Let's say that while Henry V of England died like OTL in 1422, he was able to father with Catherine of Valois another son. This child is born after his death, but unlike his older brother, he is both mentally and physically healthy. This way, during his entire reign Henry VI have an obvious succesor. In this situation, is there a reason for York to rebel? And without War of the Roses, is there a chance for England ro resume expansion in France?
WI: Henry V had second, healthy son
- Thread starter Emperor Lucas I
- Start date
I don’t think York would rebel. It looks like he always just wanted what was best for England, and only went for the crown when he felt there was no way out. Also, he despised Margaret of Anjou, and with a brother for Henry VI, Margaret’s less likely to be able to gain power.
For taking France, it depends on the military capacity of the brother.
For taking France, it depends on the military capacity of the brother.
I’m afraid there is an issue with producing another son, with the same death as OTL is that Henry VI wasn’t born until 6 December 1421 at which point, Henry V was already back in France, following his return on 10 June 1421 and would never return to England.
If Henry V did return that’s a whole different TL where he may not be killed.
Better option is Catherine having twins born.
If Henry V did return that’s a whole different TL where he may not be killed.
Better option is Catherine having twins born.
York would never experience being heir (or senior royal duke), and that cools his ambitions somewhat, and the slightly less anemic House of Lancaster probably means no one is thinking about the Mortimer claim.
If the younger brother (a Clarence, presumably?) doesn't get on with Henry or is frustrated into rebelling in the name of ''good governance'' (fiscal responsibility, removal of incompetent favourites, more robust prosecution of the war) then York could be a prominent backer, but there's a lot of water to go under the bridge there- *Clarence could be placed in command in France in the 1440s instead of the Beauforts, try and persuade his brother out of his desire for peace (and tendency to make naive concessions in pursuit of peace) etc.
Then, if the fall of English France is a bit more drawn out that obviously has flow on effects on Henry's mental state and the domestic situation in England.
If the younger brother (a Clarence, presumably?) doesn't get on with Henry or is frustrated into rebelling in the name of ''good governance'' (fiscal responsibility, removal of incompetent favourites, more robust prosecution of the war) then York could be a prominent backer, but there's a lot of water to go under the bridge there- *Clarence could be placed in command in France in the 1440s instead of the Beauforts, try and persuade his brother out of his desire for peace (and tendency to make naive concessions in pursuit of peace) etc.
Then, if the fall of English France is a bit more drawn out that obviously has flow on effects on Henry's mental state and the domestic situation in England.
Maybe it's indeed the best option... But is it realistic for one twin to be perfectly healthy and for the other to be... Henry VI?
But why Clarence? I know that Plantagenets had some tendency to name their family member in very "unorthodox" ways, but usually it's either from mother's side of family or some traditional, chrisitian name. I mean I'm not saying "no" - after all one of Henry's V paternal uncles was named Humprey - but I'm still curious about your "pick".
Jonathan1997
Banned
It would be Henry's younger brother that would act regent for his brother but there could be inviting in the House of Lancaster due to Margaret of Anjou wanting to use real power her self.
I think Thomas is more likely after Henry's recently deceased brother (who was also Clarence), but both work.
Unless he was extremely close to that brother, Gaunt is a better namesake. And if the boy was born after his death (maybe he and Catherine were briefly reunited in France) then John after Gaunt and Bedford is the logical choice
If they are fraternal twins, then they're just regular siblings who were born at the same time, so yes. Even if they are identical twins, it'still realistic because mental illnesses depend a lot on the person's life and environment. OTL Henry VI would never have had a mental breakdown if he was a monk or even a king of a country that wasn't at war. Also, the rest of Catherine's descendants didn't inherit her father's mental illnes.
Margaret of Anjou could never be a factor in England, since with more skilled leadership in France, they can avoid marriage - at least if it used to come with cession of Maine and Anjou like OTL.
I agree that John or Thomas are most likely. Another possibilities are Edward (after Edward III) Charles (after his mathernal grandfather), or... George (Judging by Henry V's fixation with St. George).
Judging how terrible English administration was in conquered lands OTL, very likely. But still - it won't be easy to defend continental lands.
Either way, survival of House of Lancaster very likely means no Mortimer's legacy. And if Henry's mental state is as bad as OTL, then I could even see his abdication.
