There is a lot of discussion abour England chances to win HYW in case of Henry V survival. But this is not the one of them. Instead, I want to ask about potential political, cultural and historical consequences of Henry V beign crowned with full ceremony in Reims Cathedral at november 1422. Also let say that after his coronation, "Henry V&II" lives for few months in Paris and then is able to return to England sometimes in spring 1423.

How different history of both kingdoms would have been, had Treaty of Troyes was de facto executed in 1422 (OTL his son was crowned King of France in 1431, but it was already too late)? Is there any chance, that Lancasters will be - at least for some time - considered "legit" rulers of France, and Henry V will also be french "Henri II"? How this will change english culture and history? How Henry will be welcomed in his homeland after return? How coronation will Charles Vois? Is it possible, that with order of succesion broken, some Valois cadet branch will try their luck?
 
Ruling France from England is Very Questionable. I suppose his wife helps with regards to legitimacy, especially if she's as fertile as she was IOTL
 
Ruling France from England is Very Questionable.
No doubt about it - but again - ruling two kingdoms is never easy - and Henry (as well as his potential Lancasterian successors - assuming they will keep the htrone long enough) will need english support to rule anything at all. As conqueror, he can't rule without army, also it would propably be easier for him to mobilize his english subjects, since it's easier to plunder some village in France to than persuade Parlament to rise taxes. Plus at least for few first years) in England Henry's a hero, and in France he is a tyrant.
 
No doubt about it - but again - ruling two kingdoms is never easy - and Henry (as well as his potential Lancasterian successors - assuming they will keep the throne long enough) will need english support to rule anything at all. As conqueror, he can't rule without army, also it would propably be easier for him to mobilize his english subjects, since it's easier to plunder some village in France to than persuade Parlament to rise taxes. Plus at least for few first years) in England Henry's a hero, and in France he is a tyrant.
How are they keeping the throne with such difficulty? Maybe Henry has to be a lot nicer to his French subjects after acquiring his throne. Which will turn English subjects against him.
 
Well, if there's any English to French trading going on that could be made easier if Henry built a bridge over the ocean to link the two countries - you don't have to worry about boats sinking then, so that could win him so brownie points!
 
Well, if there's any English to French trading going on that could be made easier if Henry built a bridge over the ocean to link the two countries - you don't have to worry about boats sinking then, so that could win him so brownie points!
🎶🎵London bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down...🎵🎶
 
How are they keeping the throne with such difficulty? Maybe Henry has to be a lot nicer to his French subjects after acquiring his throne. Which will turn English subjects against him.
I quess he could try - but again I doubt it will do much good - after all it was after Agincourt (and his order to execute prisoners after the battle), after Siege of Rouen. I really don't see Henry V & Henri II as beloved ruler in France.

Also, note that this is not about Lancasterian chance in France, but about year 1422, when after death of Charles VI, new King of France is crowned few weeks later.
 
I don't see it lasting far more than his own reign, the realms splitting between Henry VI and a possible future son. Ruling both Kingdoms at that time is both logistically difficult and at this time, there is a concept of England that is in opposition to France. If the King favors his French holdings, his Barons are gonna kick him out. Still, an English aligned France, if it held would have a tremendous effect on the incoming Wars of the Roses (or even butterfly them away from ever happening) and the political factions around it. Henry VI wouldn't have to marry Margaret of Anjou, the armed bands that were formed from returning veterans from France wouldn't be created or be as large since there's still need of them in the continent and the loss of French holdings and the general incompetence of King Henry VI was one of the reasons the Yorkists put forth as a reason for them to be Kings
 
So how long does Henry V live for? 1423 is still a long way from stomping out the Dauphin and his followers, crowned king or not.
 
The key to success for Henry V was the support of the Duchy/Principality of Burgundy. OTL the switch of Philip the Good in the English camp after the assassination of his father in 1419, gave the constitution of the treaty of Troyes. The Anglo-Burgundian alliance crushed the supporters of the Dauphin Charles, and despite the death of Henry V, the friendship was maintained by John of Beford, as regent of France - notably by marrying the sister of Philip of Burgundy. The alliance will be maintained until 1435, when French and Burgundians will be reconciled.

