Henry VI of England

WI: He had been born a girl. Possible marriage prospects? Could this have prevented the wars?
 
Henry VI born as a girl would have lead to a LOT of trouble for England.

With a baby girl as Queen instead of a baby boy as King, there would be much more opposition from nobility : there were still prejudices against women ruling at that time. Not to mention the young daughter (I think she would be called Margaret or Catherine) is a baby barely aged 1 at the death of Henry V.

The French already dealt with the situation of a minor girl suceeding the French throne : they choosed Salic Law and excluded women from the succession. Now, England still dominates the HYW at the time of Henry V's death, but you would probably see many French nobles siding with Charles VII.

As for the English... Well, Henry V's two brother, John of Bedford and Humphrey of Gloucester, could both be tempted by the crown. And you still have Richard, 3rd Duke of York, who would be the Yorkist pretender.
 
Henry VI born as a girl would have lead to a LOT of trouble for England.

With a baby girl as Queen instead of a baby boy as King, there would be much more opposition from nobility : there were still prejudices against women ruling at that time. Not to mention the young daughter (I think she would be called Margaret or Catherine) is a baby barely aged 1 at the death of Henry V.

The French already dealt with the situation of a minor girl suceeding the French throne : they choosed Salic Law and excluded women from the succession. Now, England still dominates the HYW at the time of Henry V's death, but you would probably see many French nobles siding with Charles VII.

As for the English... Well, Henry V's two brother, John of Bedford and Humphrey of Gloucester, could both be tempted by the crown. And you still have Richard, 3rd Duke of York, who would be the Yorkist pretender.

You're forgetting, are you not, that the English claim to the throne derived from the principle that the French throne was not legally bound by Salic Law - if you start bringing Salic Law into the argument then you're already automatically arguing that the English claim is invalid. For any proponents of an Englishman on the French throne, there are no issues with a female inheritance. It would, however, be like rubbing salt into the wound for those who rejected the English claim.

As for Henry's brothers eyeing up stealing the crown from their niece...maybe but I don't think so. By and large Henry's brothers - especially John - were devotedly loyal to their brother and so they would be to his heirs. If they wanted to steal a crown, they could have done so over Henry VI's one-year old body OTL too...and beside, if you are going to steal the crown you're essentially forsaking traditional inheritance rules and suggesting that the strongest close claimant should have the throne (as was the case with the debates over Edward III's succession), which means there's no particular reason for the eldest brother to have the throne, and then the plan falls down because you have two brothers who will see no reason to favour the other when they can both claim the throne for themselves - and nobles would see straight through this and side with neither of them if there was risk of civil war over two mens' greed. No, Henry's daughter would take the throne. Anyone fearing that a woman would be a weak Queen regnant would be assuaged by her youth - she would become essentially a puppet to her uncles, who would marry her off to a favourable candidate who would rule as a dominating husband and equally be their pawn (that is, he would be selected for his/his father's status as a co-controller of the crown in the first place). Fears over a weak Queen somewhat diminish when the Queen is seen to be under the thumb of a stronger man, especially two strong men who are brothers to a popular King and respected for their involvements in the war with France.
 
Actually, the English claim to the French throne was derived from semi-Salic inheritance plus proximity of blood (the two systems are somewhat bound together). Although the system was perhaps not so clearly formulated back then, under it I would expect Henry V's next surviving brother John to be considered the lawful heir for France, rather than his daughter. John would also have some though rather weak grounds for claiming England on the same basis. He might have ended up as King of France and regent of England for his niece, but probably he would claim both thrones, possibly being elected to England as his father was. If we keep him and his brothers void of legitimate heirs, he would be succeeded by his brother Humphrey and he probably by a son of Henry V's imaginary daughter, assuming she had one.
 
Who would she marry? Either a non-entity, a French lineal claimant (to keep him sweet) or an uncle or cousin

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
You're forgetting, are you not, that the English claim to the throne derived from the principle that the French throne was not legally bound by Salic Law - if you start bringing Salic Law into the argument then you're already automatically arguing that the English claim is invalid. For any proponents of an Englishman on the French throne, there are no issues with a female inheritance. It would, however, be like rubbing salt into the wound for those who rejected the English claim.

Just to clarify this point: did the English claim to France accept a female inheritance or it only accepted that the inheritance could pass through a female, but not to her?

Edit: Sorry, I think Domenic has answered that.
 
Perhaps to her (in paternal line) second cousin once removed, Richard, Duke of York? He would be 10 years older, but considering the different situation arising from a daughter rather than son being Henry V's sole issue, and Richard's potential claim both through his mother and, semi-Salically, his father, one could see Richard being removed from the Earl of Westmoreland's wardship and placed directly in that of John II and III, the new King of England and France and Lord of Ireland. Marriage to his niece would be contra-indicated to begin with, but when some years later it began to look as though no heir would be forthcoming from either John or Humphrey it might have been decided to make the marriage, thus uniting all claims and giving the best chance of an untroubled succession.

It's all a bit of a stretch, I must admit, and there are other candidates that might appeal. Still a thought, though. Another one is a Valois of the Orléans line; there in fact wasn't one of suitable age, because both sons of the first Duke spent decades in English captivity and not in a position to sire children, on their wives at least. That could be amended, or one could be more direct about it and marry the heiress to the heir, to wit Louis XI, who was less than a year younger than Henry VI, and so presumably this daughter that replaces him.

Charles VII probably wouldn't accept his son's eventual rather than his own immediate succession, but such a marriage would have brought assured peace, so maybe. Then we could have a different War of the Roses, with the Duke of York rather than his son as Richard III, as frustration grew at absentee rule and he decided to make himself champion of English independence....
 
Top