Jonathan1997
Banned
Edward makes more sense when it comes to names the same goes for Richard Henry of Monmouth was close to King Richard II of England and possibly more so then his own father. Another reason why the English lost 100 years war was due to superior French technology by using cannons on the battlefield rather than just siege warfare. As for Henry V second son the most he could possibly do is stabilise the situation in Normandy but with that stated he my have to depose his own brother.
If anything the twin theory works even better.
The first twin born Henry, is weaker due to the second born taking the nutrients and growing stronger in the womb.
Name wise, there are a few options.
- Charles after her father, Charles VI of France
- Thomas after his uncle who died fighting in France, Thomas, Duke of Clarence
- John or Humphrey, after other uncles John, Duke of Bedford and Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester
Is it really a given that Thomas* here is actually in a position to be regent? He may be married to Eleanor of Navarre or a surviving Catherine of Asturias (kill off Henry IV) or something, if he has a kingdom of his own jure uxoris he isn't going to come England to play Protector.
Either match is pretty unlikely as Catherine would marry Charles of Navarre and Eleanor will marry in France.
Last edited:
I mean, probably but can make it happen if we wanted to know?
Besides Thomas is a "French" match till 1450.
Not that kind of French.
In any case Eleanor was not recalled in Navarre by her father before 1455 and she would become ruler only after his death in 1479. Catherine of Castile also had an half-brother from her father’s second wedding who died only in 1468 (and her father was still alive and able to have sons until 1454)
Though I think both Edward and Thomas are possible names, I agree with isabella that "John" is the most likely name for the boy, as Henry V seemed to be closest with his brother John in OTL, and their grandfather was also named John, so I'm just going to refer to ATL Henry V's second son as "John" hereafter for simplicity's sake.
I don't imagine that John's existence meaningfully changes the course of the Lancastrian War during the 20s or early- to mid-30s, as he would obviously be a boy at this time, but considering that the English were still fighting for the establishment of the dual monarchy at the time of Henry VI's coronation as Henry II of France, I would guess that John is created a major French lord in addition to a major English lord -- very likely duke of Clarence in England and perhaps duke of Normandy in France, or duke of Anjou and count of Maine after the death of Bedford. This gives John a vested interest in the conquest of France.
Assuming ATL Henry VI is as extraordinarily pious as he was in OTL, I would guess that still comes under the influence of his cardinal great uncle early in his life. This allows the Beaufort party to emerge as the dominant faction in ATL 1430s, as it did in OTL.
Richard of York is almost certainly still governor of France after the death of Bedford in ATL 1430s, as John is too young for the role at this time and York is effectively the only candidate acceptable to both Cardinal Beaufort and Gloucester. Perhaps John is awarded the governorship of France in 1440 instead of York getting a second term, though. John would be 18 by this time, so he could in theory take such a command, though more likely he'd get the title and the salary and York would get a separate title and salary (perhaps lord lieutenant of Normandy?) and the two would work alongside one another, allowing John to learn administration and diplomacy from York and military command and strategy from Talbot.
Assuming John is militarily and politically competent -- he needn't be a Bedford-level genius, simply competent -- then he may recognize the corruption of the court party as he approached his majority (i.e., late-1430s/early-1440s). He would certainly be aware of the court party's incompetence, if not their corruption, as he fought in France to take control of whatever lands he'd been promised.
John being in France in the early-40s may butterfly away Somerset's doomed Gascon campaign, as John may be able to convince Henry VI to send the men and money to Normandy instead, whereas York tried and failed to convince Henry VI to do this in OTL. This could significantly change the course of the war, as Somerset's campaign was not only a military failure, but effectively bankrupted the crown and upended York's negotiations for a possible alliance with Brittany and Alencon.
If John and York get the money and the 8,000 men for Normandy that OTL Somerset got for Gascony, then the influx of men and money may convince Brittany and Alencon to make the jump and join an English alliance. John and York can secure the borders of Normandy and Maine and mount a new offensive toward Paris, perhaps retaking Pontoise. This is great news on the military front, but the campaign likely bankrupts the English crown just as Somerset's OTL campaign did. The English need to sue for peace in the mid-40s. The French agree to open negotiations, as the count of Armagnac threatens rebellion in the south.