Note that Duke Philip had an ambiguous position on English supremacy. While being the initiator of the alienation of the French crown to the Valois, he played the role of arbiter with a wait-and-see attitude. The alliance with the Lancasters is profitable to him, as long as he can carry out his "eastern and northern" policy in the Netherlands and in Lorraine, but when a rivalry arises with Humphrey of Gloucester around the succession of Hainaut, Holland and da Zeeland, then the partnership is weakened. When Charles VII regains the upper hand over the English, then Philip the Good can ally himself with him without any problem, as long as he is not threatened in his imperial pre-square. While maintaining an interest in French domestic politics - illustrated by the marriages of his heir, with a Valois then Bourbon princess, in support and then in opposition to the king.

With the ascension of Henry V to the throne of France, the alliance will undeniably be maintained as an OTL despite the opposition - notably that of Gloucester. Information is often said but I do not know if it is true; that on his deathbed, Henry V would have asked that the regency in France be entrusted to Burgundy but Bedford would have monopolized the place. If true, then the place of the first peer of France would have become greater and would risk giving rise to a rivalry between Henry and Philip - will it lead to a conflict or not? Let's imagine.

Then, the "other leg" of Henry V in France would be his wife. It is by her, who holds the French crown. Although the Treaty of Troyes made Henry V the "son" of Charles VI, it was his wife who transmitted to him the rights to the crown mixed with the Edwardian claim. Catherine de Valois, was deprived of power by Henry's brothers and advisers but with her husband alive, she could become a co-sovereign of France. Henry V, who cannot stay on the continent indefinitely and must leave, who better than the one who assures him the crown as regent, and what better negotiator with the Dauphin than the queen. Moreover, there are the future children who by the shuttles between London and Paris will be little but an English princess as an element linking, by marriage, the Burgundians to the Lancasters.

There are many other elements to take into account. The lifespan of Henry V and the mental health of Henry of Windsor, or the future of the Dauphin and his family, etc... I like to imagine that the Burgundians can delight the French crown, in the medium to long term. Imagine Charles the Bold, King of France! Either as the eldest of the Valois after the disappearance of the elder, Orleans and Angevin branches and/or either by his Franco-English wife within the framework of the torments created by the madness of his brother-in-law Henry. It's a scenario that makes me happy to conceptualize. I could go on discussing this for a long time.
 
Last edited:
This depends entirely on how much longer Henry V lives. Judging by your questions, I'm guessing that you're thinking he'd live a full natural life. (Henry's father, grandfather and great-grandfather all died of natural causes, so I'm just gonna average them out and say Henry V had a life expectancy of 55-56 years -- that has him living until early 1442.)

The coronation of a Lancastrian king in 1422 is game over for the Valois if Henry can accomplish militarily what Bedford did OTL 1422-28. The Valois were quite literally at the point of collapse in OTL 1428 -- Charles was considering exile in Scotland in the event that Orléans fell. His cause was only saved by the appearance of the Maid of Orléans, who led him to Reims and saw him crowned king just as "God" told her she would. This was a propaganda victory of such enormity that it single-handedly resurrected the Valois war effort. If the English are able to achieve this level of military dominance in ATL and have Henry crowned as king, then ... that's it. The ATL Valois cause collapses. Lancastrian France is a reality.

The "if" of military dominance is key, though.

