The fundamental theses of the Orleans Virgin’s history according to the version of Gorbenko S.A. (2002-2012)


Odette de Champdivers


Le roi de France Charles VI de Valois


















Jeanne d'Arc - La Pucelle d'Orléans. Miniature XV c




   translated from the Russian by 

Sviatoslav S. Gorbenko

Thursday, May 09, 2013



1)  The name of  Joan of Arc – under which this heroine is known to the whole world by the historic textbooks – is incorrect from the scientific point of view, as it was introduced to identify the heroine’s personality during the proceedings concerning her rehabilitation in Paris from 1455 to 1456. The cause was evidently ordered as well as that one concerning her conviction in Rouen in 1431. During Joan’s activities near Orleans and later in the court of Rouen this name wasn’t used. Using this name for the heroine with this name henceforth means to maintain the falsification of the history, started since the times of Charles VII in his interests involuntary. As science hasn’t come to the only final consent in regard to the original name of the heroine, so we’ll name her The Orleans Virgin (The Maid of Orléans) from now on. 

2) The so called 'The history of Joan of Arc'  or The Maid of Orléans  doesn’t present itself as a separate fragment of the French history and is only an important episode of the second conclusive stage of the second Hundred Years War 1337-1453 between England and France. 

3) Besides, the history of The Maid of Orléans  is also an important episode of the civil war in France during 1389-1435 or the contend for succession to the throne between three branches of the Valois Family.

4) To consider the history of Joan of Arc, or The Maid of Orléans  out of this historic context as a separate biography, which 'The Centre of Joan of Arc in Orleans' is specialized in (it was established with the support of the Ministry of Culture of France, the Orleans diocese and the Orleans Town Council in 1970) means to displace it within the context of the true history, and this is, at least, one fact that can change and distort it, since the important events and acting political figures and ideologists, linked with this history are removed  from the field of vision of spectators.

5)  The Hundred Years War (1389-1435) was, in fact the continuation of the earlier conflict between the English and the French, which had begun in 1066 with the invasion of the vassal of the French king William the Conqueror, the Duke of Normandy in England, who destructed the old Anglo-Saxon  state. The connections, which were, in fact, antagonistic, between two kingdoms since then resulted in the problem of disputable territories, hierarchical relationships and the struggle  for domination in Europe and, especially, in the trade between English and French Royal Families.

6) The following dynastic marriages and inheriting the territories according to the old feudal rules resulted in that fact, that English Royal family of Plantagenet became the legal possessor of the vast territories of the French kingdom that earlier were parts of French kingdom (The Duchies of Normandy, Aquitania, Anjou), shires of Man, Poitou).

7) Beginning from 1154 the struggle for possessing and control over these lands led to the  irreconcilable confrontation between the English Plantagenet family, who tried  to hold these territories and the French Capetians, who rushed to take away or to get back them, depending on the ideological trend of interpretation of these land’s possession right.

8) By 1337 French kings managed to take away from the English Plantagenet the overwhelming majority of their French inheriting estates. At the disposal of the English Crown there left only a coastal part of the Duchy of Aquitania. From the point of view of French historiography the process of forcing out of the Plantagenets from France is considered as the just process of gathering the national lands together, but speaking about the times when these events took place, in the eyes of contemporaries who were the  English king’s subjects, such actions of the French Royal Family were taken in as unfair and as an expansion. 

9) By 1337, having lost the feeling of political reality, the first king from the dynasty of Valois Phillip VI (1293-1350) [reigned 1328-1350] tried not only to get back to France the rest of his English domain in France (which was, in fact, only the continuation of the  policy of Capetians’ predecessors), but to make the English king become his vassal, legalizing in such a way dependence of England upon France. In particular the French State strived for the opportunity to act as a trade intermediary between English merchants and not only Normandy and Brittany but Flanders as well and that made the British trade wholly dependent on the will of Paris.

10) The demands of the French king were not only excessive but also unreal, as they completely ignored the  English interests as well as their trade partners, especially the Flemings, who were traditionally interested in trading with England.

11) While humiliating the English king, the French court expected to succeed only by means of political and economic pressure, because there wasn’t any idea, that England could protect its interest by military forces. This mistake was based mainly upon exaggerated estimation of the French chivalrous troops, and its numbers, and traditional intention to impose on England the warfare on two fronts as well (apart from the war with France, the war at Scotland’s border).

