Okay, a late medieval WI that keeps bugging me:
What if the sixteen-year-old Henry, Prince of Wales, the future King Henry V of England, dies as a result of the arrow-wound to the face he received at the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403?
In OTL, the wound, sustained in the course of defeating the rebel army led by Henry "Hotspur" Percy, resulted in weeks of painful medical treatment. In the end, using innovative surgical procedures and treatments that he was more or less inventing on the fly, the surgeon John Bradmore managed to remove the arrowhead lodged in the rear interior of Henry's skull and, perhaps more importantly, prevent the massive facial wound (funny how I have never seen a portrayal of Henry V showing the extensive facial scar he must have had in real life) from becoming infected. Even allowing for Bradmore's obvious knowledge and skill, however, it seems to me that Henry was at least as likely to die as not.
If he dies, next in line to the throne is his brother Thomas, later Duke of Clarence. In OTL, Thomas was King Henry IV's favourite son in any case, and when Prince Henry fell out with his father in 1411, he himself seems to have suspected the king of wanting to pass him over as heir in favour of Thomas. Henry IV was extremely ill for the latter part of his reign (he considered it divine retribution for his usurpation of the throne from Richard II) and unable to exercise day-to-day rule in person, so whichever of his sons was in favour at a given time had a massive influence on policy.
Thomas is described by a lot of sources as being unlike his brother Henry in temperament - he was less scholarly, more pugnacious, if not outright hot-headed. A French embassy who came to meet with Henry V in OTL thought from his commanding manner that Thomas must be the king before discovering his true identity. He also had quite different policies than his brother in regard to France. When he became the main voice on Henry IV's council after 1411 in OTL, he advocated a policy of supporting the Armagnac faction in France in their ongoing dispute with John the Fearless of Burgundy, in contrast to Henry's pro-Burgundian diplomacy.
In 1412, the Armagnacs offered the return of the whole of the historic Aquitaine to England, in full sovereignty, and to do homage to England for the lands they themselves held there (massive concession!) if the English sent a military expedition to France to fight the Burgundians. Thomas led the expedition himself, and although it was less than successful (he arrived to find that the Armagnacs and Burgundians had made peace for the time being and that the land deal was off), he stuck around long enough to become the sworn brother-in-arms of the Armagnac leader Charles d'Orleans and to form a military alliance with Charles d'Albret, the Constable of France. In OTL, Henry V's army captured the former and killed the latter at Agincourt.
(In OTL, these sorts of dealings led Henry V to just flat-out not trust Thomas with regard to France. After the capture of Harfleur in 1415, Clarence advocated the English army's withdrawal to England, having suffered so many losses during the siege, instead of marching to Calais and maybe offering battle along the way. Coming from anyone else, that might have been seen as prudent advice, coming from Clarence it made Henry suspicious, and Clarence was in fact sent home to England, officially listed as one of the sick. During Henry's OTL reign, there were persistent rumours of rebellious plots to depose him and put Clarence on the throne in his place).
So, if King Thomas ever did lead a large-scale military expedition to France as his brother did in OTL (which is itself not a given, I suppose), it would likely not be to assert his claim to the French throne but rather at the request of the Armagnacs to aid them against the Burgundians, likely in return for some settlement regarding English landholdings in Aquitaine.
Now, whether that would lead to an effective end to the Hundred Years War (although not to continued involvement on the continent against Burgundy) is another question, but if it did the effects on the development of France would be massive; not only no Agincourt, meaning no mass killing/imprisonment of so many of the best and brightest of the French nobility, but no Lancastrian conquest and colonisation of Normandy. And an earlier end to the war might mean none of the military and governmental reforms that in OTL allowed France eventually to win it, and which stood her in good stead afterwards.
Not that King Thomas might last long enough to build a final peace with the Armagnac-aligned French monarchy. In OTL, he was killed in 1421 at the Battle of Bauge, in the course of breaking a negotiated truce to lead a reckless charge by part of his army against a French-Scots force, with no regard for making proper use of his archers, most of whom had been sent off foraging across the countryside. It is hard to imagine Thomas winning an Agincourt-style battle and all too easy to imagine him dying as per OTL in some vainglorious exploit.
If that happened, assuming Thomas hadn't produced an heir (in OTL he had no children with his wife Margaret Holland, but he did have a bastard son by another woman and Margaret had herself had six children with her first husband John Beaufort, and as heir to the throne Thomas might well get a different wife anyway, so he could well have legitimate sons in ATL), he'd be succeeded by his brother John, Duke of Bedford, who was pro-Burgundian in OTL (well, they were supporting Henry V's claim to the French throne), but in the ATL, who knows? King John II...hmm...
But yes, just because King Thomas was likely to be cosy with the Armagnac party could mean nothing for the ultimate outcome of the Hundred Years War, simply because allegiances and policies were changing so often... Even if all the above speculation is just me talking out of my hat, just removing Henry V and his actions is obviously going to have a massive impact on English and French history, and by extension on that of the rest of Europe.
A last thought; Lollardy. I seem to remember reading somewhere (annoyingly can't remember where right now) that Thomas might have been more sympathetic to the Lollards than his brother Henry (he owned a copy of Wycliffe's bible, I seem to recall). It's hard to see him being sympathetic to them to the point of forgoing the support of the Church in England, however, given how much Henry V in OTL relied upon them for support, finances and propaganda on his behalf (remember that a lot of people still regarded the Lancastrian dynasty as usurpers and as such in God's bad books, so they needed all the ecclesiastical support they could get).
So, that went on for a bit longer than I planned, but thoughts, anyway?