Negotiating the end to the war in a world where the Lancastrians are victorious would probably create what I like to call a "reverse Aquitaine" -- i.e., the Valois would remain significant landholders in Lancastrian France and their holdings would be geographically concentrated in the east and southeast. (Hence, the reverse situation of the English holdings concentrated in the west and southwest of Valois France.) Charles would probably continue to hold the Dauphiné, which only came to the crown during the reign of Philip VI and thus Henry has no real claim to the territory. I think the cadet branches of the Valois would be swept out of the old lands of the Angevin Empire, , both because the English were militarily ascendant in these areas and because of their symbolism as former Plantagenet lands. Perhaps the junior branch Valois would be compensated for their losses in these areas with land grants in the Languedoc, where more than a century of Anglo-Gascon raids is sure to have poisoned the region against the Lancastrian crown. (The Valois-Angevins had come into possession of Lorraine by marriage, so they would retain control of that.) All in all, I think Lancastrian France looks something like this. (Ignore the key on this quickly Photoshopped map I made. Red = Lancastrian/Lancastrian ally. Green=Valois/Valois ally.)

Henry's court probably moves permanently to Paris. It's possible that the English upper nobility drifts backs toward its French roots. Those of direct royal descent certainly would, though I suspect that at least some lords who had built significant regional power bases (Percy and Neville in the north, Mowbray and de la Pole in the east, etc.) remain more culturally English than French. I think this sets up a really interesting long-term problem for the Lancastrians, as they become alienated from major figures within the English nobility while probably never fully reconciling with their Valois cousins in France. I find this particularly interesting because one of the lords who'd acquired a pretty geographically compact set of holdings was the duke of the York (the Mortimer inheritance was likely more valuable than Edmund of Langley's estate, and highly concentrated in the Welsh marches, with claims to large swathes of Ireland then under Gaelic control). Considering York's own royal claim, one has to wonder if he or his son would become a figurehead for noble discontent with Lancastrian rule, as he was in OTL.

Speaking of Ireland, it and Scotland are something that I never see discussed in "England wins" scenarios and they absolutely fascinate me. The Anglo-Irish would almost certainly expect a major infusion of cash following the conquest of France and English lords with claims to land that had been reconquered by the Gaelic Irish -- York chief among them, as de jure earl of Ulster and lord of Connacht, neither of which he had real control over. But the economic condition of France following the Lancastrian conquest would likely make the prospect of French revenue going toward the reconquest of Ireland extremely unpopular across all levels of French society. Scotland, meanwhile, has a captive king and an aging regent. Is James I compelled to submit to English overlordship to secure his release in ATL? (Would he really have much of a choice after the English conquer France and the Auld Alliance becomes defunct?) Would James hold true to that submission once back in Scotland? Would the Scottish lords accept James after he submitted or turn to Murdoch and the Albany line as their true kings?


Ruling France from England is Very Questionable. I suppose his wife helps with regards to legitimacy, especially if she's as fertile as she was IOTL
As conqueror, he can't rule without army, also it would propably be easier for him to mobilize his english subjects, since it's easier to plunder some village in France to than persuade Parlament to rise taxes. Plus at least for few first years) in England Henry's a hero, and in France he is a tyrant.
after Agincourt (and his order to execute prisoners after the battle), after Siege of Rouen. I really don't see Henry V & Henri II as beloved ruler in France.
This sort of thinking pops up a lot in "Henry V wins" scenarios and there's quite a lot in the historical record to refute it. France, of course, wasn't a single entity with a single people. Its strong regionalism is part of what dragged the Hundred Years War on for so long, and we can see different regions of France reacting differently to English rule and the centralization of power more generally. Several Norman records exist that paint Henry quite favorably after his conquest of Normandy, both local chroniclers and the journals of Normans serving the Anglo-Norman duchy. Looking at them, Henry is pretty consistently painted as a "tough, but fair" ruler and English administration is consistently praised after decades of dysfunction. We see a similar dynamic play out in the Île-de-France, where Bedford was incredibly popular for stabilizing the region.

If Henry can successfully bring the competent locals into government administration, as he did in Normandy and OTL Bedford did in the Île-de-France, and keep Burgundy on-side, then English rule would probably be uncontroversial in many areas after Valois garrisons were evicted. Some areas, like the aforementioned Languedoc, probably had too many resentments built up to accept Lancastrian rule, though. Anglo-Gascon routiers had been pillaging the area since 1340s, so generations would have grown up thinking of the English as boogeymen. It's hard to imagine they could easily accept Lancastrian rule. And, of course, Brittany was Brittany. It was going to be a pain in the as whether Lancaster or Valois sat the throne.
 
