Henry V, King of England and France

Occam's Broadsword

In 1420, the Treaty of Troyes was signed. It named Henry V, the King of England, as heir to the French throne. He also married Catherine, the French King's daughter, that same year. In 1421, he returned to France for a second campaign, dying suddenly in 1422, as a result of dysentery contracted during the Siege of Meaux.

What if Henry V had lived? He was only thirty-five at the time of his death, and he died two months before Charles VI. Would Henry have managed to keep France and England united until he passed the titles onto his successor? How long would they have remained united?
 
LSCatilina

LSCatilina

For France, it eventually comes to how and when Bourguignons and Valois/Armagnacs comes to terms. It was a consistent tendency, that Lancaster supremacy wouldn't really challenge (if something, giving Burgundy's ambitions, it may hasten it if Henry V stay in place).

Of course, Henry V's skills would make a reconquest harder, and while I don't see him managing to hold all of North-Western France (1429 situation), I could see him maintaining his presence on Calaisis-Boulonnais, Aquitaine and Normandy (parts of it, or whole of it).

In another thread, I supposed a treaty similar to Brétigny or Tours, meaning an official and plain control (without Valois suzerainty) of these holdings, at least before a second "Caroline phase", while I expect Henry V and immediate successors to deal better with it (namely, not letting it feeding factional infighting in England)

The key is how the english Parliament would react to an Henry V that would be ITTL, King of France after the death of Charles VI.
French provinces would be supposed to bear the burden of the war, and while he benefited from better relations with the Parliament than his successors, he would have to face a similar reluctance : without clear gains for high nobility or parlementarian elites, he would have to live with limited French revenues (impoverished from war, as Normandy, or outright reluctant as Burgundy).

Late's reign is going to be a bit more hard than the part IOTL, but if Henry V tries to hold what he already have, the status quo could be maintained without Bourguignons shifting alliances. It means that the control on France would be limited however, and that he will still have to rely on Parliament for support, which is going to be harder giving the usual incomprehension ("Well, you have new lands now, so why don't you live with their revenues?")
 

Finbarr the Fair

Fascinating - but tricky

This is an interesting question which means there's probably no easy answer

I agree pretty much with LSCatalina's analysis. Especially regarding the difficulty of getting revenues from England and the problems of sustaining the Burgundian Alliance

A couple of additional points.

Henry V could have dealt better with Philip the Fair, maintaining the alliance longer. IIRC part of the issue was that the English Regency for Henry VI was separate from Bedford's French Regency Council and not controlled by Bedford. So an English Duke (Gloucester?) stopped Philip getting some Northern French fiefs and made him more partial to allying himself with the Dauphin/Charles VII (sic) .

Similarly Henry V would have had more control over the English parliament than a Regent.

But all that means is that the English control of N-W France and Gascony would last a little longer. Unless you butterfly away both Joan of Arc and the coronation of the Dauphin. And also do something about Henry VI, as his incapacity would have eventually wrecked English rule in France

IF that's done, maybe the Lancastrian dynasty could conquer and hold France - or most of it. I wonder how long a personal Union of Crowns with England could persist before the English felt neglected by Kings spending more time in France, the richer and more important country?

:) Just like the Scots in the UK ;)

Or if a situation with a partitioned France could emerge. Orleanist Languedoc and the rest Lancastrian Anglo-Fremch - Parlez vous Franglais?

Plus an independent Burgundy - the Low Countries to Lorraine

THAT would make a great TL - IMHO :D
 
The Professor

The Professor

A partition of France is interesting but I feel it would be non jure and temporary at best.
Sooner or later the English nobles will break in favour of a less French ruler and Northern France would unite with the other portions whether through conquest or being conquered (or concession to avoid such)
 

dave 61

If Henry V had lived to become King of France ,aswell as England .France most probably would have been split between Henry's England and Burgundy.With northeastern France going to Burgundy,along with most of Provence
 

Matteo

Why would Henry V's survival have changed the course of the HYW ?

Was Henry V more competent than his brother Bedford ? There is an exageration of his supposed abilities. Azincourt was nothing more than winning the lottery jackpot. The normal course of this 1415 campaign should have been a disaster in which Henry V may have died of been captured, had the french been patient and stuck to their plan.

The english forced continued to win battles after his death and it changed nothing.

But the fact is that they could not win because of the material and political situation. It was just a matter of time before they were rolled back. You could no longer turn an english conqueror into a legitimate king of France in 1420. There had been too many years of war between England of France, and they were too big, too developed and had too strong and different identities for this.

Henry V is going to change nothing to this.

I even think that his early death, him the bloody conqueror of Normandy, rather strengthened than weakened Lancaster's political political opportunities in France. It opened the way for his son who was not responsible for his father's deeds.
 

Velasco

Matteo said:
I even think that his early death, him the bloody conqueror of Normandy, rather strengthened than weakened Lancaster's political political opportunities in France. It opened the way for his son who was not responsible for his father's deeds.
Click to expand...