12) These errors resulted in the war, that the English began not on their territory, but on their enemy’s lands. During the short period of time from 1340 to 1347 the English destroyed French army and fleet and occupied Caen and Calais. The military weakness of France became obvious to the whole Europe. 

13) The first period of The Hundred Years War (although it is more correct to call it The Second Hundred Years War, as far as the first one was the military and political conflict between England and France during 1152-1259 ended in favour of France, according to the fair words of Charles Petit-Dutaillis)  finished in 1380 with the death of  Charles V the Wise  and the famous French constable Bertrand du Guesclin (there were two prominent commanders and leaders of the war from the English side who died in 1376-1377, as well – Edward the Black Prince in 1376, and King Edward III in 1377). Despite the shattering defeats of the French troops during 1340-1356 and the vast territorial captures, the King and the Constable managed to change the situation and even improve it in favour of France: most of the lands were returned to France and there were rather small territories that remained under the English Crown. Status-quo was accepted by the pact in Bretignie on 8 May,  1360, and came into force on 24 October in Calais (Perrois, 2006. - p.160). According to the pact, the French didn’t pretend to rule England and to the English king’s the vassalage any more, but they also reconciled themselves to the newly acquired lands in Aquitania and Poitou by the English Crown. King Edward III abdicated from the title of the king of France and the French Jean II (John II) from the sovereignty of the abandoning territory (Perrois, 2006. -  p.161) and from his right of homage  over the English king. Both countries were tired of the war and the peace seemed to come.

14) Later on, two heirs and successors of English and French thrones Richard II Plantagenet-Capetian (1367-+1400) [reigned 1377-1399] and Charles VI of Valois (1368+1422) [reigned 1380-1422] tried to pursue the policy of peace between these two states and kings, wich was even supposed to consolidate by the marriage between the king of England and the daughter of the French king Isabella (1389+1409). 

15) The new English invasion of 1415  in France was directly linked with the civil war in France and was provoked by it.

16) The initiator and aggressor of this civil war was a party of princes usually called 'The Armagnac'. Their actions discredited not only the king of France and his family but got the English involved into the feudal strife in France once more. 

17) The king of France Charles VI of Valois (1368-1422) [reigned 1380-1422] wasn’t mad in fact, but, undoubtedly, was driven to illness and nervous stress by the constant attempts to dethrone and kill him from the Armagnacs’ side.

18) The first legal heir of the France’s throne (the legitimate son of the king and queen), Prince Lois, the duke of Guyenne (Aquitaine), the earl of  Poitou and the dauphin of France died under the suspicious circumstances on 18  December,  in 1415 in Paris, when he was only 18. The second legal heir, Prince Jean, the duke of Touraine and Berry, died suspiciously, as well, in Compiegne on 5 April, 1417, at the age of 19. After this event, the Armagnacs’ party immediately announced the earl of Ponthieu (the title he had received from the duke Jean of Berry), to be the dauphin of France in the Parliament. 

19) Charles, the earl of Ponthieu, the future king of France, Charles VII, wasn’t in fact the son of the king Charles VI of Valois, but was a bastard of his younger brother Lois, the duke of Orleans and the king’s wife Isabella of Bavaria, who was unfaithful to the king Charles VI. His illegitimate parentage wasn’t a secret for the king and his contemporaries, who excellently knew it. After the official confession of Isabella of Bavaria, made in 1419 in Troyes in the presence of witnesses, this man lost his official right to pretend on the throne of France. He lost his right, as well,  after the assassination of The Great Duke of Burgundy John the Fearless (Jean sans Peur) on the Montereau’s bridge committed by his order , as an participator and organizer of the crime, that the Paris Parliament made a decision about. Moreover, according to the fully rightful pact in Troyes in 1420, the grandson of king Charles VI and the son of the king of England – Henry VI was proclaimed the official heir of France’s throne. It was a voluntary and conscious decision of the old king, who didn’t want to let his brother’s bastard and the Armagnacs occupy the throne, whom he suspected in his sons’ assassination. This decision of the old king was met with full understanding and support from the side of ordinary Parisians and the Paris Parliament too. Thus, Charles, the earl of Ponthieu (the future king Charles VII), wasn’t the legal king of France from 1420 to 1429, and even couldn’t be regarded as the legal dauphin. 

