WI: Henry V dies at Shrewsbury

Many have asked what would have happened if Henry V had lived longer. However, I can't remember anybody asking what would have happened if his career was cut short. Henry V took an arrow to the face at the Battle of Shrewsbury when he was 16. What if the wound had been mortal?
 
Well, he won't be Henry V.

And we would have King Thomas I of England.

I'm not sure what he would have done, but I'll bet he won't conquer half of France.

Everything in the second half of the century would be very different.

And if he doesn't have any children, Bedford will become John II. If he doesn't have children, then Gloucester would be Humphrey I.
 
It would also wipe out the Tudor Dynasty. Catherine of Valois would never come to England and would never meet Owen Tudor; thus, Edmund and Jasper would never be born. By that, Henry VII would never come along as Edmund and Margaret Beaufort would never marry.

Without Henry VII there would be no Tudor dynasty... and possibly not the Yorkists either.
 
It would also wipe out the Tudor Dynasty. Catherine of Valois would never come to England and would never meet Owen Tudor; thus, Edmund and Jasper would never be born. By that, Henry VII would never come along as Edmund and Margaret Beaufort would never marry.

Without Henry VII there would be no Tudor dynasty... and possibly not the Yorkists either.

Catherine could still be married to Thomas I in this case. But instead of a Treaty of Troyes, it would be just a typical dynastic marriage, like Edward II and Isabella of France.
 
You'd probably end with a more important repression of Hotspur's rebellion, but overall little to no changes on the court. I won't see Thomas having a much different policy than his father.
The possibilities of a revolt of his other brothers isn't to be ruled out, but I'm not sure they would have nearly enough support to be more than a nuisance.

Regarding France :
It's probable that Thomas would still try for campaign there as he did IOTL. Probably in the same mood than Henry : not trying to claim the crown, but raiding the hell out of the coast and make a safe loot.
It may be located more on the general Atlantic coast than focusing on Normandy, however. Thomas seems to have focused on the old duchy IOTL, and would try to grab it with supporting either Bourguignons or Armagnacs in the ongoing civil war.

It's probable that he could take Aquitaine (Such conquest would proove easier to be kept than Normandy, as you had local support there up to the very end IOTL) as he wanted, but probably more by diplomacy than battle, he doesn't seems to have been that bright as a commander (even if his death at Baugé overshadow it).
He seems to have been more conservative than his brother on some features, so I'd see a maintain of old practices : ransoming prisoner instead of killing them, namely.

Would England be able to hold Aquitaine? I don't think it would be possible on the long run : each time the kingdom of France managed to get its shit together during HYW, it managed to win what was basically a war of attrition. But it could hold at least long enough to crave some sort of equivalent to Pale of Calais that could be maintained longer than Aquitaine per se.

There's also the possibility of an english defeat in a campaign. That's gonna be a huge boost for whoever have the lead on the royal french court (probably Armagnacs). I won't see a campaign against England lands in France, not immediatly at least :

France itself is gonna be troubled more by the civil war, maybe longer than IOTL. English advance prooved a really good basis for reconciliation.
Cabochiens revolt wouldn't be butterflied, meaning Armagnacs would be controlling Paris at this point.

It mean that Louis de Guyenne may survive and inherit. It seemed experienced enough, but without a great hold on events : that said, so was his younger brother and he was clearly less experienced.
Psychologically, he looked a lot like his grandfather, Charles V. It may be of good omen, or not.

He,basing myself on his behavior, may have tried to play each faction against the other, beneficing to have Burgundy as his father-in-law, and impose the royal peace. It's not going to be really easy, and I'd see him pulling a Charles V : buying peace with England at the cost of Aquitaine, beating the crap out of feudal factions, acting against England.


It would also wipe out the Tudor Dynasty.
Fair point : Tudur dynasty would be barely remembered as taking its part into the Welsh rebellion.

Catherine could still be married to Thomas I in this case. But instead of a Treaty of Troyes, it would be just a typical dynastic marriage, like Edward II and Isabella of France.

