I'm not sure if this has been posted before, but I think its quite interesting. After the English victory at Agincourt, Henry V was named as the heir to the current (and quite mad) king of France, Charles VI. His son was excluded from the succession. It seemed that Henry V was poised to achieve what all his predecessors had aimed for before him; to become the King of France. All he had to do now was outlive the current King. Furthermore, he had an heir born to him from the Charles' daughter, cementing his claim.
However, it was not to be. Henry caught dysentery during his besieging of Meaux. Ironically, Charles VI outlived him by two months. That left only Henry's infant son, Henry VI to rule as King of England and France, while various regents administrated the countries. Henry V's early death (he was only 35) could arguably be one of the biggest reasons why England lost all she had conquered in France.
What would the consequences be if Henry had not contracted dysentery, and lived on; eventually being crowned king of England and France after Charles' death?
However, it was not to be. Henry caught dysentery during his besieging of Meaux. Ironically, Charles VI outlived him by two months. That left only Henry's infant son, Henry VI to rule as King of England and France, while various regents administrated the countries. Henry V's early death (he was only 35) could arguably be one of the biggest reasons why England lost all she had conquered in France.
What would the consequences be if Henry had not contracted dysentery, and lived on; eventually being crowned king of England and France after Charles' death?