A variation on the above is, what if there were no or a different Henry VI because Henry V was unavailable to wed Catherine of Valois, being married already? Thirty-three was after all rather late to get round to it. There was apparently at one time a proposal that his youngest sister Philippa's marriage to Erik of Pomerania, King of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, should be a double wedding, the then Prince of Wales marrying Erik's sister Katharine. Philippa wed in 1406, when Henry would have been 19 and Katharine 16, so had the plan come off they were both old enough for the marriage to be consummated, and Henry could by the time he died have had a fourteen- or fifteen-year old son to succeed after a brief regency, if any regency was felt necessary.
The marriage of Henry and Katherine, was not, as pointed out above, absolutely necessary to seal Troyes. She was Charles VI's youngest daughter and would have been six or seven years older than Henry V's hypothetical son by Katharine of Pomerania, making her marrying him instead unlikely (though far from impossible). One alternative plan would be for the young Prince to marry Isabella of Brittany, Charles VI's granddaughter by his oldest daughter Joan, born in 1411 so of a suitable relative age for the match.
Many consequences ensue. The briefer regency would have moderated the damaging meddling of the Duke of Gloucester, leaving his much abler brother Bedford to get on with things. Not only would Henry V's successor not have been an infant, he was likely to be mentally sound also, assuming that the real-life Henry VI's insanity was inherited from his maternal grandfather. England could well have turned out victors in the Hundred Years War instead, and it seems reasonable as outlined above to believe that at the time the union with France had a chance of enduring, given only the good start it did not get.
No Tudors, but with no Wars of the Roses they would have no opportunity for the throne in any case. And I do believe that the manifold failings of Henry VI were the ultimate cause of the wars, and that until his incapacity became manifest loyalty to the Lancastrian dynasty was firm. A complication would be the powerful claim to the various Scandinavian successions that would follow Erik's childless death, but that could be wriggled out of somehow. Or exploited, depending on the wishes of whoever was writing the ATL.
The marriage of Henry and Katherine, was not, as pointed out above, absolutely necessary to seal Troyes. She was Charles VI's youngest daughter and would have been six or seven years older than Henry V's hypothetical son by Katharine of Pomerania, making her marrying him instead unlikely (though far from impossible). One alternative plan would be for the young Prince to marry Isabella of Brittany, Charles VI's granddaughter by his oldest daughter Joan, born in 1411 so of a suitable relative age for the match.
Many consequences ensue. The briefer regency would have moderated the damaging meddling of the Duke of Gloucester, leaving his much abler brother Bedford to get on with things. Not only would Henry V's successor not have been an infant, he was likely to be mentally sound also, assuming that the real-life Henry VI's insanity was inherited from his maternal grandfather. England could well have turned out victors in the Hundred Years War instead, and it seems reasonable as outlined above to believe that at the time the union with France had a chance of enduring, given only the good start it did not get.
No Tudors, but with no Wars of the Roses they would have no opportunity for the throne in any case. And I do believe that the manifold failings of Henry VI were the ultimate cause of the wars, and that until his incapacity became manifest loyalty to the Lancastrian dynasty was firm. A complication would be the powerful claim to the various Scandinavian successions that would follow Erik's childless death, but that could be wriggled out of somehow. Or exploited, depending on the wishes of whoever was writing the ATL.