I don't think so : Isabelle de Valois was indeed married with Richard II, but in a context where peace seemed to be installed in France between them. Neither Henri IV or Thomas proven to have that in mind, at the contrary.
 
Last edited:
I can't help but think that the English national identity would be less distinct for a while. After all, Henry V was the first English monarch to primarily use the English language.
 
It was bound to happen at this point : you can't rule undefinitly a country whom population use a massivly different language than yours, critically when identity differenciation was already happening.

If not Henry V, then his brother, or his nephew.
 
If Henry V died at Shrewsbury, the succession would go like this (right up to 2014):
Monarchs are in bold; bullet points list each monarch and white bullet points are to add in more information.

  • Henry IV
  • Thomas I (son of former)
  • John II (brother of former)
  • Humphrey I (brother of former)
  • Blanche I (sister of former)
  • Rupert I (son of former)
  • Philippa, Queen of Denmark and I of England (aunt of the former; sister of Blanche I)
    • Next in line would be the Beauforts; they are legitimised, but barred from the throne. Thus, John of Gaunt has no legitimate sons left living that can claim the throne (John and Edward both died in 1365 and another John - from Gaunt's second marriage - died in 1375) so the throne would pass to the first female ruler, his eldest daughter.
  • Philippa II of England, Queen Consort of Portugal (aunt of the former; sister to Henry IV)
  • Edward I of Portugal and IV of England (son of the former)
  • Alfonso V of Portugal and I of England (son of the former)
  • John II of Portugal and III of England (son of the former)
  • Manuel I of Portugal and I of England (cousin of the former; grandson of Edward I of Portugal and IV of England)
  • John III of Portugal and IV of England (son of former)
    • John's son, Prince John, died before him, so John III's grandson succeeds to the throne.
  • Sebastian I of Portugal and I of England (grandson of former)
    • Sebastian died without children, so the throne passes to the next available heir - in this case, his great uncle, the brother of John III.
  • Henry III of Portugal and V of England (great-uncle of former; brother of John III)
    • Next in line would be Isabella, Holy Roman Empress, wife of King Charles V of Spain. She died in 1539, before Henry III in 1580, so the crown would pass to her son.
  • Philip II of Spain and I of England (nephew of Henry III of Portugal and V of England; son of Isabella, Holy Roman Empress)
  • Philip III of Spain and II of England (son of the former)
  • Philip IV of Spain and III of England (son of the former)
  • Charles II of Spain and I of England (son of the former)
    • Next in line would be his sister Maria Theresa of Spain, first wife of Louis XIV. She died in 1683, while Charles II died in 1700. Thus, her claim - and the succession - would go to her son.
  • Louis I of England, Grand Dauphin of France (nephew of the former, eldest son of Louis XIV and Maria Theresa of Spain, Charles II's sister)
  • Louis II of England, Dauphin of France (son of the former; survived his father by ten months four days)
  • Louis III of England, Duke of Brittany (son of the former; five years old - survived his father by less than a month).
    • None of the three above Louis survived King Louis XIV and thus were not King of France.
  • Louis XV of France and Navarre and IV of England (brother of the former)
  • Louis XVI of France and Navarre and V of England (grandson of the former)
  • Louis XVII of France and Navarre and VI of England (Son of the former)
    • Louis XVII never actually ruled as King of France or Navarre. To those thrones he was merely a claimant. He would have succeeded to the throne of England from 21st January 1793 to 8th June 1795. He is included as the King of France and Navarre for completions sake.
  • Napoleon I (France only; seized power, made himself Emperor of the French in 1804).
  • Louis XVIII of France and Navarre and VII of England (brother of Louis XVII)
    • Louis XVIII succeeded his nephew as King of England from 8th June 1795. He ruled, de jure, as King of France from his nephew's death to on 8th June 1795 to his death and ruled as De facto king from 11th April - 20th March 1815; then again, after defeating Napoleon, from 8th July 1815 to 16th September 1824, when he died. He had no children and was succeeded by his brother.
  • Charles X of France and Navarre and II of England (brother of the former)
    • Charles was forced to abdicate the French Throne in 1830. Louis Antione would succeed him as King of England from 6th November 1836 to his own death on 3rd June 1844.
  • Louis Antione VII of England, Duke of Angouleme (son of former, King of England only)
    • After Louis's death, the throne of England would pass, as he has no heirs, to his niece, Princess Louise Marie Thérèse of Artois
  • Louise Marie Thérèse of Artois I, Queen of England, Duchess Consort of Parma (niece of former)
  • Robert I, King of England, Duke of Parma (son of former)
  • Joseph I, King of England, Duke of Parma and Piacenza (son of former)
  • Elias I, King of England, Duke of Parma and Piacenza (brother of former)
  • Robert Hugo I, King of England, Duke of Parma and Piacenza (son of former)
  • Xavier I, King of England, Duke of Parma and Piacenza (half-uncle of former)
  • Carlos Hugo III, King of England (as Charles Hugo), Duke of Parma and Piacenza (son of former)
  • Carlos IV of Bourbon-Parma, King of England (as Charles), Duke of Parma and Piacenza (son of former)
    • Heiress presumptive: HRH Princess Luisa Irene Constance Anna Maria of Bourbon-Parma
There. That would, per the terms of eldest child succession, be the descent up to this very day.
 
