20 Years Longer...

Primogeniture being the rule of succession pretty much rules out saying "not Henry".

And civil war is not going to help matters.

If Henry's the mess he seems to have been, I doubt he'd have the followers for such a war, or at least, not for long as his insanity becomes more apparent.

And this is the middle ages.

Henry, when his 'troubles' first become evident, could easily have one of those famous 'hunting accidents' that so many crowned heads of the era ran into, from time to time, couldn't he?

If Henry looks like a disaster from the outset, would you really put it past the men in high places of the time to 'solve' the primogeniture problem before Henry can destroy their fortunes?

Wouldn't be the first time in history that an heir apparent was eliminated by people who stood to lose everything should he/she ever get their hands on power, would it?
 
If Henry's the mess he seems to have been, I doubt he'd have the followers for such a war, or at least, not for long as his insanity becomes more apparent.

And this is the middle ages.

Henry, when his 'troubles' first become evident, could easily have one of those famous 'hunting accidents' that so many crowned heads of the era ran into, from time to time, couldn't he?

If Henry looks like a disaster from the outset, would you really put it past the men in high places of the time to 'solve' the primogeniture problem before Henry can destroy their fortunes?

Wouldn't be the first time in history that an heir apparent was eliminated by people who stood to lose everything should he/she ever get their hands on power, would it?

Assuming Henry is automatically still a disaster ITTL would be overlooking the effects of his rather difficult childhood.

Henry VI, lacking a father and with a mother who was unpopular at court, was effectively raised by a series of rather self-interested noblemen, who ended up with a dangerously high amount of influence over the young king, forming factions that would dominate his decisions as King even after the official regency was over. These factions also tended to squabble with each other, to the great detriment of the realm.

If Henry V lives to raise his son to adulthood, with the participation of his wife, said son would be a very different person.

There's also the military situation to consider. Whilst Henry V was overextended his survival probably would have prevented the utter collapse of English fortunes that marked Henry VI's reign.

It was, of course, defeat in France that triggered Henry VI's mental breakdown.
 
Even granting Henry V his 20 more years, it still seems evident that Henry VI was a victim of the known mental weakness endemic in the Valois family. However, if Henry V had sired additional male heirs who came to adulthod with full competancy then these sons could have blocked the Yorkist power grab during the first Henry VI period of incompetancy and therefore butterflied away the Wars of the Roses. So while England might have been spared 30 years of Civil War (and possibly butterflying away the Tudors - hurrah hurrah!) England still loses out in France because the goals were incompatible with the means of accomplishing them.
 
If Henry's the mess he seems to have been, I doubt he'd have the followers for such a war, or at least, not for long as his insanity becomes more apparent.

And this is the middle ages.

Yes, this is the middle ages where Henry VI after two decades of misrule still was treated as sacrosanct because he was the rightful king.

And his insanity wasn't the sort that would deter men from that.

Henry, when his 'troubles' first become evident, could easily have one of those famous 'hunting accidents' that so many crowned heads of the era ran into, from time to time, couldn't he?

Not unless they take a different form than OTL (and I'm not sure how much if at all Henry hunted OTL).

If Henry looks like a disaster from the outset, would you really put it past the men in high places of the time to 'solve' the primogeniture problem before Henry can destroy their fortunes?

Except that Henry's kind of bad is a godsend to them. He was generous well past the point of fault to those who he liked.

Add to the all but sacred quality of legitimacy, and we get why Henry VI was overthrown only in 1461 despite having been a disaster for two decades.

Wouldn't be the first time in history that an heir apparent was eliminated by people who stood to lose everything should he/she ever get their hands on power, would it?

They don't stand to lose everything. They stand to gain quite a lot from Henry's lack of ability.
 
Top