@material_boy
I agree with many of your analyses. In particular on the existence of the great “Valois” magnates/princes in the south and south-east - I would add the Duke of Orléans, whom I would see restored to his lands as a sign of appeasement.

On the francization of the court of Henry V, I would be a bit more reserved. He is the king who marked the domination of English in the English monarchy, and in particular in diplomacy with France - he had for example refused to treaty in French with Duke John of Burgundy and dealt with translators, although he spoke it very well. Without making him a "Patron of English letters" like Francis I with French - although that may be quite possible if he lives. Above all, I see him adopting the role of universal Christian king, as Francis I and especially the Emperor Charles V would later do. Support personal union through the church and his personal piety. Although obviously, the Anglo-French lords will be put forward, but more in relay of Henry's power over France in his absence. Especially if, like OTL, Henry's brothers die without descendants, seeing the French appanages fallen into the king's sons.

A remark of little importance, but I would cut the pear in half concerning his age, taking the average between Henry IV and John of Gaunt. Or 50-53 years, which would bring the end of his life between 1436-1439.
 
Last edited:
I would add the Duke of Orléans, whom I would see restored to his lands as a sign of appeasement.
I can see that. Henry would be hard up for cash, so a ransom that included Orléans keeping his lands in exchange for a large sum of gold could be acceptable.


On the francization of the court of Henry V, I would be a bit more reserved. He is the king who marked the domination of English in the English monarchy, and in particular in diplomacy with France - he had for example refused to treaty in French with Duke John of Burgundy and dealt with translators, although he spoke it very well. Without making him a "Patron of English letters" like Francis I with French - although that may be quite possible if he lives.
I think Paris definitely becomes the default position of Henry's court. He was already spending far more time in France by the end of his life and, though you could argue he would be less inclined to reside in France after the successful conclusion of the war, I think his hands-on management of Wales post-Glyndwr and England in the years immediately following his succession show that he would want to see through the reform of his French government personally. This would keep him in France for years, and by that time he'd probably have had several children born and being raised in France. So, even if Henry himself remains more English than French, his children would be aliens in their father's homeland.

A good parallel to this would be Richard II, who first came to England in 1371 with a heavy accent and manners far different from the English children he met.


Above all, I see him adopting the role of universal Christian king, as Francis I and especially the Emperor Charles V would later do. Support personal union through the church and his personal piety.
Strongly agree with this. Ending the Schism and going on crusade were major priorities for Henry IV, with whom Henry V had a weirdly competitive relationship even after his father's death. He would absolutely want to establish himself in this way and would very likely commit his life post-conquest of France to a crusade in the east. (I suspect the difficulties of managing his new realm would never actually allow him to go, though.) Indeed, we begin to see bits of this peak through in OTL as Henry V worked with the emperor to end the Schism. Perhaps ATL Henry would try to forge closer relations with the other emperor, as John the Catholic came to the imperial throne in Constantinople in 1425.


Although obviously, the Anglo-French lords will be put forward, but more in relay of Henry's power over France in his absence. Especially if, like OTL, Henry's brothers die without descendants, seeing the French appanages fallen into the king's sons.
Once consequence of Henry's survival is Gloucester's marriage. I don't know that Humphrey is bold enough to make his secret marriage to Jacqueline while Henry is alive, which likely means Gloucester never even means Eleanor Cobham. A different wife could lead to a continuing line of Lancaster-Gloucester dukes.


A remark of little importance, but I would cut the pear in half concerning his age, taking the average between Henry IV and John of Gaunt. Or 50-53 years, which would bring the end of his life between 1436-1439.
Though I generally including more examples is better when it trying to guess at an alt character's age, I could see ATL Henry V living a bit shorter than I originally guessed. Perhaps years of war and the stress that comes with it shortens his life a bit.
 
