What if Henry V didn't die young and conquered France? What would the reign of his son Henry VI/III be like? How would this affect history?
Well, it kinda helped that Henry V was recognized as the rightful heir to the French throne by Charles VI. If he lived, the chances for an Anglo-French monarchy were very high, though I wouldn't expect it to last more than a century. What it would definitely do is weaken England (and, by extension, Great Britain) to the point it will never become the OTL juggernaught. On the other hand, France will thrive in America, India and Europe.
Branching out from the usual discussions about whether or not it was possible for England to conquer France, would Henry V living keep England more deeply involved in Continental affairs? Also, with a longer living Henry V we could very well see the War of the Roses butterflied. Henry VI would no doubt still be incompetent but a longer living Henry V means he will no doubt have more children, hopefully sons. And these other sons could end up being a significant counterweight to the House of York's influence.
Also the Duke of York wouldn't be the heir presumptive/ high in the line of succession of Henry V has more sons. Hell we could get lucky and have Henry VI die of plague or a childhood ailment. Though besides mental issues he seemed to be relatively healthy. Another area to explore, assuming England subdues France, is resources and eventual colonization.
Recognized as the rightful heir by . . . who? Not very many Frenchmen.
And why would it weaken England more than France?
He was recognized by who mattered: Charles VI and the Estates.
Why would he treat England as a secondary title? That's never been satisfactorily demonstrated to be a given. We don't see the Habsburgs claim King of Hungary as their most important title (I'm ignoring that of being Emperor, since the dynasty outlasted the HRE so if it was rendered irrelevant by that, that leaves it would not have been irrelevant when the Habsburgs figured "Austria" was worth making imperial), or of Bohemia.The thing is the Hundred Years War wasn't just a war of conquest, it was a giant, century-long war of succession to the throne of France. Edward III didn't want to conquer France and incorporate it into England. He, and all the other English Kings that succeeded him, wanted to become the King of France. So, Henry V, having achieved that, will move his court and his entire family to Paris, make the future Henry VI and III the Dauphin and treat England as a secondary title.
The first three are not comparable, and I don't know how much connection the later two had to where they came from.That means in 3-4 generations the Lancastrians will have adopted French culture, customs and language - remember the Stuarts and Hannoverians in England or the Habsburgs in Spain or the Hohenzollerns and Saxe-Coburg-Gothas (is that a word?) on the Romanian and Bulgarian thrones.
4) The Dual Monarchy doesn't last out the reign of Henry VI/II, because Henry VI's incompetence inspires in a rebellion in one or both by a claimant of one or the other thrones.That leads to: (1) the Dual Monarchy survives late into the Colonial Era, but France will still be the leader in the Union and you get mixed colonies with French majorities, (2) the Dual Monarchy survives for a little over a century until some old claimant to the English throne starts a legitimist uprising (think John of Braganza and the Habsburgs) and he manages to get crowned and the Union dissolves or (3) Acts of Union 1707 style for England and France, although that is extremely unlikely.
The fact that the war continued after Charles VI kicked the bucket would make a mockery of the idea that "those who mattered" had just accepted it.
Why would he treat England as a secondary title? That's never been satisfactorily demonstrated to be a given. We don't see the Habsburgs claim King of Hungary as their most important title (I'm ignoring that of being Emperor, since the dynasty outlasted the HRE so if it was rendered irrelevant by that, that leaves it would not have been irrelevant when the Habsburgs figured "Austria" was worth making imperial), or of Bohemia.
The first three are not comparable, and I don't know how much connection the later two had to where they came from.
4) The Dual Monarchy doesn't last out the reign of Henry VI/II, because Henry VI's incompetence inspires in a rebellion in one or both by a claimant of one or the other thrones.
You're omitting the fact that after Charles VI kicked the bucket on the thrones of France and England sat a nine-month old baby.
You have no idea how tempting it was to make a joke about feeling good about being in pretty good shape for someone over four hundred years old. If you do, I'm glad I'm not the only who who feels the urge to be silly now and then.Remember when James VI became King of England?
