Henry V and Henry VI of England

What if Henry V lived another 25 years? What if Henry VI was as healthy as a person could be, especially from the neck up? What if anything of importance IOTL Henry V could do Henry VI could do better but even so he was as loyal as a son could be, what difference would it make?

We had a discussion about this about two weeks ago, where I (and a few others IIRC) expressed the view that Henry V living longer doesn't necessarily win the war for England - I personally have it chalked down to descending into something of a stalemate. I'm reading a lot of books about this era atm, I've even got a TL in mind but in all probability I will never post it as I'm too critical of my own work, but that's essentially the direction my TL goes.

Anyway, as others have also pointed out in different threads, history shows that in basically every single case, the son of a great ruler is invariably a weak ruler or at least a ruler who is strong at different things. Either the son tries to emulate his father and fails (often by taking reckless steps in an attempt to live up to his father's achievements, sometimes fatally), or he is so intimidated by his father's reputation that he simply withdraws from the court circles his father walks in - becoming a scholarly ruler if his father is a military genius, or becoming a hedonistic layabout if his father is known for prudent money control. In this case, Henry VI probably develops somewhat as he does IOTL - refusing to involve himself in the military, utterly committed to peace, and choosing to set a reputation as a studiously religious and temperate man, the perfectly Godly King.

Falastur said:

Anyway, as others have also pointed out in different threads, history shows that in basically every single case, the son of a great ruler is invariably a weak ruler or at least a ruler who is strong at different things.

Click to expand...

Erm, Philip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great? I'm sure others here can think of other examples.

That said though, I think a stalemate at that time is the best possible outcome and not the most likely one - France was finally starting to get it's act together by that time and was simply richer and potentially at least more powerful.

RPW@Cy said:

Erm, Philip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great? I'm sure others here can think of other examples.

That said though, I think a stalemate at that time is the best possible outcome and not the most likely one - France was finally starting to get it's act together by that time and was simply richer and potentially at least more powerful.

Click to expand...

Alexander is actually a pretty decent example of the "taking reckless steps" here - Philip was a good king, Alexander was just a good conqueror.

But I think with a father like Henry V specifically, assuming Henry V is a model of success - Henry VI (if we make him a warrior king) is going to fight to maintain his father's legacy whether that's realistic or not, and in general is going to spend the crown even further into debt than OTL.

Parliament is gonna hate this Henry VI, I think.

RPW@Cy said:

Erm, Philip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great? I'm sure others here can think of other examples.

Click to expand...

Casear and Octavian
Philip the Good and Charles the Bold
Hatshepsut and Thutmoses III (The Great)
Seti I and Ramses II
Isabella and Ferdinand and their grandson Charles I and V (though you can argue because Juana of Castille was technically in between and they were succeeded by their grandson and not son)

Other than his father, there's another model good kingship Henry V could have followed (even if it did not suit the kingdom at the time). His great grandfather Charles V of France was called the Wise and was a philosopher King.

Ladymadchan said:

Other than his father, there's another model good kingship Henry V could have followed (even if it did not suit the kingdom at the time). His great grandfather Charles V of France was called the Wise and was a philosopher King.

Click to expand...

Having models of good kingship isn't enough, you need Henry able (and I dare say, willing) to rise to the occasion.

Ladymadchan said:

Casear and Octavian

Click to expand...

Octavian was Julius' grand-nephew. They also almost didn't know each other.

Elfwine said:

Having models of good kingship isn't enough, you need Henry able (and I dare say, willing) to rise to the occasion.

Click to expand...

That's what I was getting at. Could Henry VI have been an effective king but gone on another path from his father? Personally I think for him to go another path and be recognized as successful, France would have to be lost in his minority.

Ladymadchan said:

That's what I was getting at. Could Henry VI have been an effective king but gone on another path from his father? Personally I think for him to go another path and be recognized as successful, France would have to be lost in his minority.

Click to expand...

I don't think going on the same path as his father is necessarily going to make him an effective king. Henry (VI) has some pretty tough problems - whatever happens with France.

JBO said:

Octavian was Julius' grand-nephew. They also almost didn't know each other.

Click to expand...

That's fair. Apparently Octavian didn't know that Cesar named him his heir in his view.

Elfwine said:

I don't think going on the same path as his father is necessarily going to make him an effective king. Henry (VI) has some pretty tough problems - whatever happens with France.

Click to expand...

Do you mean the impending War of the Roses, the Uncles and the money problems? Anything else?

I agree about him having major problems, but he might have averted the War of the Roses if he was a reasonably decisive leader.

I was thinking about the money problems, if he was more concerned about government (somewhat like Henry VII) he might have buried himself out of that hole. But yes he would need a very different approach from his father to fix that one.

Elfwine said:

Having models of good kingship isn't enough, you need Henry able (and I dare say, willing) to rise to the occasion.

Click to expand...

Yes, VI was a congenital looney. He might should be canonized, he never should have been a king. My WI has him like his father but moreso. Keep in mind that factor, along with his father living until VI was about 25.

Ladymadchan said:

That's what I was getting at. Could Henry VI have been an effective king but gone on another path from his father? Personally I think for him to go another path and be recognized as successful, France would have to be lost in his minority.

Click to expand...

Then there was this problem of his sometimes being unable to talk or otherwise respond to his surroundings for months at a time. What path should he take during those episodes?

