaples: King Fernando VII of Spain, King Pedro IV of Portugal, and King George VI of Great Britain. In the first two cases, of course, massive succession disputes and wars erupted, whereby the said kings' brothers usurped or attempted to claim the thrones.
King George IV of Great Britain would have counted, had his only legitimate child (born Princess Charlotte of Wales) survived to succeed him on the throne as queen regnant. King William IV would likewise have counted, had his legitimate daughter Elizabeth (born a princess of Clarence, after the death of Charlotte) survived to succeed him on the throne as queen regnant.
The accession in 1837 of Victoria to the British throne as queen regnant does not count, since her father (Prince Edward, Duke of Kent) never became king. He most certainly would have succeeded had he lived. But then, he also could well have fathered a son to displace her in the succession. The law until 2013 was male-preference (not fully cognatic) primogeniture.
Are there any other examples? The reason for my asking is that it seems that in most cases in royal history, regardless of the particular law that was official, most kings who were succeeded by daughters didn't even have any brothers.
« Back to index