Henry V doesnt die in 1421, becomes king of France

Henry V died quite suddenly in 1421 from dysentery at 33. There was an agreement that upon Charles VI death, he would be crowned King of France. In OTL his successors squandered most of his victories. What would have happened if he had lived, and in 1421 been crowned King of France. Assuming he lived to an old age, would he have been able to lay the foundations for The United Kingdom of Great Britain, France and Ireland?
 
Yes. Scotland and Ireland might take a while to bring under control but certainly possible even in Henry's (extended) lifetime, which I'm guessing would be up to 1450 or thereabouts.

My feeling - and it is just a feeling, mind, with no scholarly basis - is that Henry simply wasn't cut out for the long haul, as it were. I tend to categorise him along with, say, Alexander and Mozart; giants among men of incredible personality and ability but who lived life to the full, flames that burned brilliantly then died as suddenly as they ignited, usually aged thirty-something. If it wasn't dysentery, it would have been something else. Candles in the wind...

My word, I do talk a lot of rubbish.

Certainly if Henry survived the union cauld work. Interestingly, it's almost the last opportunity such a union had. Ten years later and some French peasant girl would have scuppered everything by creating a French proto-national identity. Instead, we get the second Angevin Empire with a centre of gravity less biased towards the continent. Chances are it's the most powerful Christian nation in Europe for a considerable period. If the Spanish unite and still pick up a large colonial empire first, the conflict between the two could be interesting.

To successfully survive this union has to avoid the old Angevin difficulties: over-mighty princes rebelling against father and warring with one another while devious neighbours take advantage of any difficulties. The king not getting locked up in a German prison while the nation is mortgaged to pay for the ransom would be handy too.

Certainly doable however, and Henry's always been one of my favourite personalities.
 
I generally like this idea, although I struggle to see how European politics would go afterwards with one dominating English-French state. One thing I like to constantly point out, though, is that Henry V's last words were regret that he didn't live to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. A triumphant Henry going on Crusade is a TL I've thought about making a few times, with mainly shyness (and a perhaps unhealthy tendency to give pro-English bias) stopping me from doing so.

A lot of people posit that in the event of an Anglo-French Union, London would eventually become dominated by Paris and England would over time become little more than an autonomous French province - I'm not so sure.
There's no doubt that Paris was the better city in this era and France the larger and more affluent country, but I think people misconstrue the mindset of the English Kings by this point. For a long time, the Kings of England were very Frank-icised, for sure, but by the time of Henry V that had begun to be irrevocably changed. The English royalty and nobility had become used to being frozen out of France and had developed their own identity, borrowed from that of their subjects. The language of court was no longer French, for instance, and I think it's only a few decades before English becomes the language of Government too (from Latin). Also I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the Treaty of Troyes included a promise not to annex French lands to the English Crown - considering the way that the English (royalty's) identity had been going, I can almost see this being subverted. I may be guessing a little here, but I can picture a French crown being stripped down, with the "traditionally-English" areas such as Normandy and Gascony becoming almost like Ireland was to England - autonomous areas with claims of independence, but ruled by a Lord Lieutenant in lieu of the King; geographically in France but not claiming to be under the French King - a rebuilding of the Angevin Empire in government but not in name. The Kingdom of France I can see thus still being very big and powerful, but being thought of as the King's second home, not his first. With a tendency for the important people at court to follow the King around, and with the tendency for the biggest institutions to go where they will be most noticed, I can picture a tendency for, say, some of the Parisian scholars to decamp (after some decades) to London, along with some of the more important merchants and such, and the important nobles to feel it necessary to go to London more often than Paris to be heard, even if they protest it. I'm not saying Paris would diminish to nothing, because it wouldn't, but I can see London coming on equal terms with it within a century. On a sidenote, I have to say I can see the Burgundians demanding independence in exchange for the part they played in taking France, and maybe even getting it.

