Henry V of England lives longer

Laurentius

Banned
Henry's V death came at the worst time for England and her new gains in France. If he lived for longer it is very possible he could keep hold of the French throne, provided he could produce viable heirs (a younger brother, or an uncle, can always act as regent to Henry VI when his mental illness manifests, or Henry VI might be bypassed in favour of another heir. His mental condition may have been inherited from his grandfather, Charles VI "the Mad", so again, entirely possible he could avoid it). Henry V will naturally face challenges from the French; governing two countries at once and travelling back and forth, rebellions, etc. Undoubtedly the riches of the (mostly) subdued French may tempt the greedy, but could also be used to bribe others (French, English, Burgundian, etc.) into loyalty. I believe Henry was more of a warrior than an administrator, but with an effective enough show of arms, he may be able to do it.

Securing England won't be easy either: his father, Henry IV, stole the throne, interrupting what had been up until then a relatively peaceful transition from father to son. Even with kings of lesser ability being forced to step down (Edward II, for example), an obvious heir, the next step in the bloodline, was available. Henry's seizure of the crown threw it all open to anyone with enough force being able to take the throne. So unless Henry V can ensure a suitable heir is around after he's gone, England will face a lot of dynastic scuffles later on.

Overall I reckon it would be fairly positive for England (and France). Henry V (and II of France)'s reign is stable if not without its troubles. The fighting between the two countries ceases, trade can resume and France's infrastructure is rebuilt, England becomes richer with the Channel trade.. Henry will have to keep Burgundy in line to stop them grabbing too much of the French croissant/Lancaster pudding if France and England quarrel. He will also have to placate both English and French nobility, the English having their institution of Parliament, the French of course without it. Perhaps a more democratic transition for France, and greater power to Parliament in England to help Henry run the country when he's abroad as a richer merchant class emerges from cross-Channel trade, etc. The mixing of the two societies would be a bonus, too. Henry can get inspired by Chartres Cathedral and Clermont-Ferrand massif, built out of volcanic rock XP Beautiful structures.
 
Henry's V death came at the worst time for England and her new gains in France. If he lived for longer it is very possible he could keep hold of the French throne, provided he could produce viable heirs (a younger brother, or an uncle, can always act as regent to Henry VI when his mental illness manifests, or Henry VI might be bypassed in favour of another heir. His mental condition may have been inherited from his grandfather, Charles VI "the Mad", so again, entirely possible he could avoid it). Henry V will naturally face challenges from the French; governing two countries at once and travelling back and forth, rebellions, etc. Undoubtedly the riches of the (mostly) subdued French may tempt the greedy, but could also be used to bribe others (French, English, Burgundian, etc.) into loyalty. I believe Henry was more of a warrior than an administrator, but with an effective enough show of arms, he may be able to do it.

Securing England won't be easy either: his father, Henry IV, stole the throne, interrupting what had been up until then a relatively peaceful transition from father to son. Even with kings of lesser ability being forced to step down (Edward II, for example), an obvious heir, the next step in the bloodline, was available. Henry's seizure of the crown threw it all open to anyone with enough force being able to take the throne. So unless Henry V can ensure a suitable heir is around after he's gone, England will face a lot of dynastic scuffles later on.

Overall I reckon it would be fairly positive for England (and France). Henry V (and II of France)'s reign is stable if not without its troubles. The fighting between the two countries ceases, trade can resume and France's infrastructure is rebuilt, England becomes richer with the Channel trade.. Henry will have to keep Burgundy in line to stop them grabbing too much of the French croissant/Lancaster pudding if France and England quarrel. He will also have to placate both English and French nobility, the English having their institution of Parliament, the French of course without it. Perhaps a more democratic transition for France, and greater power to Parliament in England to help Henry run the country when he's abroad as a richer merchant class emerges from cross-Channel trade, etc. The mixing of the two societies would be a bonus, too. Henry can get inspired by Chartres Cathedral and Clermont-Ferrand massif, built out of volcanic rock XP Beautiful structures.

Does this also prevent the War of the Roses later on?

I guess England got unlucky with Henry V death... would be interesting how Castille and the Emperor might react to a joint kingdom under Henry V.
 
One problem with a surviving Henry V; when Henry died, the English war effort didn't stop. John of Bedford was a fairly decent general who pushed south, right? The problem was the English got bogged down in the Loire valley, and the Burgundians had no desire to see the English win. What changes if Henry lives?
 
