Henry VI of England
- Thread starter VVD0D95
- Start date
Might we see a sort of splitting of the Anglo-French realm, with John as nominal regent of the French half after the death of the duke of Bedford? Perhaps they decide that brother kings is a better option than simply ruling France from behind the Channel?
VVD0D95
Banned
That could be very interesting, and might well mean something of a more manageable realm for Henry VI as well?
A lot depends on his personality, if he is loyal to Henry and gets along with Anjou then Henry has a hugely influential supporter who probably pushes the Beauforts from their pre-eminence. It's also within the bounds of possibility that *John's existence butterflies the Anjou match somehow. Both of these would probably be very good things (I'm a Yorkist
).There's also the matter of whether he's competent/mentally healthy or dithering and weak-willed like his brother. You must take into account that Henry's mental illness may have had some genetic aspects- his grandfather Charles VI alternately thought he was a wolf or made of glass- but the stress of Henry's life/childhood probably exacerbated this. So even if *John has a predisposition towards mental health issues they might not be 'activated'.
Long term...
Wars of the Roses drastically change or are butterflied entirely. York won't experience life as heir presumptive and won't make a play for the throne. Opposition/dissatisfaction with Henry/Margaret will focus on *John, and if Henry goes catatonic *John is the obvious regent.
With a full brother to lavish offices/lands/favour on Henry is less likely to elevate the Beauforts so highly. This might alter things in France, with Somerset maybe not appointed there in the 1440s, which was disastrous for the English position. *John, though only in his early twenties, could possibly take his place. This all mitigates the York/Beaufort rivalry somewhat. Though the English position in France is probably untenable long-term.
Similarly, having a full brother kind of shunts the Tudors down in relevance (assuming they're are still born- does having a second child make Catherine de Valois any less likely to liaise with Owen Tudor? Does birthing twins kill her?), though given Henry was ridiculously generous they'll likely still be elevated.
I'm not sure if they'd be raised together but having a sibling/friend/confidante/supporter could give Henry a better childhood and more stable mental health (which has huge effects in and of itself).
Whether he's loyal to Henry depends on a lot of things- his personality, how he's treated by Margaret, whether he feels snubbed by the presence of other favourites at court (like the Beauforts and Suffolk), how he takes the fall of Gloucester (if it happens ITTL) etc.
As to *John's marriage, would it be domestic or foreign? (Mild butterfly net in place)
If domestic, he's too old for either Margaret Beaufort (that is, the Margaret Beaufort and her identically named cousin, mother of the second Duke of Buckingham) or York's eldest daughter Anne. These were all born in the late 1430s/early 1440s.
Eleanor Beaufort (b. 1431) is a possibility, especially if her family still have a privileged place at court.
There's also the sister of Henry Holland Duke of Exeter, who was old enough to have married John Neville (son of the 2nd Earl of Westmoreland) before his death in 1450.
There's a panoply of Nevilles about, including Warwick's sisters Cecily (b. 1424 IOTL Duchess of Warwick) and Alice (b. 1432 IOTL Baroness Fitzhugh).
There's some Percies- daughters of the 2nd Earl of Northumberland (killed at St Albans)- born in 1423, 1430 and 1436.
I'm not sure how likely a Percy or Neville marriage is, however, given that marrying one could antagonise the other and they're relatively 'lowly'- it's only a few generations since they became Earls. The Hollands and Beauforts, by contrast, have ample royal blood (even if it is stained by bastardy in the latter case).
I'm sure if any decent heiress popped up she'd also be considered.
Continentally, any marriage would likely be geared towards the faltering French war, but I'm not sure if there's any candidates, or if anyone would want to ally with the English as their war effort deteriorated.
Last edited:
There was no Duke of Kent then, iirc.
That could have butterflies, if giving Kent a Lord of its own were to abort or weaken Cade's rebellion.
Alternatively, Clarence was available since the death of Henry's uncle in 1421.