20) The traditional historiography calls this man King of France since 1422, right away after the death of king Charles VI. This statement is right neither from the point of view of the science, nor from the side of the law. And it was made up in the tradition of just the same  ideologists and chroniclers of Charles VII and his son Louis XI. He can be considered as a king relatively after being crowned on 17 July, 1429 in Reims. Moreover, the authority of this coronation fully holds on the authority of the Maid of Orleans, who is considered to be the initiator of this act according to the French historiagraphy. From the point of view of legitimacy, the crowning of Charles VII wasn’t legal even in 1429. Unlike the coronation of the Russian False Demetrius, his French colleague’s crowning wasn’t supported even by the most part of his French contemporaries. As to the international acceptance, it was officially recognized at The Congress of Arras in 1435 by The Great Duke of Burgundy first of all, who actually legalized it by this recognition. This coronation received the national acceptance only after 1437, 1449 and 1453, after Charles’s VII declaration of general amnesty to all the French, who hadn’t been recognizing him during all that time. Charles’s status as the king of France without this amnesty remained disputable, even in the eye of his French contemporaries, who remembered about his parentage and the last will of the old king.

21)  The acceptance of coronation’s legitimacy of this absolutely illegitimate pretender to the French  throne is mainly based upon: 1) the falsification of the history of the Maid of Orleans, whose authority is used to recognize Charles of Ponthieu as a legal king; 2) the falsification of the history of Charles’s VI ruling and representation of this king as a mad and mentally incompetent man, who didn’t recognize his own son; 3) the concealment of 'the  Armagnacs’ responsibility for the tragedy that took place in France at  the beginning of the 15-th century, when the group of intriguants and conspirators, who consciously  destabilized the situation in the country and destroyed the legal authority, and who are represented as the patriots of France and whom the merits of such heroes as Joan of Arc and her captains are added to. 

22) The official court historyography makes Charles VII out as a patriot and hero of his country, although, there aren’t any facts of this man’s participation  in any battle of France, or even of any its town. But at the same time, the name of the heroine, who made a number of feats of arms near Orleans, and who brought fame to both the French arms and the French history is completely forgotten by the French historiography and its derivatives. The question is of real and not a legendary girl, called by the made-up name then and got up in the knights armour,  who took part in the battles of Orleans and in the Loire military campaign. Moreover, her courage, heroism, as well as her skillful  command in  the battlefield, in fact, made a decisive  contribution to Orleans’s liberation. 

23) The question is not of a peasant girl from the out-of-the-way village somewhere in Lorraine, who could use neither unusual armours and arms, nor ride on the war-horse the more so, but of the girl from the noble family, who was trained to the arts of war by an experienced warrior since her childhood. I suppose this girl to be an illegitimate daughter of the king Charles VI and his, in fact, second wife Odetta de Champdivers - Marguerite  de Valois Champdivers.

24) After the betrayal of the queen Isabella, Odette de Champdivers (1391+1425)( became the only love and affection for the lonely king, the only person to whom he trusted completely. She didn’t only feed and protect him, but by her care and responsiveness  she also brought him out of the bad depression, that this exhausted man was in. Parisians knew about Odetta’s fidelity and dedication to the king, who they sympathized to and loved, unlike his enemies, namely 'Armagnacs’ party and the queen- traitress. They fondly gave her a nickname – 'the small queen'. Odette gave born a daughter to the king in 1407. The girl was named Marguerite. In spite of the fact that she was an  illegitimate child, the king immediately recognized her to be his daughter, that was an acknowledgement of her status of the princess of the royal family. 

25) Odette de Champdivers and her daughter Marguerite became the only real family for the king from 1407 to 1422, i.e. for the rest of his life.

26) The daughter became the main affection and love for  the king, who grew up and studied under his guidance, unlike his other children, who were removed from the king by politics and the civil war. The father tried to teach her everything he knew and was able to. Being an excellent rider and fencer (by his life he was obliged to the skills in using cold steel), he taught princess Marguerite all of these arts. He might possibly act in such a way because of the death of his sons - the heirs of the throne, princes Jean and Louis, who were obviously killed by assassins. It was the death of his last son – the successor  to the  throne of France that might make the king start teaching his favourite 10-years old daughter Marguerite military science and improving her physical skills. 