And remember IMTL we have V for 25 more years.

masteroftheveiledthreat said:

Then there was this problem of his sometimes being unable to talk or otherwise respond to his surroundings for months at a time. What path should he take during those episodes?

And remember IMTL we have V for 25 more years.

Click to expand...

Lol, I meant if he was the son of the same parents but conceived at a different time and thus was perfectly sound of mind (like his mother's other children). I just wanted to point out that he could have favour his mother's grandfather instead of father if he took after the Valois side.

Henry V living a more natural lifespan might blow away the civil wars that came in his son's reign, but I doubt we'd see any more spectacular successes on the scale of Agincourt. The campaigns that immediately followed were more an anti-climax than anything else.

Ladymadchan said:

Do you mean the impending War of the Roses, the Uncles and the money problems? Anything else?

I agree about him having major problems, but he might have averted the War of the Roses if he was a reasonably decisive leader.

I was thinking about the money problems, if he was more concerned about government (somewhat like Henry VII) he might have buried himself out of that hole. But yes he would need a very different approach from his father to fix that one.

Click to expand...

The money problems, the lawlessness, ruling France as well if that comes up, noble feuds (the ones that exploded in the Wars of the Roses) . . .

He's got a lot on his plate.

masteroftheveiledthreat: Harry's dad being around longer does not dispel England's problems for his successor.

Elfwine said:

masteroftheveiledthreat: Harry's dad being around longer does not dispel England's problems for his successor.

Click to expand...

I am not sure about the last part. Perhaps not all of the problems go away, but I could see some of them not being as much of an issue. I wonder how Henry V would have treated Richard Duke of York. I suspect he wouldn't have been intimidated by York's claim and would have done him right. As I understand it, his handling of the Welsh situation put down a lot of the discontent amongst the Welsh. Richard Duke of York in the War of the Roses at first claimed he wanted his rightful role in government after being sidelined by the Beauforts, (perhaps this would not have happened if Henry V lived longer) and he definitely objected to the mishandling in France.

Also if Henry V lives longer, perhaps the French campaign isn't successful, but I don't see it ending in abject disgrace... Richard Duke of York may not be happy about his ancestor being passed over for the crown, but has less of an argument to make. Perhaps the Duke of York doesn't oppose the crown and Lancastrian councillors and the War of the Roses is put off (either indefinitely or until the House of Lancaster really screws up).

I agree with you about Henry VI's problems.

Ladymadchan said:

I am not sure about the last part. Perhaps not all of the problems go away, but I could see some of them not being as much of an issue. I wonder how Henry V would have treated Richard Duke of York. I suspect he wouldn't have been intimidated by York's claim and would have done him right. As I understand it, his handling of the Welsh situation put down a lot of the discontent amongst the Welsh. Richard Duke of York in the War of the Roses at first claimed he wanted his rightful role in government after being sidelined by the Beauforts, (perhaps this would not have happened if Henry V lived longer) and he definitely objected to the mishandling in France.

Click to expand...

Sure. But dealing with Richard better for example doesn't mean the treasury is fuller - and we're talking about pretty considerable expenses here.

Also if Henry V lives longer, perhaps the French campaign isn't successful, but I don't see it ending in abject disgrace... Richard Duke of York may not be happy about his ancestor being passed over for the crown, but has less of an argument to make. Perhaps the Duke of York doesn't oppose the crown and Lancastrian councillors and the War of the Roses is put off (either indefinitely or until the House of Lancaster really screws up).

I agree with you about Henry VI's problems.

Click to expand...

I don't know if it would or not, but more campaigning empties the treasury, there's still the issues of law and order within England (not helped by returning defeated soldiers), nobles not getting along with each other - frankly Henry VI is going to be busy.

The Wars of the Roses may be averted, but Henry VI is going to be have to be a very strong king to manage everything.

Ladymadchan said:

I am not sure about the last part. Perhaps not all of the problems go away, but I could see some of them not being as much of an issue. I wonder how Henry V would have treated Richard Duke of York. I suspect he wouldn't have been intimidated by York's claim and would have done him right. As I understand it, his handling of the Welsh situation put down a lot of the discontent amongst the Welsh. Richard Duke of York in the War of the Roses at first claimed he wanted his rightful role in government after being sidelined by the Beauforts, (perhaps this would not have happened if Henry V lived longer) and he definitely objected to the mishandling in France.

Also if Henry V lives longer, perhaps the French campaign isn't successful, but I don't see it ending in abject disgrace... Richard Duke of York may not be happy about his ancestor being passed over for the crown, but has less of an argument to make. Perhaps the Duke of York doesn't oppose the crown and Lancastrian councillors and the War of the Roses is put off (either indefinitely or until the House of Lancaster really screws up).

I agree with you about Henry VI's problems.

Click to expand...

If VI had been like V RDOY might not have been motivated to rebel. I'm suprised he was not long past eliminated. As Papa Doc said "Leave no seed.'' Apparently RDOY and V had no problems with each other.

masteroftheveiledthreat said:

If VI had been like V RDOY might not have been motivated to rebel. I'm suprised he was not long past eliminated. As Papa Doc said "Leave no seed.'' Apparently RDOY and V had no problems with each other.

Click to expand...

Let me get this straight.

We're using Papa Doc as an example of the attitude that the already unpopular Lancasterian usurpers should have/it would have made sense to have taken with the descendants of the sons of Edward III other than John of Gaunt's descendants?

Seriously?