VVD0D95
Banned
A lot depends on his personality, if he is loyal to Henry and gets along with Anjou then Henry has a hugely influential supporter who probably pushes the Beauforts from their pre-eminence. It's also within the bounds of possibility that *John's existence butterflies the Anjou match somehow. Both of these would probably be very good things (I'm a Yorkist
There's also the matter of whether he's competent/mentally healthy or dithering and weak-willed like his brother. You must take into account that Henry's mental illness may have had some genetic aspects- his grandfather Charles VI alternately thought he was a wolf or made of glass- but the stress of Henry's life/childhood probably exacerbated this. So even if *John has a predisposition towards mental health issues they might not be 'activated'.
Long term...
Wars of the Roses drastically change or are butterflied entirely. York won't experience life as heir presumptive and won't make a play for the throne. Opposition/dissatisfaction with Henry/Margaret will focus on *John, and if Henry goes catatonic *John is the obvious regent.
With a full brother to lavish offices/lands/favour on Henry is less likely to elevate the Beauforts so highly. This might alter things in France, with Somerset maybe not appointed there in the 1440s, which was disastrous for the English position. *John, though only in his early twenties, could possibly take his place. This all mitigates the York/Beaufort rivalry somewhat. Though the English position in France is probably untenable long-term.
Similarly, having a full brother kind of shunts the Tudors down in relevance (assuming they're are still born- does having a second child make Catherine de Valois any less likely to liaise with Owen Tudor? Does birthing twins kill her?), though given Henry was ridiculously generous they'll likely still be elevated.
I'm not sure if they'd be raised together but having a sibling/friend/confidante/supporter could give Henry a better childhood and more stable mental health (which has huge effects in and of itself).
Whether he's loyal to Henry depends on a lot of things- his personality, how he's treated by Margaret, whether he feels snubbed by the presence of other favourites at court (like the Beauforts and Suffolk), how he takes the fall of Gloucester (if it happens ITTL) etc.
As to *John's marriage, would it be domestic or foreign? (Mild butterfly net in place)
If domestic, he's too old for either Margaret Beaufort (that is, the Margaret Beaufort and her identically named cousin, mother of the second Duke of Buckingham) or York's eldest daughter Anne. These were all born in the late 1430s/early 1440s.
Eleanor Beaufort (b. 1431) is a possibility, especially if her family still have a privileged place at court.
There's also the sister of Henry Holland Duke of Exeter, who was old enough to have married John Neville (son of the 2nd Earl of Westmoreland) before his death in 1450.
There's a panoply of Nevilles about, including Warwick's sisters Cecily (b. 1424 IOTL Duchess of Warwick) and Alice (b. 1432 IOTL Baroness Fitzhugh).
There's some Percies- daughters of the 2nd Earl of Northumberland (killed at St Albans)- born in 1423, 1430 and 1436.
I'm not sure how likely a Percy or Neville marriage is, however, given that marrying one could antagonise the other and they're relatively 'lowly'- it's only a few generations since they became Earls. The Hollands and Beauforts, by contrast, have ample royal blood (even if it is stained by bastardy in the latter case).
I'm sure if any decent heiress popped up she'd also be considered.
Continentally, any marriage would likely be geared towards the faltering French war, but I'm not sure if there's any candidates, or if anyone would want to ally with the English as their war effort deteriorated.
Hmm very interesting, do you think he'd be the focus for the french effort, potentially meant to claim the throne instead of his brother?
And as for marriages someone local might do the trick, though so might someone in France itself.
I can see his relationship with Margaret being quite strained, he'd be loyal to his brother without a doubt, but, I've always gotten the feeling Margert never liked anyone who had a claim to the throne other than her husband and brat of a son.
Hmm interesting either are both intriguing possibilities
I'm not sure splitting the thrones is feasible, because any Plantagenet/Lancastrian King of France is utterly reliant on the support of English nobles.
I mean, if they go "Alright *John, you're King of France, have fun" and leave him to his own devices he's doomed.
Alternately, if the King of England is pouring in English troops, led by English nobles, why wouldn't he be taking the throne for himself?