An infant son, unable to rule in his own right. The warlike victor and adopted Valois Henry V parading around with his Valois bride and the prospective of a definitive end to war and civil strife, flanked by a growing brood of children boasting a double descent from Saint Louis and upheld with the ruling of the Parlément, makes for a far more formidable foe for the sometime Dauphin to dislodge and beat back to the sea.
 

Matteo

The marriage changed nothing to it. Henry V already was a descendant of Saint Louis through king Philip IV of France. Like his brothers.

What you seem not to accept of to understand is the fact that winning military victories again and again was not enough to succeed in becoming the legitimate king of France.

Why ? Because it s precisely what the Lancasters had been doubt during a dozen years and it did not work.

It's in a sense quite comparable to Hannibal.

Victory was a necessary but insufficiant condition. Only one defeat (Patay) enough to have the Lancasters's croach in France be doomed.

What you need to take into account is that the disproportion in political assets was such that there probably was no possible victory for the Lancasters.

The french theoretical leader, the man Charles VII, was some kind on non-entity. The Man had no talent. It's his entourage that did most of the job.
And however he win because he had too many assets in his hand.

Last point : if, as I bet, you are british or of british culture, there is a difference between the french and english monarchies that makes it impossible to copycat in France what was quite common in England.

In France, murder or deposition of the king was not a usual nor accepted way of changing dynasties or of settling a political conflict between 2 rivals of the same dynasty.
This is no chance if Shakespeare wrote in english and not in french. Edward II, Richard II, Edward V, Richard III, and all the paranoïa under Tudor kings, were a quite speciric English background.

I can bug make suppositions for the reasons of it : maybe the fact that the crown of England was initially conquered through war and violence by a Norman conqueror.

In France, the succession law was respected, even in the worst chaos and civil war. And adoption was a trick considered like a joke.

For all these reasons, I think you are wrong thinking Henry V could succeed if he had lived. The man, his brother and his army behaved too much like foreign conquerors. This is logical : the Times had changed and national identities became more asserted, and these is precisely made impossible such a plan.

Military conquest based on feudal claims was a double contradiction concernant the kingdom of France in the 15th century.
 

Velasco

Matteo said:
The marriage changed nothing to it. Henry V already was a descendant of Saint Louis through king Philip IV of France. Like his brothers.

What you seem not to accept of to understand is the fact that winning military victories again and again was not enough to succeed in becoming the legitimate king of France.

Why ? Because it s precisely what the Lancasters had been doubt during a dozen years and it did not work.

It's in a sense quite comparable to Hannibal.

Victory was a necessary but insufficiant condition. Only one defeat (Patay) enough to have the Lancasters's croach in France be doomed.

What you need to take into account is that the disproportion in political assets was such that there probably was no possible victory for the Lancasters.

The french theoretical leader, the man Charles VII, was some kind on non-entity. The Man had no talent. It's his entourage that did most of the job.
And however he win because he had too many assets in his hand.

Last point : if, as I bet, you are british or of british culture, there is a difference between the french and english monarchies that makes it impossible to copycat in France what was quite common in England.

In France, murder or deposition of the king was not a usual nor accepted way of changing dynasties or of settling a political conflict between 2 rivals of the same dynasty.
This is no chance if Shakespeare wrote in english and not in french. Edward II, Richard II, Edward V, Richard III, and all the paranoïa under Tudor kings, were a quite speciric English background.

I can bug make suppositions for the reasons of it : maybe the fact that the crown of England was initially conquered through war and violence by a Norman conqueror.

In France, the succession law was respected, even in the worst chaos and civil war. And adoption was a trick considered like a joke.

For all these reasons, I think you are wrong thinking Henry V could succeed if he had lived. The man, his brother and his army behaved too much like foreign conquerors. This is logical : the Times had changed and national identities became more asserted, and these is precisely made impossible such a plan.

Military conquest based on feudal claims was a double contradiction concernant the kingdom of France in the 15th century.
Click to expand...

You believe that his infant son could succeed, but not the man himself?
 

Matteo

yes I believe that It was harder and even impossible for Henry V, the "adopted bloody king of England" to be accepted as king of France than for his son Henry VI who was the grandson of Charles VI.

This is quite like Kaiser Wilhelm II or II wanting to become king of France or Napoleon wanting his brother Joseph to be accepted as king of Spain.

In the end, even if victorious over England and Russia, the best outcome for Napoleon in Spain would have been : ok, let's have Ferdinand of Bourbon marry one of Joseph's daughters and and have succeed as king of Spain when Joseph dies.

You can't be accepted in a big Country that has become your hereditary enemy.

Louis XIV perfectly understood It : that's why he did not have his elder grandson Louis duke of Burgundy but his younger grandson Philip duke of Anjou as his candidate for the throne of Spain. And Philip quickly severed links with France and did all he could to be accepted by his spanish subjects.

Di you think There is any way a french conqueror could have been accepted as king of England during the war of the two roses ? Or in the mid 18th century if a french invasion of England had succeeded ?
Of course not. The best thing a foreign military winner could hope and get was to install his local candidate on the throne.
 

