#(and not just to annoy certain historians who shall remain nameless)

[heartofstanding]

So the narrative of Henry V banishing his “unsuitable companions” from his household after his coronation and presence is generally considered to be untrue, exaggerated and/or considered a cover story for his own controversial behaviour.

But it also seems to me that this narrative has a lot in common with the narratives about Edward II and Richard II and their “unsuitable favourites” (i.e. Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser the Younger, Robert de Vere). The king (or in Henry’s case, the prince) is misled into misgovernance and wildness by “unworthy” companions, ignoring the “worthy” and leading the kingdom into despair. Then,  a purge of the household is performed and the natural order is restored. The main difference between this narrative relating to Henry V and Edward II and Richard II (besides the fact that Henry’s wildness occurred before he was king and was thus “safely contained”), is that this narrative has the “happy ending” in that Henry does not need an intervention, he recognises the need for and enacts the purge of his household on his own accord.

IDK. It’s a very interesting parallel. And of course the story is likely a fiction and even if it wasn’t, its first appearance is in a continuation of The Brut written in 1478-1479 so not only is it non-contemporary, it’s being written in Yorkist England so it likely doesn’t tell us about the “real” Henry V. But idk, I think it’s very interesting and that you could do a queer reading of a version of Henry V through it.