WI: Henry V dies at Shrewsbury

[LSCatilina]

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.

But that's not the point of the thread. The OP ask what would be the consequences of Henry V dying earlier.
We try to answer that, with the first consequences would be the fortunes and misfortunes of Thomas and first involved, and how it would change his life : meaning maybe hypothetical child.

Furthermore, unless you believe that History is only about individuals and that if their life is changed, nothing at all would be the same, I would tend to say that's an extreme take on butterflies for the sake of not doing actual AH.

There's thing as historical tendencies, social situations, ressources, historical limits, etc. Of course an hypothetical *Henry V as son of Thomas I would change things, but not the power balance, the greater lines. That was interest me, and some other participers to this thread rather than a tideous and almost unaltered list of kings.

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.

But what would we want absolutly to have a TL up to nowaday?

Critically if the only way to reach this is : "Well, of course there would be butterflies after this PoD, but couldn't we assumes nothing really changes? It would make a great alternate timeline!"

I don't see the point of doing Alternate History if it's to stick it with absolutly but anecdotical changes for the sake of it.

 

[Tudorfan]

But that's not the point of the thread. The OP ask what would be the consequences of Henry V dying earlier.
We try to answer that, with the first consequences would be the fortunes and misfortunes of Thomas and first involved, and how it would change his life : meaning maybe hypothetical child.

Furthermore, unless you believe that History is only about individuals and that if their life is changed, nothing at all would be the same, I would tend to say that's an extreme take on butterflies for the sake of not doing actual AH.

There's thing as historical tendencies, social situations, ressources, historical limits, etc. Of course an hypothetical *Henry V as son of Thomas I would change things, but not the power balance, the greater lines. That was interest me, and some other participers to this thread rather than a tideous and almost unaltered list of kings.



But what would we want absolutly to have a TL up to nowaday?

Critically if the only way to reach this is : "Well, of course there would be butterflies after this PoD, but couldn't we assumes nothing really changes? It would make a great alternate timeline!"

I don't see the point of doing Alternate History if it's to stick it with absolutly but anecdotical changes for the sake of it.

Again, you have completely disregarded EVERYTHING I said and gone off on a wild tangent.
I know that is not the point of this thread, but as Thomas did not have children in history we cannot apply children to him in this circumstance (as there is no historical record to work from). If we did, we would have to make up 500+ years of English History, which could alter France, Spain and god knows where else.

The point of this thread was what would happen if Henry V died at Shrewsbury. His brother Thomas would become King; Thomas had no kids - and, due to no historical records around to be able to assign them to him - we cannot give him any. Thus, the succession as I showed, is what it would be.

 

[LSCatilina]

I know that is not the point of this thread, but as Thomas did not have children in history

Good thing we're on an Alternate History website, then : it means we can guess or proposes things that didn't really happened in History.

we cannot apply children to him in this circumstance (as there is no historical record to work from).

Yes we can. Because it would probably change his life quite a bit to be king (well, I'm not that sure, of course, but it seem to be important).
Unless you argue he was sterile, but I didn't see anything implying that, kings tended to perpetuate their line, and took spouses to make alliances. This sort of things.
As Thomas wasn't that pious (and if we discard the sterility stuff), he would probably have at least tried for childs, and having good chances to produce some.

Now, of course, these would be hypothetical (but Alternate History is about that, after all), making the following events more hard to definitly state, while opening many possibilities for the ongoing historical tendencies.

Which is bringing me to :

If we did, we would have to make up 500+ years of English History, which could alter France, Spain and god knows where else.

Or not. You're totally entiteled to make a TL out of it, of course, but you don't, or anyone on this matter, have to pull one (I mean, you don't have to try making 500 years for each thread you answer)
But if you want to, I don't see the point to make an Alternate History that is barely alternate at all, especially if it covers 500 years.

Thus, the succession as I showed, is what it would be.

Most probably not. See, we have this thing that is called butterfly theory. It can be more or less well handled, but it roughly means that when you change something, you'd have consequences that would grow more and more important.
As such, with an historical change in the XVth century, you probably end with a different XIXth, with Napoléon very existance being butterflied for instance.

In this case, the changes would happen quickly.
Hundered Years War (HYW), more close to the PoD (Point of Divergence, the moment when the timeline gets different from History) would be itself quite changed : Thomas Lancaster had more ties with Armagnacs and France than his brother had, and is known to had tried to grab back Aquitaine, a strategical objective Henry V never had.