Last edited:
If Henry V died at Shrewsbury, the succession would go like this (right up to 2014):
Monarchs are in bold; bullet points list each monarch and white bullet points are to add in more information.

  • Henry IV
  • Thomas I (son of former)
  • John II (brother of former)
  • Humphrey I (brother of former)
  • Blanche I (sister of former)
  • Rupert I (son of former)
  • Philippa, Queen of Denmark and I of England (aunt of the former; sister of Blanche I)
    • Next in line would be the Beauforts; they are legitimised, but barred from the throne. Thus, John of Gaunt has no legitimate sons left living that can claim the throne (John and Edward both died in 1365 and another John - from Gaunt's second marriage - died in 1375) so the throne would pass to the first female ruler, his eldest daughter.
  • Philippa II of England, Queen Consort of Portugal (aunt of the former; sister to Henry IV)
  • Edward I of Portugal and IV of England (son of the former)
  • Alfonso V of Portugal and I of England (son of the former)
  • John II of Portugal and III of England (son of the former)
  • Manuel I of Portugal and I of England (cousin of the former; grandson of Edward I of Portugal and IV of England)
  • John III of Portugal and IV of England (son of former)
    • John's son, Prince John, died before him, so John III's grandson succeeds to the throne.
  • Sebastian I of Portugal and I of England (grandson of former)
    • Sebastian died without children, so the throne passes to the next available heir - in this case, his great uncle, the brother of John III.
  • Henry III of Portugal and V of England (great-uncle of former; brother of John III)
    • Next in line would be Isabella, Holy Roman Empress, wife of King Charles V of Spain. She died in 1539, before Henry III in 1580, so the crown would pass to her son.
  • Philip II of Spain and I of England (nephew of the Henry III of Portugal and IV of England; son of Isabella, Holy Roman Empress)
  • Philip III of Spain and II of England (son of the former)
  • Philip IV of Spain and III of England (son of the former)
  • Charles II of Spain and I of England (son of the former)
    • Next in line would be his sister Maria Theresa of Spain, first wife of Louis XIV. She died in 1683, while Charles II died in 1700. Thus, her claim - and the succession - would go to her son.
  • Louis I of England, Grand Dauphin of France (son of the former, eldest son of Louis XIV)
  • Louis II of England, Dauphin of France (son of the former; survived his father by ten months four days)
  • Louis III of England, Duke of Brittany (son of the former; five years old - survived his father by less than a month).
    • None of the three above Louis survived King Louis XIV and thus were not King of France.
  • Louis XV of France and Navarre and IV of England (brother of the former)
  • Louis XVI of France and Navarre and V of England (grandson of the former)
  • Louis XVII of France and Navarre and VI of England (Son of the former)
    • Louis XVII never actually ruled as King of France or Navarre. To those thrones he was merely a claimant. He would have succeeded to the throne of England from 21st January 1793 to 8th June 1795. He is included as the King of France and Navarre for completions sake.
  • Napoleon I (France only; seized power, made himself Emperor of the French in 1804).
  • Louis XVIII of France and Navarre and VII of England