On the francization of the court of Henry V, I would be a bit more reserved. He is the king who marked the domination of English in the English monarchy, and in particular in diplomacy with France - he had for example refused to treaty in French with Duke John of Burgundy and dealt with translators, although he spoke it very well. Without making him a "Patron of English letters" like Francis I with French - although that may be quite possible if he lives.
That was when he was just king of England though. As king of France, he needs the nobility on his side and would not want to appear to be too much of a foreigner. I would also suspect that the English nobles in this era are more likely to know French than the reverse.
 
I think Paris definitely becomes the default position of Henry's court. He was already spending far more time in France by the end of his life and, though you could argue he would be less inclined to reside in France after the successful conclusion of the war, I think his hands-on management of Wales post-Glyndwr and England in the years immediately following his succession show that he would want to see through the reform of his French government personally. This would keep him in France for years, and by that time he'd probably have had several children born and being raised in France. So, even if Henry himself remains more English than French, his children would be aliens in their father's homeland.
If we talk about French geopolitical tropism, yes, Henry V will probably reside on the continent for the rest of his life, although I see him doing many shuttles between France and England - which will surely affect his health. Indeed, Wales and Scotland pacified for one and submitted (partially) for the other will give no reason to Henry to return to his homeland, the "conquest" of Ireland can be ensured by his brother John. Or, let's imagine that Henry forced Catherine to live in England to give birth there, a kind of personal reminder of her origins through the birth of her children, but here I'm making too many assumptions.

Strongly agree with this. Ending the Schism and going on crusade were major priorities for Henry IV, with whom Henry V had a weirdly competitive relationship even after his father's death. He would absolutely want to establish himself in this way and would very likely commit his life post-conquest of France to a crusade in the east. (I suspect the difficulties of managing his new realm would never actually allow him to go, though.) Indeed, we begin to see bits of this peak through in OTL as Henry V worked with the emperor to end the Schism. Perhaps ATL Henry would try to forge closer relations with the other emperor, as John the Catholic came to the imperial throne in Constantinople in 1425.
Glad we're meeting on this. Add, the Hussite Revolt, and there we have the potential hubris of Henry V - The Great Unification of Christendom. And why not, a candidacy for the imperial throne! I would point out that he would get into a competition with the Burgundian court over the crusade. In Europe, it is the CENTER of the crossed imagination, in particular thanks to the memory of John the Fearless - Philip the good, on many occasions will take the cross without ever leaving.

Inevitable will be the rivalry between Lancaster and Burgundy. The duke would become a kind of defenders of French lords against English royalty. Especially since Philip was very popular with Parisians, which would certainly tend to annoy and scare Henry.

Once consequence of Henry's survival is Gloucester's marriage. I don't know that Humphrey is bold enough to make his secret marriage to Jacqueline while Henry is alive, which likely means Gloucester never even means Eleanor Cobham. A different wife could lead to a continuing line of Lancaster-Gloucester dukes.

I want to say why not. How about a wedding behind Henry's back by Humphrey? He would become the black chick of the royal siblings by taking the lead of an English party within the personal union. And what better than to piss off Henry's Burgundian ally. Especially since he will certainly outlive his brother and could have influence on Henry VI. The English heir to the Franco-English ensemble.
 
If we talk about French geopolitical tropism, yes, Henry V will probably reside on the continent for the rest of his life, although I see him doing many shuttles between France and England - which will surely affect his health. Indeed, Wales and Scotland pacified for one and submitted (partially) for the other will give no reason to Henry to return to his homeland, the "conquest" of Ireland can be ensured by his brother John. Or, let's imagine that Henry forced Catherine to live in England to give birth there, a kind of personal reminder of her origins through the birth of her children, but here I'm making too many assumptions.
John seems too important to the French project to send off to Ireland. He was the most talented of the Lancastrian boys, which is really saying something considering how they all turned out, and he would likely play a major role in the government of Lancastrian France. His marriage to a Burgundian girl makes as much sense in ATL as it did in OTL, and the Philip's sisters were his co-heiresses until he found a wife who could give him children in the 1430s. All in all, I just don't see it.