I don't know, maybe I'm rambling, but I think an Anglo-French Union could work. I don't know what effects it would have on European politics, though. Perhaps the most interesting external affair coming up is that in something like 1450 the Countess of Provence dies with no heir, and in OTL leaves her (remaining) domains to the French King. This gives them a claim on Naples. An Anglo-French state with land in Italy would be cool, no? ;)
 
I have to ask; why would Henry's survival change anything? John of Bedofrd, after all, was a fairly capable regent. So what's the real change?
 
I have to ask; why would Henry's survival change anything? John of Bedofrd, after all, was a fairly capable regent. So what's the real change?

This is AH, man!

Besides the fact that a king as ambitious and "dashing" as Henry V would probably not be content with keeping everything "as-is", you have the tiny little fact that if he stays alive for just another couple of years, he's likely to have another child, altering the political scene which ended in the Wars of the Roses.

Need I say more?
 
I have to ask; why would Henry's survival change anything? John of Bedofrd, after all, was a fairly capable regent. So what's the real change?

Because Henry's death completely took the wind out of the English sails. Bedford was a good regent but he didn't have Henry's military capacity. Similarly, England had several good generals but none either of his standard nor with the authority in personality nor the authority in right to command to take over the English armies and continue to prosecute the war. Henry V died during a lull in the war, simply pacifying those areas in the north which were yet to submit, but he still had a job to do in subduing the south and it's Valois claimant, and his death gave the French their opening to take the war back to the English. I'm not saying that the Joan of Arc effect wouldn't happen were Henry to stay alive - it probably would - but I think it's a solid bet that only Henry of all the English generals had the ability to then defeat the French again to stop them turning the tide of victories into a flood. In addition to this, you also have the fact that Henry's brothers began arguing amongst themselves after his death, pressing for more power at the expense of each other, which greatly diminished the English ability to focus on the task at hand and rule effectively - this is something else that simply wouldn't be a factor with Henry still alive. Then you have the fact that Henry V was a dominating man but also a superb diplomat - he proudly boasted, and quite accurately, that it was his work which had solved the Schism in the Church, and this gave him both a lot of prestige and a lot of admirers. The French weren't unanimously against his claim to the throne. When he died, his son simply had no reputation or assertiveness to create and hold a pro-English faction in France; nor would he be able to create one, being months old. Simply put, Henry's death was a gunshot to the very head of the English in France. It meant defeat from the jaws of victory.
 
Suppose that Henry V wins in France. The Dauphin is killed, and Henry marches all the way from Channel to Pyrenees.

There are a few issues:

Henry wants to go on a crusade. A crusade costs money.

The English have achieved their big victory. Now they want to reap the fruits.

The French want to enjoy the peace, and they want Henry to act as a king, not as a conqueror.

The Burgundians allied with Henry as independent allies. They want to be treated as independent. Yet they used to be theoretical vassals of France - are they vassals of Henry now? Also, with death of the dauphin, the Duke of Burgundy is the next Valois heir to France...
 
The Burgundians allied with Henry as independent allies. They want to be treated as independent. Yet they used to be theoretical vassals of France - are they vassals of Henry now? Also, with death of the dauphin, the Duke of Burgundy is the next Valois heir to France...

The Burgundians would be Henry's vassals, yes. Indeed, I believe that one Duke of Burgundy (John the Fearless? I'm not so good at the Burgundian Dukes) did swear allegiance to Henry in about 1420 or so. But yes, the Burgundians would continue to act very independent. I can see them demanding a Kingship (and therefore official independence) in exchange for their hard work in subduing France, and quite possibly a chunk of territory around Artois and Champagne from the land they had occupied, to link up their territories to give them a geographically-continuous kingdom. Whether Henry would accept or not I'm not sure, but would certainly owe them a debt of gratitude and I can see Burgundy forcing the matter either way. Might not be a bad thing, again, since it will weaken the French demesne, further leading me to suspect that France will not dominate England in importance to the Plantagenet dynasty and successors. Anyway, I don't see the Burgundians liking being under English sovereignty when they sniff a chance to get free at any rate.