    • Louis XVIII succeeded his nephew as King of England from 8th June 1795. He ruled, de jure, as King of France from his nephew's death to on 8th June 1795 to his death and ruled as De facto king from 11th April - 20th March 1815; then again, after defeating Napoleon, from 8th July 1815 to 16th September 1824, when he died. He had no children and was succeeded by his brother.
  • Charles X of France and Navarre and II of England
    • After Charles's death in 1836, the line goes extinct in terms of descent in his line, so we have to jump back to Louis, Grand Dauphin of France.
    • The first line of descent has just ended, so we go down the line of descent to his second son - King Philip V of Spain. Philip, as of Charles X's death, is dead. His sons: Louis I of Spain, Ferdinand VI of Spain and Charles III of Spain are all dead.
    • Charles III of Spain had two sons - the elder was passed over due to learning disabilities and epilepsy, so his brother, Charles IV succeeded.
    • Charles IV had a son, Ferdinand VII of Spain. Ferdinand died in 1833, just under three years before Charles X.
    • Ferdinand VII of Spain had a daughter - Isabella II of Spain, who became Queen of Spain and Queen of England.
  • Isabella II of Spain and I of England (fourth cousin of Charles X; closest claimant to the throne in descent from Louis, Grand Dauphin)
    • Isabella was forced to abdicate the Spanish throne in 1870, but would continue ruling England until 1904. The Spanish throne would be inherited by her son, but her grandson, Alfonso's son, would be King of England.
  • Alfonso XII of Spain and II of England
    • Alfonso XII would only be King of Spain from 1874 after a military coup restored the monarchy of Spain. Dying in 1885, he never inherited the English throne having predeceased his mother.
  • Alfonso XIII of Spain and III of England
    • Alfonso XIII succeeded as King of Spain in 1886 - when he was born; his father died before he was born - and as King of England - succeeding his grandmother, Isabella II - in 1904. Alfonso XIII was forced to abdicate the Spanish Throne in 1931, but would have retained the English throne until his death in 1941.
  • Infante Juan, Count of Barcelona and V of England
    • Despite not being able to inherit the Spanish throne, Infante Juan would be known as King John V of England from 1941 to his death on 1st April 1993.
  • Juan Carlos I of Span and VI of England.
    • Juan Carlos was restored to the Spanish Throne on 22nd November 1975 and became King of England - as King John VI - at his father's death on 1st April 1993. He remained King of Spain and England until 19th June 2014 when he abdicated in favour of his son.
  • Felipe VI of Spain and IV of England
    • As of 19th June 2014, his eldest daughter, Leonor, became Princess of Asturias, Wales, Girona and Viana, Duchess of Montblanc, Countess of Cervera and Lady of Balaguer as heiress presumptive to the crowns of Spain and England.
There. That would, per the terms of eldest child succession, be the descent up to this very day.
What about the butterflies?
 
If Henry V died at Shrewsbury, the succession would go like this (right up to 2014):
Monarchs are in bold; bullet points list each monarch and white bullet points are to add in more information.

There. That would, per the terms of eldest child succession, be the descent up to this very day.

forgetting something no?

butterfly-rainbow.jpg
 
I've edited it now - if you have a look.
And, that is accounting for the butterflies - that accounts for the people who have been erased (Tudors and Stuart and Hanover) of which none married into these families.
 