Glad we're meeting on this. Add, the Hussite Revolt, and there we have the potential hubris of Henry V - The Great Unification of Christendom. And why not, a candidacy for the imperial throne! I would point out that he would get into a competition with the Burgundian court over the crusade. In Europe, it is the CENTER of the crossed imagination, in particular thanks to the memory of John the Fearless - Philip the good, on many occasions will take the cross without ever leaving.
I would really like Henry's hubris to include him getting a Palaiologos princess for Henry of Windsor -- an alliance that speaks to Henry V's ambitions in crusade and the union of all Christendom, but provides no real political benefit. Sets poor Henry VI up for some real hardship later on.


Inevitable will be the rivalry between Lancaster and Burgundy. The duke would become a kind of defenders of French lords against English royalty. Especially since Philip was very popular with Parisians, which would certainly tend to annoy and scare Henry.
I'm not sure I see this, really. What would Philip the Good have to gain? Even as the English declined in OTL, he didn't so much turn against them as he did become a mostly neutral party so as to pursue his own interests. He has to contend with the almost-always-rebellious Low Countries as well as the fragmentation of his vast estates, with his Angevin cousin's control of Bar and Lorraine and his Burgundian cousin's control of Brabant and Luxembourg separating the two Burgundies from Flanders and Flanders from Holland and Zeeland. Considering OTL Philip's interest in geographically uniting his territories, perhaps best exampled in his trying to bring Jacqueline of Hainaut's lands to himself rather than his cousin, who was Jacqueline's estranged husband, suggests to me that ATL Philip would be more likely to form rivalries with these cousins than he would the Lancastrian crown. Indeed, maintaining an alliance with the Lancastrian crown may allow him to pursue these other rivalries even more aggressively in ATL.


I want to say why not. How about a wedding behind Henry's back by Humphrey? He would become the black chick of the royal siblings by taking the lead of an English party within the personal union. And what better than to piss off Henry's Burgundian ally. Especially since he will certainly outlive his brother and could have influence on Henry VI. The English heir to the Franco-English ensemble.
The exact timing of Gloucester's marriage is unknown, but it appears to have sometime shortly after Henry V's death. Considering Jacqueline was in England for more than a year at this point, the timing suggests to me that Henry knew Jacqueline was a potential problem for the Anglo-Burgundian alliance and that Gloucester was unwilling to cross his kingly brother. (This is basically the same case as Gloucester's OTL rival, Henry Beaufort, who Henry V forbade from becoming a cardinal and then did just that at the very first opportunity after the king's death.)
 