I see you're rather new there : allow me to point that we may have a more important stance on plausibility (while the meaning of this is really diverse depending who you're talking with) than other Alternate History sites, especially the aformentioned butterfly effect. Even a small changes would have important consequences, and assuming History would continue as nothing barely happened becames more and more umplausible while the timeline advances.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Again, you have completely disregarded EVERYTHING I said and gone off on a wild tangent.
I know that is not the point of this thread, but as Thomas did not have children in history we cannot apply children to him in this circumstance (as there is no historical record to work from). If we did, we would have to make up 500+ years of English History, which could alter France, Spain and god knows where else.

The point of this thread was what would happen if Henry V died at Shrewsbury. His brother Thomas would become King; Thomas had no kids - and, due to no historical records around to be able to assign them to him - we cannot give him any. Thus, the succession as I showed, is what it would be.

I do not think you get the point of this website/forum. It is called AlternateHistory.Com. Rewriting history is what we do here

Seriously, read some Timelines on this forum to actually understand what it is we do here.

 

[Tudorfan]

Again, not ONE of you listened. We physically cannot add a wife and children for him because, apart from one death (namely Henry V's) everything else is the same; Catherine of Valois would marry some other person as Thomas has more ties with Aquataine than Henry V, so that wipes out Maggie of Anjou and anyone downwards.

 

[black angel]

Again, not ONE of you listened. We physically cannot add a wife and children for him because, apart from one death (namely Henry V's) everything else is the same; Catherine of Valois would marry some other person as Thomas has more ties with Aquataine than Henry V, so that wipes out Maggie of Anjou and anyone downwards.

why can't we why is everything the same? I mean if say your father died when you were 5 would the rest of your life be the same? no of course not that would change everything, even your personality, Thomas' whole life would be different because rather then being the spare he's the heir, his marriage becomes a major political issue, rather then an afterthought, he's a future King of England the heir to a new house on the throne, one that surely wants to sure up support through a good marriage, OTL's Henry V married a French Princesses as part of a deal to give him all of France, why wouldn't Thomas end up making a political call like that? even if he does marry Margaret Holland there's no reason to think this time they'd be childless, after all both had kids with other people and were pretty young when they married

 

[LSCatilina]

Again, not ONE of you listened.

We listen, we just don't agree at all, neither do we see the point of an Alternate History that is not alternate at all. I would advise you, all respect due, to calm down.

We physically cannot add a wife and children for him because, apart from one death (namely Henry V's) everything else is the same;

Correction, there's only one PoD (a Point of Divergence) : with one thing that changes, there would be consequences. A bit like a snowball with an avalanche, if the butterfly exemple is a bit too esoteric for you.

We can attribute him a wife and child, as it's quite probable that a king would at least have to tie alliances or peace treaties (critically during Hundred Years Wars, that were a series of conflict with Valois France, meaning opportunities to seal deals this way). Unless you have good reasons to think he won't ever have a wife of child, it's the most probable that he will at least try.

Catherine of Valois would marry some other person as Thomas

If we followed your exemple, she wouldn't marry anyone, as she married Henry V, and we can't "physically" (I'm not quite sure what you mean there, we don't travel in time to test our TLs and physically force unions) marry her to anyone else, given she didn't historically.

I hope you see how shaky this reasoning can be.

has more ties with Aquitaine than Henry V, so that wipes out Maggie of Anjou and anyone downwards.

How it does exactly? It's not like Aquitaine was a totally different entity from France at this point : it's quite possible (while not, of course, certain) that a deal about giving Thomas I sovereignty of Aquitaine would be sealed by an union.

Personally, I don't think it's certain. For Valois, such treaty would have great chances to be precarious, as Brétigny, and a matrimonial alliance wouldn't be that wise.
HRE would be as well out of the scope, Elizabeth of Luxemburg basically bearing too much importance for Sigismond's succession. It's more for the possibility point.

Isabella of Portugal seems by far the most likely spouse : John I of Portugal recieved IOTL propositions of union by Henry V, Portugal was an interesting ally in Atlantic (something quite important with a more Aquitaine minded Lancaster, in order to avoid a repetition of Battle of La Rochelle), and negociations with Burgundy didn't begin then.

There's probably other prospects, of course.

