WI Henry V Doesn't Die Young

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?
 
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?

Allowing others to take up the discussion on if Henry V can even conquer France - Henry Vi is likely to bungle it horribly. That might we see his fathers precarious accomplishment crumble.
 
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.

If England fully conquers France, then no doubt they will have to permanently devote significant resources to keep it. We will no doubt see English nobles granted estates in France,seized from the Valois supporters. Next, with no war of the roses England would have more resources to devote to France. On the other hand, England would still have a much larger, powerful feudal nobility. The war of the roses killed off large amounts of the nobility, which allowed Henry VII and the House of Tudor to repress the nobility's rights to private armies and various other feudal privileges, thus created the semi-absolutism of the Tudor era. Here we wouldn't see this, or if we did so it wouldn't be as easy as OTL. Third, there's the Royal Court. Where will they reside? London or Paris? Will the time be divided between the two or will one nation be favored over the other? I assume England will be the more powerful initially but will it remain that way? And finally, colonization. Assuming the union lasts until the Colonial era, who will the colonies answer to? Will there be English colonies and French ones? Or would we see a joint government office oversee the colonial ventures?
 
Henry V not dying young does not mean Henry V actually controling all the kingdom of France.

You could have Henry V alive and still have Joan of Arc, Orleans resisting successfully and Patay.
 
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.

Recognized as the rightful heir by . . . who? Not very many Frenchmen.

And why would it weaken England more than France?

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.

England was pretty involved in continental affairs OTL. Not in the same way it might be with control of France, but still involved.

And since Richard of York's problem was that he felt he wasn't given his just due OTL, making him feel even more kept out of power by the court faction's self-interest is not exactly a net gain.

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.

First problem is whether or not it can survive the first generation. Even if Henry V somehow does manage it, he's leaving a huge debt to his successor and a barely pacified kingdom much larger than England. That's not a small problem.
 
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.

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. 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? :p) on the Romanian and Bulgarian 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.
 
He was recognized by who mattered: Charles VI and the Estates.

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.

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.
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.

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? :p) on the Romanian and Bulgarian thrones.
The first three are not comparable, and I don't know how much connection the later two had to where they came from.

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.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

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.

Remember when James VI became King of England? 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.

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 first three are not comparable, and I don't know how much connection the later two had to where they came from.

Explain why are they not comparable. 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.

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.

Or that. Or one of his brothers (assuming Henry V had more children) claims both thrones in an uprising.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

I do not take that as a sign that the powers that be in France had any real loyalty to the House of Lancaster., where as in England Henry V's untimely death wasn't treated as "okay, the guy who might actually be able to put pressure on us is gone"

Remember when James VI became King of England?
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.

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.
Its rather questionable France was significantly richer or that Paris was "way better in terms of everything than London", especially the former.

And I'm not convinced fifteenth century France has so much prestige relative to England as say, two hundred years earlier.
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.
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.).

And no, I'm not saying they should have - I think they should have picked what they felt was better and run with it. But it would make sense to pick Bohemia or Hungary as their primary title in 1806, not Austria, if we're going with the arguments made for why France and not England as the primary title for Henry V (Using his English ordinal for convenience).

And that Hungary was integrated into Austria rather than vice-versa - or that Bohemia was - says something.

Explain why are they not comparable.
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.

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.

Mind, I personally doubt any halfway workable dual monarchy is going to be able to settle in either London or Paris and ignore the other, so I'm not arguing for England first.

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.
Did either of their German kings have anything home of any consequence?
 
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.

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.

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.


I thought about that when I wrote about James' accession :D

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.

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.

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.).

Well, the fierceness with which the English Kings fought for the French title might convince you :p.

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.

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.

And you have a realm that could be even more prosperous and powerful if stable and pacified.

Did either of their German kings have anything home of any consequence?

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".
 
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.

No. Look at the Battle of Baugé : Charles VII was able to hold english progression, and even to advance in Normandy.
You really understimate the possibilities of Armagnacs and French side, even if it's true they weren't the best.

While the conflict is certainly to continue in the case of Joan of Arc is butterflied (Battle of Verneuil is a good exemple on the failures of Armagnac/French army) it is widely considered that Lancaster held northen France mainly thanks to Bourguinon alliance that is described as "looser and looser" even without Charles VII appeasment policy.

Don't forget that this part of Hundered years Wars is finally much a French civil war with english involvment, than anything else.

During his reign, Henry V didn't made much for appease local population : places like Normandy had open rebellions against his rule, and even in Paris you had resentment against their rule.

To quote the Bourgeois of Paris, a Bourguignin sided parisian : in 1424 "In these times, nothing was made but by Englishmen and no lord of France had regards in the government of the kingdom". Along this same source, you had a short mention of the death of Henry V (5 lines) when death of Charles Vi easily take pages.

Look at the map : Lancaster-Bourguinon dominated northern, somewhat richer lands but not only it was a double domination, and quite a conflicting one, but Charles VII still hold 2/3 of the kingdom and prooved being in a good position to at least resist :Joan of Arc didn't created these ressources and the weakness on Lancaster side, but she (and her promoters in the Court, more likely) managed to use them.

My take on the OP : Henry V not dying would really help English side. He still will have to deal with the issues I mentioned above.
First, he had to make compromises with Bourguinions regarding domination of north France. That would be the harder : he didn't made much for that OTL, and being (at least for English side) the legitimate king of France, he would have hard time making the Bourguignons even more powerful than they already were.
Second, he didn't exactly tried that much to advance further in Charles' principalty, but much to reinforce his presence in Normandy, Ile de France, Champagne. And if we believe that Henry V did pulled a John II the Good and made plans for crusade (it's difficult to say how much it was a real goal or not), he certainly wasn't going to advance south before some times.

That makes me encline to think the kingdom of France would be durably split. Without Joan of Arc's expedition or an equivalent (that I think it's hard, it's not like Charles VII was that passive), you'll maybe end at best (or at worst, depend on your point view, I guess) with a sicilian scenario with two kings claiming each other land.

But the more likely, I think, is indeed a longer English domination with Henry V still on business, but regarding on which unstable bases this domination was dependent and the troubles you still had in England, it eventually goes in favour of Valois. Probably with more exclaves Calais-like for England, that said.
 
Last edited:
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.

So, they didn't actually accept the House of Lancaster's claim, they just felt that Henry V was the winning horse in the early 1420s.

There's a difference.

I thought about that when I wrote about James' accession :D
:D

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.
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.

Well, the fierceness with which the English Kings fought for the French title might convince you :p.

No, it wouldn't. Wanting the title does not mean wanting the title MORE than that of the king of England.

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.

That's less than three hundred years out of a shared history (as in, both existing) of around eight hundred.

And you have a realm that could be even more prosperous and powerful if stable and pacified.

As far as the king goes, I'm not entirely sure.

Which also brings up the rather substantial issue of how much the Lancasterians have to compromise with the French nobles to win them over securely. Burgundy is going to want quite a lot, for example.

If this goes far enough, the royal power in France is going to be rather weak.

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".

And the issue is that England really isn't that much of a "lesser realm" if at all.
 
Top