Henry V lives until 1448

Suppose Henry V lives heartily until 1448 and dies suddenly and Henry Vl is not mentally challenged, or whatever? How goes the 100 Years War? If the Plantagenets will seperate Plantagenets rule England and France? If not, will England be top dog? Or will it suffer the fate of Scotland when the Scottish kings inherented England?
 
I believe there have been a number of discussions along these lines. The consensus view seems to be:

  • A surviving H5 would be in a much better position to hold France than H6 was IOTL, but it would be very difficult to actually establish and maintain a personal union long-term. More likely, either the Plantagenets get pushed out of France within a generation or two (as happened with the earlier Angevin Empire), or separate Plantagenet branches wind up with each throne.
  • If a personal union is established and maintained, it'd almost certainly be very France-centric. Not only is France bigger, richer, and more populous, but the King would also need to spend a lot more effort maintaining his hold of France than maintaining his hold on England. Trying to rule France from London would almost certainly result in the rise of a Capatian/Valois or Burgandian pretender to the French throne.
I'm somewhat intrigued by the idea of an alt-War of the Roses in a world where H5 lived long enough to establish an Anglo-French personal union. I could see the Yorks winding up ruling in London and the Lancasters ruling in Paris.
 
One possibility of course is that the heir rules one realm and the monarch rules the other until he dies, whereupon the heir takes over and his heir rules the other.

Now, which way round would it go? Dynastically, having Henry VI rule France would make more sense since his claim through his mother would strengthen his father's rather weak treaty-claim.

But would Henry V happily go home and sit in London with his son in Paris?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Keeping the hold on France would be REALLY hard. Not only it depended a lot from Burgundy alliance (and regarding the more or less changing policies and interests of the duke, it was unreliable at best) but Charles VII had sumply too much territories, too much allies and too much possibilities to take back the North.

Don't forget that English army had to plunder the country in order to have enough ressources to fight the constant french attacks from south, and that's not really going to make the population accepting an english king.

OTL, the Normandy was by exemple one of the region with an actual organised resistance against the Lancasters.
But, even in Paris that wasn't really favourable to the Armagnac faction, it was more about a support of Burgundian faction than a support of Henry who was particularly hated or at best having a bad reputation and picture.

For me, a continous campain in France would even formed more quickly a civil war or at least a noble unrest in England as it would have increased more quickly and more importantly the raise of funds in England.
 
Keeping the hold on France would be REALLY hard. Not only it depended a lot from Burgundy alliance (and regarding the more or less changing policies and interests of the duke, it was unreliable at best) but Charles VII had sumply too much territories, too much allies and too much possibilities to take back the North.

Don't forget that English army had to plunder the country in order to have enough ressources to fight the constant french attacks from south, and that's not really going to make the population accepting an english king.

OTL, the Normandy was by exemple one of the region with an actual organised resistance against the Lancasters.
But, even in Paris that wasn't really favourable to the Armagnac faction, it was more about a support of Burgundian faction than a support of Henry who was particularly hated or at best having a bad reputation and picture.

For me, a continous campain in France would even formed more quickly a civil war or at least a noble unrest in England as it would have increased more quickly and more importantly the raise of funds in England.

But it's a long time till 1448. 33 years are more than enough to breed a generation that grew up prepared and not really minding the Lancastrian succession, aren't they?
 
The point for the Plantagenets will be that they are imposing their will on France as KINGS OF FRANCE not as an invading and occupying English army, so the real key is to get French nobles to accept Henry V as their FRENCH overlord.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
But it's a long time till 1448. 33 years are more than enough to breed a generation that grew up prepared and not really minding the Lancastrian succession, aren't they?

The problem is that the Armagnacs aren't going to wait Henry V to be prepared to anything. Some important Armagnac victories against the Anglo-Burgundian forces date from the end of reign of Henry V, and if the king being alive would certainly help a lasting occupation I don't think he would be able to make better than his brother that was as able and skilled than him.

Again, Charles VII benefited from more ressources without to have to plunder the land for that, from a certain legitimity (the Treaty of Paris was seen by the majority of nobility as void).

Henry V have more skills, yes, than Charles VII but he have less support, less skilled court and have to rely on Burgundy.
And Burgundy wanted ONE thing : don't have a powerful neighbour. If Henry V is becoming to strong, the Duke would sooner or later help Charles.
 
The point for the Plantagenets will be that they are imposing their will on France as KINGS OF FRANCE not as an invading and occupying English army, so the real key is to get French nobles to accept Henry V as their FRENCH overlord.

Again, that was the English claim. It wasn't seen AT ALL like that by the whole majority of french nobility, or elites for what matter.

For the main population, as the english army had to raid the occupied country to have enough ressources to fight the Armagnacs...They saw it as a foreign army. Just look at Normandy during this period as an exemple.

And the nobles didn't had any interest into acknowledging Henry V for the sake of it : the centralisation made by the french kings between Philippe Le Bel and Charles V was almost crushed during the reign of Charles the Mad. They would prefer a relativly weak king, that benefited from popular legitimity, rather than a king that was unpopular and wanted to have a lot of power.

I kind of advise the french BD "Le Trône d'Argile" for this period. Granted it's epic-led and quite romanced, but the authors managed to keep the historical background as well the set of mind of this era.
 
The real problem I have is that Henry V was succeeded in France by... the Duke of Bedford, who was a capable and effective regent. And the war then led to a series of grinding sieges. What changes?
 
The real problem I have is that Henry V was succeeded in France by... the Duke of Bedford, who was a capable and effective regent. And the war then led to a series of grinding sieges. What changes?

This. It's not about Henry V skills, even if they were critical for the sucess of English claims so far. But he didn't managed to :

1)Make his claim acknowledged : Admitting the Plantagenet claim was acceptable for french nobility, the claim of Henry V was much weaker as he didn't was the direct heir of Plantagenet and therefore couldn't really pretend to the french throne even according english feudal right.

2)Imprison the Dauphin. Even when Charles VI was still alive, Charles VII became a rallying sign for the major part of french nobility, thanks to his legitimacy and he managed to create a Parlement against Paris.

3)Make the occupied land accepting english rule. In order to avoid to make the English part of his demesne supporting too much part of the invasion and occupation (that would have put him in the position of Richard II) he was forced to take the ressources in France, and that alienated him many people as well in bourgeois than noble elites.
 
This might be a stupid question, but do we count the possibility of Joan of Arc still appearing? There are only eight years that separate the OTL death of Henri V (1422) from Joan's adventures (1429-1430) but would that be enough to butterfly her away? And if she shows up, how would Henri V deal with her?
 
This might be a stupid question, but do we count the possibility of Joan of Arc still appearing? There are only eight years that separate the OTL death of Henri V (1422) from Joan's adventures (1429-1430) but would that be enough to butterfly her away? And if she shows up, how would Henri V deal with her?

Joan of Arc is already born, and as she was more a symbol than an actual strategist (she didn't directed the Battle of Patay by exemple) she could be butterflied without too much trouble.
Don't forget that you had others virgins warrior during this period, and that she could be more or less easily replaced.

If Henry V feel himself concerned, I would think it would be like OTL and that he would give the case to the Parisian institutions (critically the university) in order to be rid of this. Admittedly he could have a greater role like he did towards the Lollards.
 
Top