27) In 1422 all of a sudden two kings, who signed the pact in Troyes, died. Henry V, the king of England, died on 31 of August, and Charles VI, the king of France, died on 22 of October. Infante Henry VI, the grandson of the late king Charles VI, officially inherited the crowns of England and France. His uncle the English Duke John  of Bedford with the assistance of his brother-in-law, The Great Duke of Burgundy, Phillip the Good became the representative of the young king in France. The widowed Odette de Champdivers with her daughter Marguerite found shelter and protection at the court of Duke of Burgundy. Unexpected death of the king-father left his daughter-bastard without means of subsistence and legitimization. In fact, even being illegitimate child she was one of the princesses of France, the so-called daughters and sons of France. But even if the king left the corresponding documents, they had to be confirmed by the new English king. But both pretenders to the throne, the legal king of England and France Henry VI and the illegal 'king of Bourges' weren’t crowned, the country was separated and nobody could solve the problem. 

28) Odette de Champdivers, 'the small queen' passed away in 1425. Her daughter, the princess of blood, Marguerite Valois de Champdivers, was left without any means of subsistence and protection and only the mercy of Duke of Burgundy and his personal nobility was the guarantee of her safety.  

29) Although Charles VII proclaimed himself to be the king of France in front of his supporters in the castle Mehun-sur-Yèvre since 1422, nobody in France, with the exeption of the supporters of the Armagnacs, recognized him as a king. All the contemporaries, both the English and the French knew  about the confession of Isabella of Bavaria, made in Troyes, that he wasn’t a son of the king but a bastard of Duke, Louis of Orleans. They also knew about that fact, that the old king of France hadn’t recognized him as a son, on the contrary, he entrusted all his subject not to help him. They knew, that Charles de  Ponthieu was announced a killer and criminal by the verdict of the Paris Parliament  and expatriated from the kingdom, as well. And finally, they knew, that according to the international treaty of 1420 in Troyes, the heir to the throne of France, was declared the grandson of the late French king. That’s why Charles had no legal chances to become the French king as his rights of inheriting the crown were disclaimed by the law of the kingdom and the law of the blood, as well. Nevertheless, this man got support from the numerous political group, which was leaded by his mother-in-law  Yolanda of Aragon, duchess of Anjou, who wanted to make him a new king of France despite the law and the old king’s will. 

30) As she wasn’t able to change the past, and the laws couldn’t be cancelled, it was necessary to find at least one reason – the pretext to justify this man’s right to pretend to the throne.

31) To help Charles and Yolanda, the most professional ideologists came, as usually. In that time, they were the most educated people of that epoch, - vicars from the Armagnacs’ party, i.e. those vicars, who meddled in the political struggling on the Orleans-Armagnacs side, during the civil war between the Armagnacs’ and Burgundy’s royal houses.  After the Armagnacs party’s defeat and their banishment from Paris over the river Loire, the vicars and the monks, who supported them, followed them, having lost seats in Parliament, cathedrals and dioceses in Il-de-France.  

32) Most of them went begging in Poitiers forming the major part of new servants of the Bourges state, devoted themselves to Charles. To prove Charles' right to the throne they accepted the old legend which had been saved in the copied variants in one of the monasteries (taken probably out of the works of the Irish monk called Geoffrey of Monmouth (Galfridus Monemutensis) , who lived in the XII century, and in his turn alluded to Venerable Bede). According to the legend, the mythological wizard Merlin, (who was considered as one of the greatest sages in the medieval society) predicted the appearance of the Virgin from the forests of Lorraine, who would destroy the power of Britain. It’s necessary to add that the medieval tradition attributed special wildness and miracle to that remote part of the world. The territory of Alsace-Lorraine was considered to be densely populated with  wizards, who were described as those possessing some magic power. These folk believes, supported by the legend of Merlin’s prediction, formed the basis of the project, according to which, the Virgin, who would come from the Lorraine, ‘defended the poor dauphine’, who was outcast by his father and mother, and bring the success to his affair after being armed and being at the head of his army. The reckoning was very exact and artful. Ordinary people, who weren’t always consistent in the question of following to the official religion were always sensible to different gossips,  legends, especially linked with their ancient heathen archetype. The witching legend about the Virgin could spread these gossips, creating the new belief in Charles’s legal right to the throne among the uncertain people and scaring the superstitious people, who were enough even among the brave soldiers, with the presence of the Lorraine sorceress. This new legend was ideologically and literally drawn up by such famous authors and ideologists of the Armagnacs as Christine de Pizan and pater Jean de Gerson (Jean Charlier), whose political talent and propensity are well-known to historians as well as their theological and poetic talent.