The English are in a much stronger negotiating position in ATL after John and York's successes and the new alliance with Brittany and Alencon, but likely not strong enough to get Charles VII to agree to cede Normandy to England in full sovereignty (their OTL demand for a permanent peace at this time). Still, Suffolk could secure the truce and perhaps the marriage to Margaret of Anjou -- likely a major goal of talks if, as in OTL, Henry VI becomes obsessed with the girl after seeing her portrait -- without ceding Maine. Perhaps Charles VII -- facing the Anglo-Breton-Alencon alliance in the north and a possible Armagnac rebellion in the south -- is in a weak enough position that he seeks a longer truce than in OTL and perhaps even agrees to pay a dowry for the girl so she does not go to England penniless.
A longer truce, as well as the death of Cardinal Beaufort and Gloucester in 1447, gives John a chance to return to England and attempt to sort out the crown's finances. I don't think there would be any major conflict between John and Suffolk in the late-40s. Suffolk was resisting the court party toward the end of the cardinal's life, even if Suffolk was often the man that the king tasked with executing Beaufort's policies. Suffolk may emerge as a reformer if there is a figure like John who has the king's ear and with whom he can ally against the Beauforts. The restoration of basic governance and also having a major figure like John on the international marriage market could put England in a position to defend Normandy and Gascony for years longer than they did in OTL, though ultimately I think French victory is inevitable unless ATL Charles the Bold comes to power in Burgundy and restores the Anglo-Burgundian alliance. And could the English cling to power in Normandy all the way until Philip the Good's death in 1467? Seems like a stretch.
If John and York do not get the money and the 8,000 men for Normandy, and ATL Somerset launches his doomed campaign into Gascony, then England's position in Normandy likely continues to slowly fail and I suspect John's experience in France radicalizes him against the court party, as it did York and others in OTL. Gloucester is politically isolated and powerless by the early-40s, and so John has no natural ally besides York and other Normandy veterans to oppose the court faction. (Even lords who later emerge as reformers, like Buckingham, were firmly allied with the court party at this time.)
Suffolk probably negotiates for peace at any cost in the mid-40s, as he was instructed to do in OTL, and the loss of land -- some or all of which may have been granted to John in ATL -- may lead to Suffolk's downfall earlier in ATL. John would be the natural successor to Suffolk in ATL. He would pull York and other Normandy veterans into government. He would reclaim various land grants made by the court party, as he would understand how the crown's poverty had undermined the war effort in France.
Margaret likely never emerges as a major political figure in ATL. There is little evidence that she was an abnormally political queen before her husband's breakdown, and so I'd guess she has no quarrel with John taking control of her husband's government from Suffolk. The Beauforts are unable to maintain their hold on power without Margaret as a benefactor, and are removed from office. The WOTR are butterflied away entirely.
Henry V contracted dysentery at the siege of Meaux, 35ish miles east of Paris. The town surrendered on May 10. He died at Château de Vincennes, just outside the capital, on August 31. There could be some PR stunt where Catherine meets Henry as the conquering hero at some town between Meaux and Paris on his journey back to Paris, and they could conceive before his health collapses. But it would need to be a perfectly timed situation.
I don't imagine that John's existence meaningfully changes the course of the Lancastrian War during the 20s or early- to mid-30s, as he would obviously be a boy at this time, but considering that the English were still fighting for the establishment of the dual monarchy at the time of Henry VI's coronation as Henry II of France, I would guess that John is created a major French lord in addition to a major English lord -- very likely duke of Clarence in England and perhaps duke of Normandy in France, or duke of Anjou and count of Maine after the death of Bedford. This gives John a vested interest in the conquest of France.
Assuming ATL Henry VI is as extraordinarily pious as he was in OTL, I would guess that still comes under the influence of his cardinal great uncle early in his life. This allows the Beaufort party to emerge as the dominant faction in ATL 1430s, as it did in OTL.
Richard of York is almost certainly still governor of France after the death of Bedford in ATL 1430s, as John is too young for the role at this time and York is effectively the only candidate acceptable to both Cardinal Beaufort and Gloucester. Perhaps John is awarded the governorship of France in 1440 instead of York getting a second term, though. John would be 18 by this time, so he could in theory take such a command, though more likely he'd get the title and the salary and York would get a separate title and salary (perhaps lord lieutenant of Normandy?) and the two would work alongside one another, allowing John to learn administration and diplomacy from York and military command and strategy from Talbot.
Assuming John is militarily and politically competent -- he needn't be a Bedford-level genius, simply competent -- then he may recognize the corruption of the court party as he approached his majority (i.e., late-1430s/early-1440s). He would certainly be aware of the court party's incompetence, if not their corruption, as he fought in France to take control of whatever lands he'd been promised.
