The point is that generally speaking throughout history, kings with brothers (or other male agnatic relatives) do not get succeeded by their daughters -- even if they have no sons.
The Castilian law may have made it explicit that a reigning monarch is always succeeded by his son, unless he has none, in which case his daughter succeeds. Put another way: brothers (regardless of age or birth order) take precedence over sisters.
What is less explicit is the scenario whereby the monarch is a king with younger brothers, and moreover, nephews through them. Death rates being high for the good part of history, one did not usually see more than one surviving male per generation, anyway: just look at the history of the Spanish Habsburgs.
As for Mary, Queen of Scots: her genealogy reveals that her father, paternal grandfather, and paternal great-grandfather had no surviving brothers. King Henry VIII of England also had no younger brother. Ditto for King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.
Whether you're talking about England, Scotland, Sweden, etc., regardless of the succession law on a DE JURE basis, Salicism or semi-Salicism seems to have been the DE FACTO operation: none of the kings in question would have had their daughters eventually succeed, if they had brothers.
« Back to index