Which could be a good thing, since this is the era when one of Henry's brothers marries the Countess of Hainaut and Holland, against his brothers' wills. Imagining the English and Burgundian Kings part alliance on bad terms, maybe Henry would be motivated to secure Jacqueline of Hainaut's lands to prevent them falling into the Burgundian clutches, as OTL? And an English-dependent Holland sounds like a further excellent twist to a fun TL.
 
This is AH, man!

Besides the fact that a king as ambitious and "dashing" as Henry V would probably not be content with keeping everything "as-is", you have the tiny little fact that if he stays alive for just another couple of years, he's likely to have another child, altering the political scene which ended in the Wars of the Roses.

Sure, the War of the roses gets altered. But Bedford wasn't trying to keep everything as is, and Henry V, while a good general, didn't shoot fireballs from his eyes and lightning bolts from his arse.

So, Henry V gets bogged down in the Loire Valley, same as Bedford. He intrigues in Holland, as others have proposed.

Why do I feel the end result is the Burgundians become the Kings of France?

Which is awesome in its own right, I admit.
 
A surviving Henry V will struggle to subdue France even if the Dauphin is killed before the birth of his heir there are numerous Valois claimants alive to cause trouble.
Next in line are the grandsons of Charles V of France - Charles Duke of Orleans and his brother John Count of Anjouleme
Then the descendents of John II's younger sons -
Lous III Duke of Anjou Tit King of Naples
Renee of Anjou
Charles Count of Maine
and then John the Fearless Duke of Burgundy and his son Philip.

With the Dauphin dead Orleans will almost certainly claim the throne and the whole thing will continue to drag on and on.

Personally I can see Orleans cutting a deal - that perhaps sees England regaining Normandy and Guyenne either way the longer the war continues the greater the domestic pressure in England Henry is going to face eventually he will have to accept some kind of compromise.
 
I'll point out here that from Agincourt until the 1440s the Duke of Orleans was an English captive. He could claim the throne but he was in no position to make bargains with the English as Henry had all the chips in his hand and Orleans had nothing. This situation actually works out far better for the English, as Orleans' existence means no other Valois candidate can claim the throne, as Orleans is the undisputed heir (assuming the Dauphin's childless death) and yet they have him where they want him. Henry in this situation might force Orleans to give up his claim, and the extended claims of the Valois for his freedom but it's far more likely that such an agreement wouldn't even be entertained until all of France is pacified. And if France isn't pacified then Orleans gets to die in England...
 
Henry V

I can see him getting bogged down in France. I don't think he would have been able to conquer all of it. Eventually things in England would begin to worsen. Parliament and public opinion there would demand that he come home and attempt to settle things in England. So he leaves one of his brothers to continue the war in France. And what happens with the Scots? They would have become alarmed at English successes in France and would certainly have started trouble..
 
If there is a reconstituted Angevin Empire, which covers England, Scotland, France and Ireland ( and I,d bet the capital would be in Rouen ), then my guess is that the King will make a try for the title of emperor and for the election as HRE at one point.
 
If there is a reconstituted Angevin Empire, which covers England, Scotland, France and Ireland ( and I,d bet the capital would be in Rouen ), then my guess is that the King will make a try for the title of emperor and for the election as HRE at one point.
Although at most I can see him being as successful as Francis I of France, which as you of all people know was not very successful.
 
Hmm...

England+France vs. Spain +Germany? :cool:

Unfortunatly, it probably wouldn't happen, unless maybe if the reformation was butterflied...
 
Although at most I can see him being as successful as Francis I of France, which as you of all people know was not very successful.

Except that here the frankenglish king is going to be richer than Francis was and the Habsbourg will most likely not have the Burgundy inheritage to draw from and no link to Spain ( unless I misremember the schedule, these happen after the PoD and are quite unlikely in the TL ). That makes Fugier less likely to support them as much as OTL.

Also, the Habsbourg likely do not keep their Alsatian lands.

So, given a richer frankenglish countender and poorer opposition, I think that at one point, the HRE title is going to go to Henry's line.... and stay there.
 
Top