I agree with you that, as scenarios go, two Henrys do fit better than one. Problem is, when comparing evidence with scenarios, evidence is what we’re supposed to go with. It’s apparent there is either a stretch in the timeline or there is a missing generation. In the case with line 124A, we both know it’s based in part on a theory originated a couple of decades ago and discussed at various times on SGM. And it has some problems. We also know there are no citations for the second Henry. Based on two good sources (previously cited) there is no missing generation and Henry is the father of Oliver. We can’t simply dismiss good evidence because it doesn’t fit a particular scenario. It’s necessary to evaluate each of the sources to determine which is or are the more correct.
When something looks out of place or is outside the norms, it’s almost always worth looking into. And coupled with other factors it may indicate there is a problem or an unlikelihood. But it doesn’t always mean the information is necessarily incorrect. Not everything fits the average. While accurate statistics on child mortality during the high Middle Ages are not possible (birth records were not kept), conservative estimates are that about 30% of children never reached adulthood while other estimates range as high as 50%. We simply can’t assume that in each generation the successor was necessarily the eldest son, the only son, or even the only child. So having a son at age 35 or 40 might be reason for caution if he were the firstborn child, but not nearly so much so if he was a younger son; one who could inherit if his older siblings predeceased him. We also know that on occasion a couple might have a number of daughters before having a son who could inherit his father’s honors. Look at Edward I. His first child, a daughter was born in 1265, yet it was his 14th child, Edward II who inherited (his 3 elder brothers predeceasing him). And he was born 19 years after his eldest sister. Is that a typical case? No, the point is there is nothing average about him. He had 16 children by his first wife, 3 by his second; his last child was born when Edward was 67. In his case we can locate the information we need to show why each instance of his being outside the norms is justified. While royals frequently married early, often those of the baronial class married and began having children at about the same time they came into their inheritance. Some married earlier, some later, and not infrequently they married more than once and had more than one family. Consider too that an earlier family in which the wife and children did not survive would not necessarily be found in early records. There are other factors as well such as the exact time period, location, wars, plague, displacements, etc. Any of these circumstances, alone or in combination, can defeat the normative timeline and cause an anomaly. The gist of all this is that an average is just that, an average. And the law of averages isn’t really a law at all (not everything balances out within a relatively small sampling). Each generation is unique even if we can’t find enough information to help us fully appreciate why.
Lastly, you mentioned a record from Ronny Bodine; is it possible to get the source citation? Perhaps tell me where it’s located? But on the basis of what you have here it appears that with what little we know it’s an assumption this is the same Jordan who was the brother of Henry. I agree not everything fits here but there is too much missing information to conclude anything just yet. I’ll keep looking and pass on what I find and I would certainly appreciate it if you could do the same.