 

[Space Oddity]

Given that Thomas seems to have had an illegitimate son, I think it's safe to say that he's not sterile. So--assuming he avoids his premature death in battle, he should have an heir.

 

[PistolSO]

Given that Thomas seems to have had an illegitimate son, I think it's safe to say that he's not sterile. So--assuming he avoids his premature death in battle, he should have an heir.

I agree with this. Thomas would likely have an important marriage that would produce children, and from then the lines goes down from Thomas. The Beauforts and Yorks would also be around to intrigue as well.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Again, not ONE of you listened. We physically cannot add a wife and children for him because, apart from one death (namely Henry V's) everything else is the same; Catherine of Valois would marry some other person as Thomas has more ties with Aquataine than Henry V, so that wipes out Maggie of Anjou and anyone downwards.

THe fact that Henry V has died means they are going to push for the next direct heir in line to marry.

i somehow do not see how this is considered implausible.

 

[TheYoungPretender]

Returning to the OP, will all that much be different? Let's look at what's still the same.

1) Charles VI is still loopier than the craphouse rat at a mental asylum. The Valois monarchy, often not the best machine for marshaling strength in medieval France, is at one of its lowest ebbs for keeping the nobility away from each other throats, a major concern, only increased in these era due to...

2) The Royal Uncles - Charles V's brothers. A band of less than charming power-mad, acquisitive, and greedy individuals, perfectly willing to screw anyone else to get a bigger chunk of the pie. Again, the ability of the French state to marshal strength is less than perfect in this period.

3) The Free Companies. It's the Hundred Years War. A huge amount of men of fighting age in England have gone fighting in France at one point or another, and rather liked stealing money from people. Invasions of France were a popular way of dealing with bored men at arms and archers, or nobles who were getting nervous. They are a better military organization than anything the French are tossing out at this period (Thought this will change soon)

Thomas replacing Hal doesn't change any of this; and as much as the twists and turns of campaigns are fascinating, the English are still entering France unified and longbowed to the ears against a French state that's feuding, fractious, and militarily suffering. They still have the one daughter left to give. And she still likely has the galloping crazy of the Valois in her genes.

Of course, you can say what if the ^heir isn't nuts? Well, you still have why the English, in-spite of winning every battle, weren't able to expand their hold France past the possessions they had the start of it in the 14th century. The politics and economics of the day mean that as soon as the French get their act together, a lot of English nobles are losing their estates and getting really pissed of and ancy.

So the names may change, but the course may roll along, even with a healthier heir.

 

[LSCatilina]

1) Charles VI is still loopier than the craphouse rat at a mental asylum.

Actually, that's quite irrelevant. It's more close to Henry VI illness than being a total madman, as in being pretty innofensive and not posing a real threat to whoever regent. He seems to have favoured Bourguignons, but that was a bit irrelevant (giving his sons tendencies).

The Valois monarchy, often not the best machine for marshaling strength in medieval France,

*cough* Charles V *cough*

for keeping the nobility away from each other throats, a major concern, only increased in these era due to...

The main problem during this era is less nobility as such, than the civil war between Armagnacs and Bourguignons, that was far more of a civil war involving pretty much everyone : nobility, urban population, etc.
It's far less a case of political anarchy as you seem to depict there.

2) The Royal Uncles - Charles V's brothers.

Unless you indulge into pro-Bourguignons chronicleers (that tended to dominate the traditional historiography), it's not really what we had then.
Louis d'Orléans was a skilled regent, enough to counter Philippe le Hardi tentative to takeover the lead in France, and get supported by a good bunch of the high nobility.
That his murder provoked the civil war is quite telling about how he managed to enforce his authority.

Of course, going against Burgundy (up to prevent it to augment its power in the kingdom) made him depicted as power-hungry. Furthermore, and again, against what Bourgogne tried, he never really threatened the power of the various heirs of Charles VI.

Berry never recovered a real important role after the Tuchins' Revolt, so that's quite irrelevant.

As for Bourbon, I fear that no one of this adjectives can be applied : he tended to be at the contrary, quite honest and loyal.

3) The Free Companies.

Free Companies ceased to be a real military issues at the end of XIVth century, during Charles V's reign and early Charles VI's reign. Many are still present, but they are far less important politically than they were.

IMHO, you're confusing France of XIVth century with XVth : the former was much more politically divided and plagued with companies. The latter was deeply divided, but between two poles.