So how long does Henry V live for? 1423 is still a long way from stomping out the Dauphin and his followers, crowned king or not.
Since technically we are still in 1422-1423, does it really matter? For new, we still sure discuss about how population of Paris, Charles Valois, Burgundians and rest of Europe will react to Henry's coronation. In theory, there is a coninuity of goverment, but king's rule is strong only in few areas. There still is rightful heir waiting in the south.
I don't see it lasting far more than his own reign, the realms splitting between Henry VI and a possible future son. Ruling both Kingdoms at that time is both logistically difficult and at this time, there is a concept of England that is in opposition to France. If the King favors his French holdings, his Barons are gonna kick him out.
No doubt about it. There is just too much to do when you reign over two completly different Kingdoms. I still don't understand why people assume than Lancasters will have to favor France though - sure, in XV, France had much more splendor - but at lleast for first 2 genereations , Lancasters will need support of english to keep both trones. I doubt they would last long in France without english troops and support of english lords.
This depends entirely on how much longer Henry V lives. Judging by your questions, I'm guessing that you're thinking he'd live a full natural life. (Henry's father, grandfather and great-grandfather all died of natural causes, so I'm just gonna average them out and say Henry V had a life expectancy of 55-56 years -- that has him living until early 1442.)
To be fair, I totally could imagine situation where Henry is assassinated, he could die while traveling between his kingdoms, or get caugh by some plaque. Like I said - I'm more interested in POD where Treaty of Troyes was actually executed than long rule of Plantegenets in France. I see a lot of possibilities here - what with Yorks for example? Someone could say, that if right to the french throne can be transfered by mother, they have stronger claim to the Crown of France. And assuming that Charles Valois will be defeated, I don't see reason why cadet branches of Valois wouldn't try their luck. New few decades alone should be interesting, especially if Henry of Windsor will still have "problems".
Strongly agree with this. Ending the Schism and going on crusade were major priorities for Henry IV, with whom Henry V had a weirdly competitive relationship even after his father's death. He would absolutely want to establish himself in this way and would very likely commit his life post-conquest of France to a crusade in the east. (I suspect the difficulties of managing his new realm would never actually allow him to go, though.) Indeed, we begin to see bits of this peak through in OTL as Henry V worked with the emperor to end the Schism. Perhaps ATL Henry would try to forge closer relations with the other emperor, as John the Catholic came to the imperial throne in Constantinople in 1425.
Most likely, Henry apperantly dreamed about Crusade, saving Europe from Turks and taking back the Holy Land. He could try to use the idea to unite populations of both his Kingdoms. Also, judging from his character, he could use escape from politics - especially after few years of rulling two countries.
He was already spending far more time in France by the end of his life and, though you could argue he would be less inclined to reside in France after the successful conclusion of the war, I think his hands-on management of Wales post-Glyndwr and England in the years immediately following his succession show that he would want to see through the reform of his French government personally.
Like I said - he need England to rule France. So for me, return to England after coronation is simply a must. Return in glory will sure make him popular in England.
Is James I compelled to submit to English overlordship to secure his release in ATL? (Would he really have much of a choice after the English conquer France and the Auld Alliance becomes defunct?) Would James hold true to that submission once back in Scotland? Would the Scottish lords accept James after he submitted or turn to Murdoch and the Albany line as their true kings?
I was wandering about if myself - James life in England was... complicated. He was both prisoner and a quest on english court, and was technically rised by Henry's father. He was knighted and well educated in England. But on the other hand, Henry V apperently wasn't so kind to him at first. Also, James wanted to avenge his brother's death and consider Albany traitors, plus he was in France by his own will. Maybe in moment of his greates triumph, Henry will relase him as reard for his bravery? It could be good for his "public image" everywhere, except for the England. But to be fair, with France to govern, I don't see Lancasters having time or manpower to deal with Scotland.
 
Since technically we are still in 1422-1423, does it really matter? For new, we still sure discuss about how population of Paris, Charles Valois, Burgundians and rest of Europe will react to Henry's coronation. In theory, there is a coninuity of goverment, but king's rule is strong only in few areas. There still is rightful heir waiting in the south.
It matters in the sense that "Henry is crowned king of France." doesn't really change the situation very much, I think. Especially as far as say, English culture - so he actually lived long enough to be King of France. That doesn't really make the English language less important or change that his historical reputation in England is "heroic warrior king", IMO.
 
To be fair, I totally could imagine situation where Henry is assassinated, he could die while traveling between his kingdoms, or get caugh by some plaque. Like I said - I'm more interested in POD where Treaty of Troyes was actually executed than long rule of Plantegenets in France.
OK, I don't really understand what this topic is about anymore then. You just want a scenario where Henry will appear in like a Wikipedia list as an official king? Like, if he gets crowned and dies two weeks later then nothing much changes -- Henry VI is still an infant.


It matters in the sense that "Henry is crowned king of France." doesn't really change the situation very much, I think
I think Henry being crowned matters quite a lot, actually, but not if what OP is suggesting is that Henry just keels over shortly after getting crowned.
 
I think the coronation doesn't matter very much, on its own. If he's king for say ten years (let alone longer), yeah, that's going to have interesting consequences. But "Henry has been crowned King of France." isn't going to in itself knock over the Dauphin (say), I think.
 
Top