There'd also be jurisdictional issues- having Bedford, the premier English duke, being Regent of France etc.
Basically, I think the Plantagenet/Lancastrian claim to France was so intimately interlinked with English troops and commanders that splitting the kingdoms would be unfeasible, overly complicated and just messy.
Also, there's the fact that palming off the Kingdom of France to a younger brother could be kinda detrimental to the English claim (John: "I am, by right and heredity, the lawful King of France" French: "Oh really? What about your elder brother?"). I mean legally it might be perfectly legitimate (though having a Regency sign away half the territory of their baby king is probably iffy), but anything that could possibly call into question the English claim must be avoided given their tenuous situation.
That said, if he shows the inclination or competence *John could easily be placed in charge of France, given a bunch of French titles, and maybe exercise some kind of vice-regal autonomy (though it would probably take a miracle for *John to prevent the whole house of cards from falling over).
Yeah, you're probably right- I share your dim view of Margaret and her son. She seemed implacably opposed to anyone she considered a threat (she was friendly to the Beauforts, who theoretically had a claim to the throne but given their bastardy and such weren't such a threat- it took the extinction of all other domestic Lancastrian claimants, Edward IV's terrible marriage and in-laws, the apparent murder of the Princes, some mistakes and misfortunes by Richard III, the belated intervention of the Stanleys and a load of luck for the Beaufort claim to emerge triumphant IOTL). She also seemed to hold a grudge, which came up in her negotiations with Warwick in 1470/1. I wonder how she got on with the Tudor brothers IOTL?- as loyal, uterine half-brothers they posed no threat to Henry, but could threaten to take Margaret's position as Henry's chief advisor
If she does make the mistake of alienating *John, he'll be a focus of opposition and it'll come down to whether Henry VI is more easily led by his brother or his wife. Having the two closest people in his life at loggerheads could increase Henry's stress and consequently damage his mental health- an earlier breakdown maybe? The eight (?) years between her marriage and Edward's birth (butterfly net in place), when *John is the heir presumptive, will be particularly fraught for Margaret.
Also, depending on his personal ambition and influence, *John could effect Henry's marital affairs. He could play to Henry's piety and maybe convince him to be celibate, either refusing to marry or not consummating. This might have a destabilising effect (a secure succession is an important part of kingship) and could be seen by some magnates as a blatant power-grab by *John.
If relations between *John and Margaret are really bad (or *John is just grasping, over-ambitious and thinks highly of himself- basically like George Duke of Clarence), he might play up claims that any issue of Henry and Margaret are bastards (as surrounded Edward of Westminster IOTL) and/or seize on the widespread dislike of Margaret to have himself named heir by parliament (IIRC York, who was rather unpersonable and far more distantly related to Henry, managed this IOTL; Richard III also pulled off a similar-ish feat with parliament following his brother's death). Given they're twins, he could also concoct some fanciful story wherein he's actually Henry's elder brother, and therefor the rightful king, but they got mixed up in the nursery or somesuch- I'm not sure such a story would have any credibility, but it could be used as a convenient excuse to usurp Henry.
Random thought
Does the existence of an extra Lancastrian make marriage a less-pressing issue for Henry V's brothers (who don't have the responsibility to bear a son as a dynastic back-up)? Because getting rid of Humphrey's second marriage could prevent his downfall. That said, this is probably unlikely, given Eleanor was a long-time mistress and Humphrey seems to have annulled his first marriage specifically to marry Eleanor (so there may have been some genuine love here, or Eleanor's witchcraft if you're superstitiously inclined).
Having Jacquetta not marry Bedford and therefor not take her portion of his lands to her second marriage, could drastically reduce the significance of the Woodvilles.
Last edited:
VVD0D95
Banned
Hmm, I see your point about John and France, so would it plausible that if they retain Normandy he could be named Duke of Normandy for example?
And regarding his relationship with his brother, for some reason I keep seeing John as this sort of politician having grown up either under the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of York, and somewhat more capable a warrior than Duke of Somerset
I think Aquitaine, as the cornerstone of English France, is a more likely title to give him- the Black Prince was apparently named Lord/Prince of Aquitaine, and John of Gaunt was also named non-hereditary Duke of Aquitaine.