I've edited it now - if you have a look.
And, that is accounting for the butterflies - that accounts for the people who have been erased (Tudors and Stuart and Hanover) of which none married into these families.

we mean if, Henry of Monmouth dies on the field in 1403, its unlikely that his brother Thomas of Lancaster dies in battle in 1421 or even marries the same woman (Lady Margaret Holland) in 1411 thus isn't childless at death thus line goes on
 
we mean if, Henry of Monmouth dies on the field in 1403, its unlikely that his brother Thomas of Lancaster dies in battle in 1421 or even marries the same woman (Lady Margaret Holland) in 1411 thus isn't childless at death thus line goes on

Perhaps, but the battle of 1421 would still happen - it would just be Thomas instead of Henry V. Of course, we cannot assume he had children as we'd have to make up all the names. Thus, we assume he died childless and pass it to the next brother. Since no-one up to Blanche had children - and we cannot change that due to no OTL heirs to fit in the gaps - we have to assume it goes Thomas, then each brother, then Blanche, Rupert, Philippa and Philippa. Its the natural line of descent... only removing the whole Church of England stuff.
 
Perhaps, but the battle of 1421 would still happen - it would just be Thomas instead of Henry V. Of course, we cannot assume he had children as we'd have to make up all the names. Thus, we assume he died childless and pass it to the next brother. Since no-one up to Blanche had children - and we cannot change that due to no OTL heirs to fit in the gaps - we have to assume it goes Thomas, then each brother, then Blanche, Rupert, Philippa and Philippa. Its the natural line of descent... only removing the whole Church of England stuff.

I mean if you want it that way, its equally likely that they all have kids in this TL, also with POD in 1403 its not very likely a battle in 1421 would still happen at the same time place and in the same way it'd be like saying if Clinton lost in 1996 there'd still be an ISIS offensive against the Iraqi government in 2014
 
I mean if you want it that way, its equally likely that they all have kids in this TL, also with POD in 1403 its not very likely a battle in 1421 would still happen at the same time place and in the same way it'd be like saying if Clinton lost in 1996 there'd still be an ISIS offensive against the Iraqi government in 2014

It's like this; some things we have too assume happened the same. In this case, the 1421 battle.
 
I mean if you want it that way, its equally likely that they all have kids in this TL, also with POD in 1403 its not very likely a battle in 1421 would still happen at the same time place and in the same way it'd be like saying if Clinton lost in 1996 there'd still be an ISIS offensive against the Iraqi government in 2014
Pretty much.
 
Perhaps, but the battle of 1421 would still happen - it would just be Thomas instead of Henry V..

No, it wouldn't.
Thomas had apparently much different geostrategical views on France than his brother, focusing on Aquitaine reconquest rather than union of the crowns.
What happened after 1410's in France would certainly change HYW as it happened there.

Even if a roughly similar battle happened, and I don't see why it would be 1421 instead of one in the 10's or even 30's, it's not even a given Thomas would be part of it : after all, it's him and not the king (the PoD will make him king) that led the troops at Baugé.

But seeing how Thomas acted IOTL, I would think he would go for Aquitaine, would have the means to gain it, leading to a roughly similar situation than 1360 (probably with similar consequences)
 
Last edited:
Interesting POD.

So in this scenario...the king and queen of England. Charles IV and Queen-consort Annemarie.

carlos+of+bourbon+parma.bmp


Glad to see England having a Catholic monarch (showing my Jacobite side :p). And of course seeing those Habsburgs in the list :D
 
No, it wouldn't.
Thomas had apparently much different geostrategical views on France than his brother, focusing on Aquitaine reconquest rather than union of the crowns.
What happened after 1410's in France would certainly change HYW as it happened there.

Even if a roughly similar battle happened, and I don't see why it would be 1421 instead of one in the 10's or even 30's, it's not even a given Thomas would be part of it : after all, it's him and not the king (the PoD will make him king) that led the troops at Baugé.

But seeing how Thomas acted IOTL, I would think he would go for Aquitaine, would have the means to gain it, leading to a roughly similar situation than 1360 (probably with similar consequences)

You all misunderstand.
In OTL none of them had (legitimate) children. Unless we make up some hypothetical children - and a hypothetical wife and offspring for those children - we cannot know what would come after them.

For ease, we assume they had no children and their sister became Queen - making the first Queen regnant several hundred years earlier.

I KNOW there are many other options, but unless we sit down, change every single monarch in the history of all monarchs and marry them all together, we cannot know the descendants of Thomas, Humphrey, etc. Thus, we go for one that can work and is easy - Blanche.
 
Top