Couple of questions;

a) Is it possible to avoid the War of the Roses?

b) What would the long-reaching events be?

I've just read Conn Igguldon's series on the situation, and of course he does embellish history somewhat, but I do wonder what might have happened if Henry V had not died when he did, so Henry VI never came to the throne. Henry V was supposedly a good king (the victor at Agincourt) and a battle king. No doubt England's relationship with France would have been horrendously faulty during his reign, but even so - would England have been better off? France? Heck, even Scotland?

Alternatively, in the books, Henry VI recovers from his supposed weak state of mind long enough to man-up and begin a tour of the country to dispense much needed king's justice, but is struck by an arrow at the First Battle of St Albans which leaves him practically catatonic again (his mind once again lost); what if this had not happened? I personally believe he would have eventually descended back into his poor state eventually anyway, but I wonder if things might have been delayed had he stayed strong. At that time, the Duke of York had some semblence of respect for him.

Anyway, any thoughts?
 
Couple of questions;

a) Is it possible to avoid the War of the Roses?

b) What would the long-reaching events be?

I've just read Conn Igguldon's series on the situation, and of course he does embellish history somewhat, but I do wonder what might have happened if Henry V had not died when he did, so Henry VI never came to the throne. Henry V was supposedly a good king (the victor at Agincourt) and a battle king. No doubt England's relationship with France would have been horrendously faulty during his reign, but even so - would England have been better off? France? Heck, even Scotland?

Alternatively, in the books, Henry VI recovers from his supposed weak state of mind long enough to man-up and begin a tour of the country to dispense much needed king's justice, but is struck by an arrow at the First Battle of St Albans which leaves him practically catatonic again (his mind once again lost); what if this had not happened? I personally believe he would have eventually descended back into his poor state eventually anyway, but I wonder if things might have been delayed had he stayed strong. At that time, the Duke of York had some semblence of respect for him.

Anyway, any thoughts?
If Henry V had not died then the chances of the war of the roses happening are perhaps greatly reduced. If he becomes king of France per the treaty of Troyes, that's a big win. The question becomes what happens when the strain and cost begin to show
 
Henry V or his brothers having more kids would butterfly the Wars of the Roses as we recognise them (I.e. A dynastic conflict between York and Lancaster- because if there's more legitimate male Lancastrians then Richard of York won't be the heir to the throne or feel as snubbed), but given the character of Henry VI there'll still be domestic instability and likely conflict within the House of Lancaster.
 
I did read somewhere (it might have been Paul Colinvaux) that once the English aristocrats and their professional war bands were thrown out of France, something like the War of Roses was inevitable. I don't know if it would have been politically possible to focus on another target than France.
 
I did read somewhere (it might have been Paul Colinvaux) that once the English aristocrats and their professional war bands were thrown out of France, something like the War of Roses was inevitable. I don't know if it would have been politically possible to focus on another target than France.
It might not end up as a Proper Civil War, though - the OTL Wars of the Roses only came about because of two aristocratic feuds between people with far too many retainers and even more testosterone: Nevilles vs Percys; Yorks vs Beauforts. Richard of York only took the fight to Henry VI because he publicly supported Somerset, and even then it took years for proper fighting to start.

What you might see (if there were a few more Lancasters, or if Henry was more competent) is all of these war bands and violent noblemen picking fights with each other against a general weakening of royal authority, but without anyone bothering to fight against that royal authority. Basically, anarchy and horribleness, until some form of good governance comes along.
 
It might not end up as a Proper Civil War, though - the OTL Wars of the Roses only came about because of two aristocratic feuds between people with far too many retainers and even more testosterone: Nevilles vs Percys; Yorks vs Beauforts. Richard of York only took the fight to Henry VI because he publicly supported Somerset, and even then it took years for proper fighting to start.

What you might see (if there were a few more Lancasters, or if Henry was more competent) is all of these war bands and violent noblemen picking fights with each other against a general weakening of royal authority, but without anyone bothering to fight against that royal authority. Basically, anarchy and horribleness, until some form of good governance comes along.

Exactly like the French Civil War between the Armagnacs and the Burgundians, or the French Wars of Religion. It wasn't against Royal Authority, but possible due to the general weakening of royal authority. Both those instances, the ruling king wasn't deposed, although there was a struggle on who the heir really was.
 
Richard II's overthrow was avoidable. If he has children, the competing Lancastrian and Yorkist claims don't arise.
 
As stated above the War of the Roses were going to happen in some shape or form regardless. Many of the various Houses of England were developing rivalries that were bound to boil over at some point, especially the N'Eville and Percy feud. The amount of lands and titles that the Nevilles had accumulated in the North were making their rivals jealous and with low crown authority the tensions were rising.

However preventing Henry V from dying would also unite the Crowns of England and France once more and with his French Duchies the King would probably be able to intervene on either side (Henry V would most likely back the Nevilles since it was his father's policy to do so to check the Percys) and probably relegate the conflict to that of a minor one.
 
As stated above the War of the Roses were going to happen in some shape or form regardless. Many of the various Houses of England were developing rivalries that were bound to boil over at some point, especially the N'Eville and Percy feud. The amount of lands and titles that the Nevilles had accumulated in the North were making their rivals jealous and with low crown authority the tensions were rising.
I agree.
However preventing Henry V from dying would also unite the Crowns of England and France once more and with his French Duchies the King would probably be able to intervene on either side (Henry V would most likely back the Nevilles since it was his father's policy to do so to check the Percys) and probably relegate the conflict to that of a minor one.

I'm sceptic whether Henry V surviving would be enough to keep England and France united. So potentially having France would strengthen the position of the king of England provided France stays happy, and I doubt that would be the case and having unrest there too seems IMHO likely. Former rivals of the main Valois line might set differences aside to get rid of the English usurper.
As for the Nevilles, they were a useful ally, but at the same Percys had their use too (in spite if the fact that they may need to be turned down a notch). A king might support a shift in the balance of power, but at the same time placing one vassal in a position to totally dominate a certain region seems counterproductive.
 
I agree.
I'm sceptic whether Henry V surviving would be enough to keep England and France united. So potentially having France would strengthen the position of the king of England provided France stays happy, and I doubt that would be the case and having unrest there too seems IMHO likely. Former rivals of the main Valois line might set differences aside to get rid of the English usurper.
As for the Nevilles, they were a useful ally, but at the same Percys had their use too (in spite if the fact that they may need to be turned down a notch). A king might support a shift in the balance of power, but at the same time placing one vassal in a position to totally dominate a certain region seems counterproductive.

Your completely right, France will revolt and the Valous cadet dynasties will soon enough be on the throne again, it is simply too large a dominion for one King to get in a short amount of time when instability is right around the corner. But it might be later rather than sooner, a good amount of the liege loyal levy was culled at Agincourt and the Pope has already affixed Henry V as King of France so it might take till Henry IV (who will be very different this TL due to his father being around) for the French lords to secede. This is also because Britanny remains a staunch ally of the English throne rather than a neutral observer after Henry V's death.

And your also right on the count of favouring certain vassals, but I think the Percys were perhaps just short of being as strong as the English crown themselves if you add in all their allies, if not stronger. Who knows what may happen down the line, but it will definitely be in the interest of the crown to favour the House of N'Eville on this one.
 
Top