John being in France in the early-40s may butterfly away Somerset's doomed Gascon campaign, as John may be able to convince Henry VI to send the men and money to Normandy instead, whereas York tried and failed to convince Henry VI to do this in OTL. This could significantly change the course of the war, as Somerset's campaign was not only a military failure, but effectively bankrupted the crown and upended York's negotiations for a possible alliance with Brittany and Alencon.
If John and York get the money and the 8,000 men for Normandy that OTL Somerset got for Gascony, then the influx of men and money may convince Brittany and Alencon to make the jump and join an English alliance. John and York can secure the borders of Normandy and Maine and mount a new offensive toward Paris, perhaps retaking Pontoise. This is great news on the military front, but the campaign likely bankrupts the English crown just as Somerset's OTL campaign did. The English need to sue for peace in the mid-40s. The French agree to open negotiations, as the count of Armagnac threatens rebellion in the south.
The English are in a much stronger negotiating position in ATL after John and York's successes and the new alliance with Brittany and Alencon, but likely not strong enough to get Charles VII to agree to cede Normandy to England in full sovereignty (their OTL demand for a permanent peace at this time). Still, Suffolk could secure the truce and perhaps the marriage to Margaret of Anjou -- likely a major goal of talks if, as in OTL, Henry VI becomes obsessed with the girl after seeing her portrait -- without ceding Maine. Perhaps Charles VII -- facing the Anglo-Breton-Alencon alliance in the north and a possible Armagnac rebellion in the south -- is in a weak enough position that he seeks a longer truce than in OTL and perhaps even agrees to pay a dowry for the girl so she does not go to England penniless.
A longer truce, as well as the death of Cardinal Beaufort and Gloucester in 1447, gives John a chance to return to England and attempt to sort out the crown's finances. I don't think there would be any major conflict between John and Suffolk in the late-40s. Suffolk was resisting the court party toward the end of the cardinal's life, even if Suffolk was often the man that the king tasked with executing Beaufort's policies. Suffolk may emerge as a reformer if there is a figure like John who has the king's ear and with whom he can ally against the Beauforts. The restoration of basic governance and also having a major figure like John on the international marriage market could put England in a position to defend Normandy and Gascony for years longer than they did in OTL, though ultimately I think French victory is inevitable unless ATL Charles the Bold comes to power in Burgundy and restores the Anglo-Burgundian alliance. And could the English cling to power in Normandy all the way until Philip the Good's death in 1467? Seems like a stretch.
If John and York do not get the money and the 8,000 men for Normandy, and ATL Somerset launches his doomed campaign into Gascony, then England's position in Normandy likely continues to slowly fail and I suspect John's experience in France radicalizes him against the court party, as it did York and others in OTL. Gloucester is politically isolated and powerless by the early-40s, and so John has no natural ally besides York and other Normandy veterans to oppose the court faction. (Even lords who later emerge as reformers, like Buckingham, were firmly allied with the court party at this time.)
Suffolk probably negotiates for peace at any cost in the mid-40s, as he was instructed to do in OTL, and the loss of land -- some or all of which may have been granted to John in ATL -- may lead to Suffolk's downfall earlier in ATL. John would be the natural successor to Suffolk in ATL. He would pull York and other Normandy veterans into government. He would reclaim various land grants made by the court party, as he would understand how the crown's poverty had undermined the war effort in France.
Margaret likely never emerges as a major political figure in ATL. There is little evidence that she was an abnormally political queen before her husband's breakdown, and so I'd guess she has no quarrel with John taking control of her husband's government from Suffolk. The Beauforts are unable to maintain their hold on power without Margaret as a benefactor, and are removed from office. The WOTR are butterflied away entirely.
We could maybe get around this without having them be twins, so long as Catherine is in Paris in spring 1422.
Henry V contracted dysentery at the siege of Meaux, 35ish miles east of Paris. The town surrendered on May 10. He died at Château de Vincennes, just outside the capital, on August 31. There could be some PR stunt where Catherine meets Henry as the conquering hero at some town between Meaux and Paris on his journey back to Paris, and they could conceive before his health collapses. But it would need to be a perfectly timed situation.
I might flip Thomas and Edward in the order of likelihood, but otherwise I agree with you entirely.