It's worth noting here the chain of events that led to there being no heir to hand in 1453 closer than Richard of York - ie the failure of Henry V's brothers (Henry VI's uncles) to provide any heirs. If they had done so, there could have been a different form of civil war after 1453. For that matter, if Henry V had lasted longer than August 1422, aged 35 or 36, and not died in an epidemic during a minor siege in France he could well have provided a younger brother for Henry VI. The latter was born a year after his parents, Henry V and Catherine of Valois, married and Catherine was to have at least four, possibly five children by her second husband Owen Tudor so she was evidently fertile. Also, the peace-treaty between England and the beleagured regime of Charles VI of France at Troyes in 1420 that arranged the Henry/ Catherine marriage was supposed to end the war so if Henry had not faced unexpected resistance from French dissidents and been away from court leading a siege he would have been unlikely to die so soon after his wedding.
More children would probably be born; a second son, born c. 1423, could then succeed Henry VI in 1453 and though England (and France) had never had an accepted female ruler as of the 1420s a daughter could arguably pass on her rights to England to her son as the English crown passed via females to a male - Henry II in 1154, and Edward VI tried to do this (to Jane Grey) in 1553. The French crown could not pass to a woman, but Edward III and Henry V had both claimed it as passing via a woman to a man, ie via Edward III's mother Isabella (sister of king Charles IV, d 1328). If Henry V had a daughter alive in 1453, would this have caused chaos in the law-courts over her , or her son's, claim to both realms? If Henry V had had only a son (H VI) and a daughter and the latter had been married off to a European ally of his (in the Holy Roman Empire as his real-life ally?) in the 1430s or 1440s and had a son by 1453, would this have led to a different sort of English civil war in the 1450s? English barons would then resist an overseas heir, launch a coup, and choose York as the new king instead? if so, York's wife's kin the Nevilles under her brother Lord Salisbury were the likely leaders for this.
Henry V's next brother Thomas, Duke of Clarence, was married (Margaret Holland) but was killed aged 24 in the Anglo-French war at Bauge in 1421 before he could have sons; if he had had any they would have been Henry VI's heirs. Similarly, the third brother, Duke John of Bedford (d 1435 aged 46), had no children by either his first wife Anne of Burgundy or his second, Jacquetta of St Pol (of the semi-royal house of Luxembourg). He was probably infertile, as Jacquetta then had ten or eleven children by her next husband Sir Richard Woodville (including York's son Edward IV's future wife Elizabeth and Richard III's future victim Anthony, Earl Rivers). Similarly, Henry V's youngest brother Duke Humphrey of Gloucester (1390 - 1448) had no children by his first wife, Countess Jacqueline of Holland, or his second, Eleanor Cobham. But if he had done so and they had been Henry VI's heirs, these would have faced a legal challenge (from York?) and possible civil war - Jacqueline's divorce from her previous husband was disputedly legal and Humphrey's enemies at court forced him to divorce the 'socially inferior' ex-lady-in-waiting Eleanor after she was convicted and exiled to the Isle of Man on a dubious charge of witchcraft. So if Humphrey had left an heir this could have led to a different civil war in the 1450s as his enemies, led by the Beauforts, tried to insist that any child of his was a bastard.
Another possibility - what if Henry V has two sons before he dies, at a later date than OTL such as during the real-life siege of Orleans in 1428-9 or in an exhausting attempt to overrun the anti-English French enclave S of the Loire after taking Orleans? Does one (Henry VI) have England and the other France, to reassure English elite objections to a merger of the two crowns causing England to have to pay for and send troops to prop up an unpopular and shaky regime in Paris? And if the English king of France is then driven out by the French , as in OTL happened to Henry VI's government there in 1450-3, does he blame England for abandoning him, return to England, and when Henry has his catatonic attack in 1453 demand the regency and later try to depose him?