It seems to me that ultimately, even if Henry V lives 30 more years and carries all before him, the Anglo-French state is not really viable in the long term.
Under the terms of the Treaty of Troyes, each kingdom will be administered separately with neither realm ever under any circumstances being subject to the other.
This means that they only share a sovereign, which makes things real dicey. Consider that for the relationship to work, England and France will have to give up part of their national interests. This is if the relationship is consensual on both parts. One could suppose that the outcome would be a long-term military occupation, but that would mean, if it could be worked at all, that England would not be able to do anything else. Further, the direction the Duke of Bedford was taking after the death of Henry V and which Henry might himself have ultimately gone down, was conciliation with the French, which again points to an ultimately voluntary partnership predicated on their common allegiance to the Plantagenet house.
Perhaps an example will help. Let's say France is having a problem with Burgundy, which is bound to happen sooner or later. France wants to settle things to their satisfaction, but a war with Burgundy would be bad for English business, at least for the wool merchants. So either France surrenders its interests in this case and desists or England is deprived of its interests and the wool market suffers. In either case, one of the two partners is not going to be happy. In the case of England and Scotland, Scotland did not have foreign interests at the same level as England and in any case breaking off the partnership would not really have worked.
Thus, from a purely economic and nationalistic standpoint, someone in the Anglo-French state would usually be getting a raw deal. Also consider why England was really fighting. Perhaps the royals by the 1420s were buying their own propaganda about how the French throne was rightly theirs, but the English aristos and common soldiers were in France to get paid, pure and simple. Even when Bedford tried to ease up, individual garrisons continued to bleed regions white with the patis, i.e. a protection racket. Long story short, if the English stop receiving their checks, they will check out and that means the Plantagenet hold on the throne is now based solely on the will of the French people.
This brings us to how Gallicized the English kings of France would be. If they "go native" and return to how the earlier Plantagenets were, culturally, perhaps there would be a coup in England while the king is away, where a more Anglo younger brother or nephew or someone with royal blood is proclaimed and the navy keeps the now only French king from coming back. If he stays English, he needs English troops to keep his throne; thus he needs to pay them for their loyalty in an indefinite occupation, which means heavy taxes on the French, which equals French disaffection, which means probably renewed opposition, possibly military, to English rule.
All this, of course, assumes that the English even win the war. Henry was down to two brothers - Gloucester, who is pretty much worthless for the war effort, and Bedford, a legend from the last stage of the war, but ultimately even he was unable to defeat the Dauphinists.
Henry and Bedford together would make a formidable combo, but remember that the Duke of Orleans was in English captivity, IIRC since Agincourt. Thus, if Henry attacks Orleans, while he'll likely take the city (unless that is the siege that breaks his health down), he will, as his brother did in OTL, stir the passions of Burgundy and other nations for such a flagrant violation of the protocols of chivalry, which would weaken the Anglo-Burgundian alliance.
Joan of Arc. Her contribution to the French war effort was out of all proportion to her skill as a general; this tells me that in the late 1420s, France was an army waiting for a commander. The will was there, but someone had to get the ball rolling – once the French were a cohesive fighting force, the English did not have a prayer in the long term, Henry V notwithstanding.
Also, once the English get across the Loire, they are in territory which has not really been touched by war since the 1380s and some areas never. These lands are uniformly Dauphinist and as yet strong to fight the English. France is a big country and England would need many men to occupy it behind the lines. Also remember the risings which occurred in Lancastrian France in the 1420s of OTL. These occurred despite the mild policies of the Regent Bedford, and Henry V was way more an uncompromising hardass, so no Mr. Nice English King in TTL. If Charles VII gets his shit together, Henry will have more resistance than he bargained for.
All things considered, I find it unlikely even a longer lived Henry V could have taken the whole realm, and even if he had and was able to hold it for his lifetime, once Henry VI took over, by which time Bedford is likely in his grave, the edifice comes crashing down immediately.
Even if Henry VI had been more competent and had inherited all of France in the 1440s, I doubt the long-term feasibility of an Anglo-French state.