Its rather questionable France was significantly richer or that Paris was "way better in terms of everything than London", especially the former.The thing is, I don't think the Lancastrians would pass the opportunity to move to a richer Kingdom with a richer capital. Paris was way better in terms of everything than London. Also, remaining in London and treating their richer, more populous and more prestigious realm as a viceroyalty would alienate their French subjects to the point of rebelling and I doubt they really wanted that.
Hungary for most of its history very much was more prestigous (its a kingdom vs. something promoted from a march to a duchy to an "archduchy") and richer (valuable mines.).I'm pretty confused by your Austria example. Are you saying that the Habsburgs should have made Hungary their primary title in 1806? Why would they do that? Hungary has never been more prestigious or richer than Austria proper and Hungary was a kingdom only in name since it was pretty much integrated in Austria by then.
The Stuarts are moving from a much weaker and poorer kingdom to a richer and stronger one. Hanover is that plus an even more prestigious title (king vs. not). The Habsburgs are a case of splitting the inheritance (since Charles V/I didn't move to either, he was peripatetic), so of course the branch primarily in Spain went Spanish.Explain why are they not comparable.
Did either of their German kings have anything home of any consequence?Also, the thrones of Romania and Bulgaria had no connection to their German Kings. Both of them had never been to their countries prior to their coronation. In Romania, for example, the branch was romanianized in one generation (Charles I doesn't count since he didn't have any issue), Charles II was baptized as an Eastern Orthodox, spoke Romanian natively and was romanian in all but DNA.
Which has what to do with the price of tea? You don't see a rebellion in England because the heir is a nine month year old baby.
You have no idea how tempting it was to make a joke about feeling good about being in pretty good shape for someone over four hundred years old. If you do, I'm glad I'm not the only who who feels the urge to be silly now and then.
Yes. Not comparable unless you think England was poor and weak in the early fifteenth century, which it managing to take over France would disprove even if OTL is more iffy.
And I'm not convinced fifteenth century France has so much prestige relative to England as say, two hundred years earlier.
Hungary for most of its history very much was more prestigous (its a kingdom vs. something promoted from a march to a duchy to an "archduchy") and richer (valuable mines.).
Here, we have a powerful and prosperous kingdom that the king has no reason to treat as a backwater as the place to be potentially left.
Did either of their German kings have anything home of any consequence?
Having a strong King such as Henry leading English forces (assuming the Joan of Arc charade still happens in this scenario) it's a given that England wins the Hundred Years War. Don't remember exactly where I read that, but Charles VII considered fleeing to Spain sometime into the 1430s.
It has to do with everything. For Charles VII and the loyalist French forces the death of Henry was a blessing. Hell, it was a miracle for the French that England's luck had ran out exactly at that point after almost a century of beating them senseless with less resources and less manpower. Having a strong King such as Henry leading English forces (assuming the Joan of Arc charade still happens in this scenario) it's a given that England wins the Hundred Years War. Don't remember exactly where I read that, but Charles VII considered fleeing to Spain sometime into the 1430s.
I thought about that when I wrote about James' accession![]()
I'm not sure if France was so much stronger as to make it inevitable that the House of Lancaster would prefer to rule from France. At least strong in the ways that are valuable to the king.England wasn't weak, that's true, but in absolute numbers France would be much stronger. England benefitted from competent and strong leaders (Henry IV, Henry V) who managed to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, while the French were plagued with incompetent, often mad rulers. When they had the luck of having a good King (Charles V), the French could easily beat back the English. Charles VII wasn't a particularly good King but he profitted imensely from Henry's death.
Well, the fierceness with which the English Kings fought for the French title might convince you.
In 1806 that wasn't the case anymore. Hungary had been defunct since 1526. Not to mention the difference between Vienna and Budapest, there's really no contest there.
And you have a realm that could be even more prosperous and powerful if stable and pacified.
No, they didn't, but the point stands, when a monarch of a lesser realm moves to one that is stronger (or potentially stronger) his successors will, most likely be "converted".