What if the sixteen-year-old Henry, Prince of Wales, the future King Henry V of England, dies as a result of the arrow-wound to the face he received at the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403?
In OTL, the wound, sustained in the course of defeating the rebel army led by Henry "Hotspur" Percy, resulted in weeks of painful medical treatment. In the end, using innovative surgical procedures and treatments that he was more or less inventing on the fly, the surgeon John Bradmore managed to remove the arrowhead lodged in the rear interior of Henry's skull and, perhaps more importantly, prevent the massive facial wound (funny how I have never seen a portrayal of Henry V showing the extensive facial scar he must have had in real life) from becoming infected. Even allowing for Bradmore's obvious knowledge and skill, however, it seems to me that Henry was at least as likely to die as not.
If he dies, next in line to the throne is his brother Thomas, later Duke of Clarence. In OTL, Thomas was King Henry IV's favourite son in any case, and when Prince Henry fell out with his father in 1411, he himself seems to have suspected the king of wanting to pass him over as heir in favour of Thomas. Henry IV was extremely ill for the latter part of his reign (he considered it divine retribution for his usurpation of the throne from Richard II) and unable to exercise day-to-day rule in person, so whichever of his sons was in favour at a given time had a massive influence on policy.
Thomas is described by a lot of sources as being unlike his brother Henry in temperament - he was less scholarly, more pugnacious, if not outright hot-headed. A French embassy who came to meet with Henry V in OTL thought from his commanding manner that Thomas must be the king before discovering his true identity. He also had quite different policies than his brother in regard to France. When he became the main voice on Henry IV's council after 1411 in OTL, he advocated a policy of supporting the Armagnac faction in France in their ongoing dispute with John the Fearless of Burgundy, in contrast to Henry's pro-Burgundian diplomacy.
In 1412, the Armagnacs offered the return of the whole of the historic Aquitaine to England, in full sovereignty, and to do homage to England for the lands they themselves held there (massive concession!) if the English sent a military expedition to France to fight the Burgundians. Thomas led the expedition himself, and although it was less than successful (he arrived to find that the Armagnacs and Burgundians had made peace for the time being and that the land deal was off), he stuck around long enough to become the sworn brother-in-arms of the Armagnac leader Charles d'Orleans and to form a military alliance with Charles d'Albret, the Constable of France. In OTL, Henry V's army captured the former and killed the latter at Agincourt.
(In OTL, these sorts of dealings led Henry V to just flat-out not trust Thomas with regard to France. After the capture of Harfleur in 1415, Clarence advocated the English army's withdrawal to England, having suffered so many losses during the siege, instead of marching to Calais and maybe offering battle along the way. Coming from anyone else, that might have been seen as prudent advice, coming from Clarence it made Henry suspicious, and Clarence was in fact sent home to England, officially listed as one of the sick. During Henry's OTL reign, there were persistent rumours of rebellious plots to depose him and put Clarence on the throne in his place).
So, if King Thomas ever did lead a large-scale military expedition to France as his brother did in OTL (which is itself not a given, I suppose), it would likely not be to assert his claim to the French throne but rather at the request of the Armagnacs to aid them against the Burgundians, likely in return for some settlement regarding English landholdings in Aquitaine.
Now, whether that would lead to an effective end to the Hundred Years War (although not to continued involvement on the continent against Burgundy) is another question, but if it did the effects on the development of France would be massive; not only no Agincourt, meaning no mass killing/imprisonment of so many of the best and brightest of the French nobility, but no Lancastrian conquest and colonisation of Normandy. And an earlier end to the war might mean none of the military and governmental reforms that in OTL allowed France eventually to win it, and which stood her in good stead afterwards.
Not that King Thomas might last long enough to build a final peace with the Armagnac-aligned French monarchy. In OTL, he was killed in 1421 at the Battle of Bauge, in the course of breaking a negotiated truce to lead a reckless charge by part of his army against a French-Scots force, with no regard for making proper use of his archers, most of whom had been sent off foraging across the countryside. It is hard to imagine Thomas winning an Agincourt-style battle and all too easy to imagine him dying as per OTL in some vainglorious exploit.
If that happened, assuming Thomas hadn't produced an heir (in OTL he had no children with his wife Margaret Holland, but he did have a bastard son by another woman and Margaret had herself had six children with her first husband John Beaufort, and as heir to the throne Thomas might well get a different wife anyway, so he could well have legitimate sons in ATL), he'd be succeeded by his brother John, Duke of Bedford, who was pro-Burgundian in OTL (well, they were supporting Henry V's claim to the French throne), but in the ATL, who knows? King John II...hmm...
But yes, just because King Thomas was likely to be cosy with the Armagnac party could mean nothing for the ultimate outcome of the Hundred Years War, simply because allegiances and policies were changing so often... Even if all the above speculation is just me talking out of my hat, just removing Henry V and his actions is obviously going to have a massive impact on English and French history, and by extension on that of the rest of Europe.
A last thought; Lollardy. I seem to remember reading somewhere (annoyingly can't remember where right now) that Thomas might have been more sympathetic to the Lollards than his brother Henry (he owned a copy of Wycliffe's bible, I seem to recall). It's hard to see him being sympathetic to them to the point of forgoing the support of the Church in England, however, given how much Henry V in OTL relied upon them for support, finances and propaganda on his behalf (remember that a lot of people still regarded the Lancastrian dynasty as usurpers and as such in God's bad books, so they needed all the ecclesiastical support they could get).
So, that went on for a bit longer than I planned, but thoughts, anyway?