One problem with a surviving Henry V; when Henry died, the English war effort didn't stop. John of Bedford was a fairly decent general who pushed south, right? The problem was the English got bogged down in the Loire valley, and the Burgundians had no desire to see the English win. What changes if Henry lives?
The Treaty of Troyes in 1420 disinherited the Dauphin and made Henry V the acknowledged heir to the French throne. He married Catherine de Valois, the Kings daughter.

The Hundred Years War at this time is effectively a French Civil War. There were two factions, Burgundians and Armagnacs, that really hated each other. Henry was more acceptable to each faction than anyone from the other faction. The problem was Henry died before the king of France did. Instead of the most successful general of the age being acknowledged king and enforcing the peace amongst rival factions, you have a regency for an infant.

If Henry lives a reasonable span, he is crowned King of France. I have read that Henry's long term plans were to unite England and France and then go on Crusade. He would make the Dauphin, King of Jerusalem.
 
The Treaty of Troyes in 1420 disinherited the Dauphin and made Henry V the acknowledged heir to the French throne. He married Catherine de Valois, the Kings daughter.

And his child with Catherine was Henry VI in OTL, who had capable regents. I'm not sure I follow your point here.
 
And his child with Catherine was Henry VI in OTL, who had capable regents. I'm not sure I follow your point here.
The Dauphin contested the claim of the infant Henry VI. He would not have been able to contest the claim of Henry V. The Regents might have been capable, but they weren't Henry.
 
Henry would then have had to deal with a
certain French peasant girl from Lorraine- & would he have had any more success than
Bedford did? (Henry's millitrary reputation
rests, to a great extent, on Agincourt, but
without wishing to take anything away from
what Henry did there, his victory is also
largely owing to French arrogance, stupidity,
& downright incompetence)
 
Henry would then have had to deal with a certain French peasant girl from Lorraine- & would he have had any more success than Bedford did? (Henry's millitrary reputation rests, to a great extent, on Agincourt, but without wishing to take anything away from what Henry did there, his victory is also largely owing to French arrogance, stupidity, & downright incompetence)
Remember, Henry would be the lawful king. Agincourt aside, Henry had a grasp of strategy. He realized that the old method of raid and chevauche didn't work. Henry was starting at the channel and moving south, taking every fortification on the way. He got the King of France to acknowledge him as his heir.
 
Remember, Henry would be the lawful king. Agincourt aside, Henry had a grasp of strategy. He realized that the old method of raid and chevauche didn't work. Henry was starting at the channel and moving south, taking every fortification on the way. He got the King of France to acknowledge him as his heir.


So are you saying that Charles VII does NOT
claim to be King of France regardless?(Which IOTL he did- thus keeping French resistance alive- against the Treaty of Troyes) Or that he's even just butterflied away?
 
Last edited:
So are you saying that Charles VII does NOT
claim to be King of France regardless?(Which IOTL he did- thus keeping French resistance alive- against the Treaty of Troyes) Or that he's even just butterflied away?
It's much harder for him to do that against Henry V than against the infant son.
 
Remember, Henry would be the lawful king. Agincourt aside, Henry had a grasp of strategy. He realized that the old method of raid and chevauche didn't work. Henry was starting at the channel and moving south, taking every fortification on the way. He got the King of France to acknowledge him as his heir.


Apologies daveg for taking so long to reply. I
hear what you're saying but I have to con-
fess I remain skeptical. Even without Henry
France in 1429 IOTL was in pretty desperate
shape- a chunk of it(Burgundy)having broken away, the English in control of half
the country & also having won every big battle(Crecy, Poiters, & of course Agincourt)
so far in the war. Could it really have been
THAT much worse if Henry had actually been
present? In fact it could be argued that in
1429 IOTL it was a measure of just how des-
pirate the French were that they were willing
to entrust command of their armies to a 17-
year old peasant girl. Incredibly she turned
out to be the real deal, inspiring the French
& getting them moving again. Now I admit
that what I've been talking about are pysch-
cological factors. Whether Joan- an amateur
-could(would)have beaten Henry- a profess-
ional- in a straight-out battle is another story
(maybe somebody could do- hint, hint- a TL
in which Henry & Joan directly face off against each other)
 
The Dauphin contested the claim of the infant Henry VI. He would not have been able to contest the claim of Henry V. The Regents might have been capable, but they weren't Henry.

A treaty signed by the French king (who is insane) under duress? Kings have contested claims based on far less.
 
Top