Now, demographically the English are still gonna struggle to win, but having a prince who's a close advisor to the king, holds significant continental lands and is a decent politician/soldier would lead to a far more vigorous war effort (whereas Henry's military policy was meekness). Or alternatively he could push for campaigns to win it back.
This, coincidentally, could tie in with *John seeking to dissuade Henry from marrying or having a rivalry with Margaret as IOTL her dowry involved giving away hard-won lands in Maine and Anjou.
As for your other point, having a Prince John raised with/alongside York (or having them become friends during the war in France) would be very interesting. You could see a similarish split to OTL with *John leading the 'Yorkists' in opposition to Margaret and her Beaufort favourites.
VVD0D95
Banned
Oh very interesting, so we have John, Prince of Aquitaine, potentially Duke of Clarence or Kent. And okay interesting, would his brother's other advisors allow for him to remain unmarried? Oh definitely, Duke of York and Prince John, me thinks rebellion on the cards?
I think it would depend on what relations are like betwixt *John and Henry's other advisors- those who are friendly with *John (such as York and Gloucester as discussed above) would be amenable to *John being heir.
Others might see this as *John trying to monopolise influence over the King- if *John prevents Henry getting a wife, who's to say that he won't force the King's other favourites from power? (the Beauforts and Suffolk could fall into this category). Again, it probably depends on who is best at 'leading' Henry, and if *John is occupied (in France or what have you) others can exploit his absence to convince Henry to marry. Of course, if Henry agrees to marry/gets betrothed without *John's knowledge, the brothers might have a falling out (and *John won't be happy with the advisors who manipulated Henry behind his back).
What the clergy has to say, and who they're allied with is also a major matter- the church could react negatively to *John exploiting Henry's piety.
That said, it's not unheard of for a monarch to be celibate/go unmarried- there's Ethelstan and Basil the Bulgar-Slayer (though these guys had far more forceful personalities and were far less malleable than Henry), and obviously Elizabeth (though gender and political considerations played a big role here).
VVD0D95
Banned
Okay interesting, hmm, so if John is invested with the title Prince of Aquitaine, this would create some tension within the nobility would it not?
Also, with regards to Henry and any possible marriages how pressing would such a thing be from the advisors? Also, if he does marry Margaret of Anjou, to what extent would she view her brother in law with animosity?
The more I think about it, I can see John trying to make his brother remain unwed, something that might anger some within court, but whilst he is fighting in France, I can see someone like Suffolk urging Henry to marry Margaret of Anjou. John returning from France and hearing of this, might well have an argument with his brother
Last edited:
VVD0D95
Banned
Hmm it is possible that Bedford does not marry Jacquetta, thus potentially preventing the rise of the Woodvilles, which in this timeline could be quite interesting.
FUrthermore, if John is friends with Richard Duke of York, does that mean then that the Nevilles of Warwick and Salisbury would be on his side in any given conflict?
deathscompanion1
Banned
This ignores however that the English war effort lagged largely due to finance and war weariness. Every victory just meant another battle in the future, the French had sorted out their finances and military so they no longed handed out smashing victories to any Englishman with half a brain and instead were slowly but surely turning the screws at a time when the English were being begged to raise new funds and armies every other year with a new crisis after being promised more than once that Normandy and the other French territories would fund their own defence. Then there was a new generation of nobles with nothing at all to gain from the war in France due to all the good lands being parcelled out already (and the people its parcelled out to are already the ones funding and fighting the war so giving them to new nobles sees the English army melt away overnight) generally England found itself in a war of attrition that it didn't want to fight and could not bring to an easy end. The political bungling in the final years of the war on the English side were as much a result of realising that some sort of peace needed to be.
VVD0D95
Banned
Hmm interesting, therefore what would you suggest? York seemed to gain some gains whilst in France, whilst Beaufort and Suffolk lost a fair few