Plausibility Check: The House of Lancaster wins France, but loses England.

The idea that I am testing is a scenario in which the succession specified by the Treaty of Troyes becomes more or less stable. For a point of divergence, let's say Henry V lives long enough to see the defeat of the man who historically became Charles VII of France. If that is not plausible, let's just say that for whatever reason, the House of Valois is no longer a threat to the House of Lancaster's claim to the French throne. Once Henry V dies, Henry VI of England becomes either Henri II or Henri III of France depending on whether or not we go with a slightly longer lived Henry V. While Henry VI/Henri III manages to hold onto his French crown, he is eventually deposed in England. This results in a situation in which Henry and his heirs are Kings of France, but England is, at least for the time being, ruled by the House of York.
 
I don't think this is possible, primarily since the House of Lancaster establishing itself in France that securely is unlikely.

You might get them holding on to part of France, and claiming the crown, but even that might be hard.

And in a scenario where that's possible, why is Richard (Duke of York), whose reasons for doing what he did can be traced back how France was lost, taking the throne?
 
That is an INTERESTING idea.

Of course, Henry V lives longer is the best POD for England winning the HYW, but its a long, hard, and uncertain matter even so.

Also, much of England's dissatisfaction with the administration of Henry VI stemmed from the disastrous losses to both English pride and, more relevantly, English wealth from the long, slow loss in France. With the English nobility and merchant classes growing wealthy off French booty and trade links, will Richard of York find purchase for his ambitions?

OTOH, Henry VI is still a literal idiot, and his administration, especially once Henry's brothers passed on, was filled with corrupt ministers. If Henry V has any other surviving sons, that could channel dissatisfaction in a different direction.

But what if Henry V and his son's regency (really, eternal regency) focused their government on Paris, exterminate the Valois and maintain a good relationship with the Burgundians? What if the Lancastrian monarchy became more French than English and the plunder flowed the wrong way? What if Henry VI marries Margaret d'Anjou and she really centers the regime's pro-French bias; while the English begin to dispute the Plantagenet succession again?

I think it's a plausible idea, and I like it!
 
I don't think you'd even get them holding onto any of France. If they can only hold a small piece of land - or even a decent chunk - then that means that they've lost a lot of ground to the French, and will be too weak to prevent being mopped up. Like Elfwine, though, I can't see them ever being secure enough in France that they could survive there if they lost their powerbase in England. It's just too early in a country they've barely just subdued.

Also bear in mind that governments can't just act slap-dash, then as now...in fact moreso then than now. A foreign King - say, the King of Spain, or Scotland, or the HRE - can't observe the conflict and then declare that they recognise the Lancastrians as Kings of France (or part of France) and the new claimant as King of England. You either recognise the Lancastrians as legitimate rulers or you say they are illegitimate - that goes for all of their estates in a civil war - and considering that for almost a century at this point the Kings of England had claimed France too, then anyone claiming the English throne MUST by nature be claiming France too. Each foreign government must choose which claimant it recognises, and if that means half of Europe recognising one government while half of Europe recognises the other then so be it. In that situation, a government just can't operate properly unless it has the support of other countries around it - or at very least, the recognition. Added in to the mix that neither claimant will be willing to let the other one rest until they have either finally won or lost, and you've got the grounds for a war that essentially can't end - after all, unlike a regular war where you can make gains and sue for peace, the recognition of your rival in control of part of your territory de jure legitimises their claim to the throne...but to do so invalidates your own claim. Thus, the very existence of an English King in England and an English King in France cannot exist without ongoing war as they are legally diametrically opposed.

But anyway I just can't see it happening in the first place. There's also other things to consider, such as that if the Lancastrians were challenged in England then they would likely ignore France to concentrate on winning control of their homeland. It would be England or nothing for both parties.
 
One problem for this is that it's the erosion of the English position in France, and specifically the lack of revenues from fresh conquests and successful chevauchees, that create the unrest in a highly militarized society that makes the House of York into an attractive option among the nobility.

But there's other options, surely, by which you could have English-born kings on the continent who are dynastically adverse to the English rulers. We already have an idea what that might look like in the form of Margaret of York's sponsorship of Perkin Warbeck against Henry VII.

Why, imagine if say, Edward (Henry VI's son) the Prince of Wales was to be married off to Mary of Burgundy (instead of her being married off to Maximilian of Austria) before Edward IV's big comeback. Or, if Edward's dead in this timeline, before Richard of Gloucester comes and wins the throne in some horrific bloodletting. Then you have Lancastrian Burgundy and Yorkist England.

Of course this is the very reason why in the last half of the fifteenth century English monarchs were probably at the back of the line in terms of prestigious dynastic marriages: no one wanted to back the wrong horse while there was still a possibility that the bastard grandson of an illegitimate union between a king's foreignborn widow and some random Welshman could somehow produce a claimaint to the throne.

Oh, wait, that last part actually happened, didn't it?
 
I think it's plausible and interesting.

It's a matter of getting the timing right. For instance, Henry V lives, succeeds to the French throne in 1422, and is a successful king of France and England for ten to twenty years. It's long enough for the Valois claimants to fade away. The other crucial butterfly is that Joan of Arc mustn't have the impact she did in real life.

Then Henry V dies, and only some time after that do the Yorkists revolt, strengthened by some resentment in England because the kings had concentrated on their French dominions.
 
I think it's plausible and interesting.

It's a matter of getting the timing right. For instance, Henry V lives, succeeds to the French throne in 1422, and is a successful king of France and England for ten to twenty years. It's long enough for the Valois claimants to fade away. The other crucial butterfly is that Joan of Arc mustn't have the impact she did in real life.

Then Henry V dies, and only some time after that do the Yorkists revolt, strengthened by some resentment in England because the kings had concentrated on their French dominions.
I just think that if the Lancastrians can at first maintain their conquests in France but not get all of it at first, I think if France gets divided in those conquests for a time, I think the Valois could focus their own energies on Naples which means that the Trastamaras can't get Naples, I think it is possible that the Yorkists and the Valois might ally later on.
 
Last edited:
The big problem is that the Duke of York did not claim the throne until exceptionally late and even then amidst the beginnings of civil war he was willing to accept the crown after Henry VI's death.

Assuming Henry V perhaps lives and manages to keep control of France then he will certainly have more children by Katherine Valois - you have a brood of Lancastrian children brought up by a french mother.

That might essentially produce a more French outlook to the royal family but it isn't necessarily going to produce the dissatisfaction that provoked RIchard of York's claim and the wars of the roses.

In fact it might be the opposite - there is every chance that the English nobility might like the idea of an absentee monarch and the opportunities that might provide.
 
Top