The situation for Thomas in France is going to change quite a bit : as stated above, he already dealt with Armagnacs IOTL, in order to gain Aquitaine back, and seems to have been more diplomatically minded than his brother. Depending which side he'd support (probably one and the other, depending of his needs but Armagnacs could be likely in a first time) and possibly help militarly.
His less obvious military skills, compared to his brother, doesn't incite me to think he'll try a complete takeover, but a Brétigny-like situation (Bourgogne having the same role than Navarre there)

 

[mcdnab]

Actually that succession might be debated because if one assumes (which is unlikely) that his three remaining brothers all die childless - Thomas, John and Humphrey.
Then the likely next successor is going to be either the Beaufort senior male or the senior male heir of Edmund of Langley with a rival claim from the Mortimer descendants of Lionel of Antwerp. (given it is not unlikely in this scenario that a Mortimer male heir survives)
It is exceptionally unlikely they would opt for a foreign born descendant of Philippa of Lancaster Queen of Portugal in favour of a male descendant of Edward III.

If male only line of succession would be in 1403 (at Henry of Wales supposed death)

1) Thomas of Lancaster
2) John of Lancaster
3) Humphrey of Lancaster
4) John Beaufort
5) Henry Beaufort (his eldest son)
6) Henry Beaufort Bishop of Lincoln
7) Thomas Beaufort
8) Edward 2nd Duke of York
9) Richard of York

These were the Mortimer claimants in 1403 - technically the heirs general of Edward III due to their descent from Lionel of Antwerp:

1) Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March and 7th Earl of Ulster
2) Roger Mortimer
3) Anne Mortimer
4) Eleanor Mortimer
5) Sir Edmund Mortimer (who possibly had several children)
6) Lady Elizabeth Mortimer
7) Henry Percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland (3 February 1393 - 22 May 1455)
8) Roger Camoys
9) Lady Elizabeth Percy

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.

 

[black angel]

Actually that succession might be debated because if one assumes (which is unlikely) that his three remaining brothers all die childless - Thomas, John and Humphrey.
Then the likely next successor is going to be either the Beaufort senior male or the senior male heir of Edmund of Langley with a rival claim from the Mortimer descendants of Lionel of Antwerp. (given it is not unlikely in this scenario that a Mortimer male heir survives)
It is exceptionally unlikely they would opt for a foreign born descendant of Philippa of Lancaster Queen of Portugal in favour of a male descendant of Edward III.

If male only line of succession would be in 1403 (at Henry of Wales supposed death)

1) Thomas of Lancaster
2) John of Lancaster
3) Humphrey of Lancaster
4) John Beaufort
5) Henry Beaufort (his eldest son)
6) Henry Beaufort Bishop of Lincoln
7) Thomas Beaufort
8) Edward 2nd Duke of York
9) Richard of York

These were the Mortimer claimants in 1403 - technically the heirs general of Edward III due to their descent from Lionel of Antwerp:

1) Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March and 7th Earl of Ulster
2) Roger Mortimer
3) Anne Mortimer
4) Eleanor Mortimer
5) Sir Edmund Mortimer (who possibly had several children)
6) Lady Elizabeth Mortimer
7) Henry Percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland (3 February 1393 - 22 May 1455)
8) Roger Camoys
9) Lady Elizabeth Percy

don't think the Beauforts were in the line, it was the condition of their legitimization, if the Lancasters put them in at some point that I don't know about the Yorks will not take kindly to bastards from a low born mistress displacing the "pure" royal blood, plus like Henry IV before them they have a huge rich duchy to back up their civil war

 

[mcdnab]

Actually it is debateable:

The Beaufort's were legitimated (due to their parent's marriage) by Papal Bull in 1396.
Richard II issued Letters Patent read in Parliament effectively making it an Act of Parliament legitimising them in 1397 because the papal bull would not enable them to inherit property - that patent did not exclude them from the throne.

Henry IV reiued a patent in 1407 which inserted the words ‘excepta dignitate regali’ but it is arguable whether his added words ammended the original as a new Act of Parliament.

Clearly he considered them excluded and general opinion would have been that they were as their parents were married to other people at their births. Despite their later marriage.

But as powerful and influential as some of them became with a dearth of other male line heirs they posed a threat (and one that was certainly recognised in the 1450s by York and his allies)