Velasco

Matteo said:
yes I believe that It was harder and even impossible for Henry V, the "adopted bloody king of England" to be accepted as king of France than for his son Henry VI who was the grandson of Charles VI.

This is quite like Kaiser Wilhelm II or II wanting to become king of France or Napoleon wanting his brother Joseph to be accepted as king of Spain.

In the end, even if victorious over England and Russia, the best outcome for Napoleon in Spain would have been : ok, let's have Ferdinand of Bourbon marry one of Joseph's daughters and and have succeed as king of Spain when Joseph dies.

You can't be accepted in a big Country that has become your hereditary enemy.

Louis XIV perfectly understood It : that's why he did not have his elder grandson Louis duke of Burgundy but his younger grandson Philip duke of Anjou as his candidate for the throne of Spain. And Philip quickly severed links with France and did all he could to be accepted by his spanish subjects.

Di you think There is any way a french conqueror could have been accepted as king of England during the war of the two roses ? Or in the mid 18th century if a french invasion of England had succeeded ?
Of course not. The best thing a foreign military winner could hope and get was to install his local candidate on the throne.
Click to expand...

The Dauphin Louis was accepted as King of England, to the detriment of various local candidates, when John Lackland's actions allowed for such a scenario to be possible.

I do believe Henry V would have been accepted by some, certainly all those who accepted his son, perhaps more depending on his subsequent actions.

Much was made at the time of Henry VI's double descent from Saint Louis, and of the Dauphin's alleged bastardy. Regard for law and tradition is all fine and dandy, of course, but it bares remembering this isn't too far removed from when the Salic Law was first...tweaked...to prohibit female succession.

Now, I don't think any side would have it easy or peacefully, but I do think a surviving Henry V bodes better for the Angevin Empire (or even the union of the two crowns) than his death.
 

Matteo

This was 2 hundred years earlier.

England was then some kind of satellite of France because of the French/Norman/Angevin origin of its king and of its nobility

The moment John accepted the magna Varta, it was game over for Louis.

To be accepted, Henry V would have had to do things radically opposite to how he and his brother behaved. They had become too english and behaved too much ad english conquerors. Edward III had already made this fault. But Henry V did it much more.

And Henry V was also dependant on the nature of his army.

Sorry to say it so but "believing" what you believe is some kind Nationalist wishful thinking/ASB. Like the other exemples I mentionned.
 
Last edited:

avernite

The English won some battles, and dragged out the treaty of Troyes. The English lost battles, and were driven out.

It's really not very strange to assume continued serious victories for the English party (like, say, winning at Orleans) would help their position. Not immediately enough to win an absolute victory, maybe, but if it's enough to cause a major shift in English politics (say, moving the heir & court to Paris/Normandy rather than staying in England) or Burgundian politics (focusing much sooner on carving out a chunk of France for a separate kingdom; including nearly all of France north and east of Paris)...

Well, I could see three French 'kingdoms' developing, England-Normandy-Guyenne, Burgundy and Armagnac, and eventually E-N-G might prevail and support the idea that the Armagnacs were just rebels against the already rightful king Henry V. The Armagnacs hadn't been too solid a party since Agincourt, sometimes falling apart, and if the English capture Orleans and then press on, some of those chunks will start dealing with the Burgundian or Lancastrian party.
 

Janprimus

Matteo said:
(...)

Louis XIV perfectly understood It : that's why he did not have his elder grandson Louis duke of Burgundy but his younger grandson Philip duke of Anjou as his candidate for the throne of Spain. And Philip quickly severed links with France and did all he could to be accepted by his spanish subjects.

(...)
Click to expand...

Not to mention that all the other powers didn't want a union between France and Spain (Bourbon candidate) or a union between Austria and Spain (Habsburg candidate).
When Habsburg Charles VI threatened to do so, his allies, which also were against a Franco-Spanish union quickly left him and forced a settlement.
 

Matteo

avernite said:
The English won some battles, and dragged out the treaty of Troyes. The English lost battles, and were driven out.

It's really not very strange to assume continued serious victories for the English party (like, say, winning at Orleans) would help their position. Not immediately enough to win an absolute victory, maybe, but if it's enough to cause a major shift in English politics (say, moving the heir & court to Paris/Normandy rather than staying in England) or Burgundian politics (focusing much sooner on carving out a chunk of France for a separate kingdom; including nearly all of France north and east of Paris)...

Well, I could see three French 'kingdoms' developing, England-Normandy-Guyenne, Burgundy and Armagnac, and eventually E-N-G might prevail and support the idea that the Armagnacs were just rebels against the already rightful king Henry V. The Armagnacs hadn't been too solid a party since Agincourt, sometimes falling apart, and if the English capture Orleans and then press on, some of those chunks will start dealing with the Burgundian or Lancastrian party.
Click to expand...

What is strange is assuming the english keep on winning victories. The more they theoretically controlled french territories, the more they had to face local resistance and warfare. And this was financially unsustainable and reduced England's ability to wage war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top