33) It remained only to find this Virgin and she was not only to be dedicated  to the plan of Charles VII and be enough brave to carry conviction when acting in public, but also she had to ride on horseback and to be pretty smart about arms, because according to the authors’ plan of the script, she had  to march ahead of the troops. Had she assumed the slightest clumsiness or awkwardness, it would immediately have caused suspicion and laugh from the ordinary people’s side, and it would have been the death of the  ‘King of Bourges’ and the Armagnacs’ party and it would have damaged their low reputation completely.

34) To find the girl of that kind was a great  problem, as only noble women and their servants could ride on horseback and only a few of them could ride in a full knight’s armour. Besides, nearly all the girls from noble families were known and should one of them have tried to represent the legendary Virgin, predicted by Merlin, the fraud would have been immediately exposed. So the girl was to be unknown for the most part of aristocracy and be absolutely unknown by sight for the people. In such a way they remembered about the old king’s daughter, who lived with him till 15, and almost nobody saw her, and later on she spent her 8 years more in the same way in isolation under the protection of the duke of Burgundy. But it was necessary to persuade Marguerite de Valois Champdiver to agree to come to Charles VII and take up arms.

35)  The Virgin, whose role was performed by princess Marguerite, was brought to Chinon just the following day after Charles de Pontieu’s birthday. It is known for certain that Marguerite de Valois Champdivers expressed clearly her intention to fight against the English and to liberate Orleans. Her unequivocal wish to struggle (she really strained to be in action that was confirmed by absolutely different witnesses) might reveal the most important argument due to which she was won over on their side – she considered the English to be her enemies without any kind of compromise. But as far as the historical Marguerite de Valois Champdivers  couldn’t  have any bad experience in the contact with the English (as well as the legendary Joan of Arc, being in Domrémy, because the English never reached that place), it remains only to suppose that the main argument, used by Charles’s ambassadors in her persuading was accusing the English in complicity in her father’s untimely death – the king’s death, which ruined her adolescence and brought so much suffering to both her and her mother.

36) All the rest – i.e. the acceptance of Charles  de Ponthieu as the Dauphin of France and her promise to crown him, discover him a kind of secrets; let Charles and his courtiers have all these actions on their conscience, who tried their best to manipulate the credulous girl and imputed to the girl  words and behaviour that they were in need of. 

37) It’s quite obvious that while inveigling the daughter of the king to Charles’s army, his ideologists didn’t intend to use her in real battles as a warrior. In contrast to the modern historians, especially such as A.D. Liublinskaya, Régine Pernoud and Marie-Véronique Clin and the others like them, who were sincerely convinced that to fight with the medieval swords and to run in full armours under arrows, swords’ and spears’ strikes was ‘an uncomplicated tactic of that time’, the people of that time perfectly understood, that even a well-trained girl might be killed in the battlefield, or what was more likely to be crippled. It happened pretty often that not only well-trained young knights were killed in the first battle, but even adult experienced men were perished. Medieval hand-to-hand fighting never was predictable, and as courageous lord Talbot remarked once: ‘military fortune is a fickle thing’. They expected the girl to participate in the ceremonial entry of troops in the besieged Orleans and to say the solemn words which would be to the points. Contrary to our contemporaries, who are sincerely convinced that the brave Joan was expected to perform duties of a standard-bearer in battles, the medieval people never thought about it in such a way, as they saw battles and their results, but didn’t read about them in books. 

38) To the amazement and the admiration of some people and the shock of others,  on her arrival in Orleans, the young princess didn’t begin to sit out in Jacques Boucher’s house, but on her own initiative she rushed immediately into the very heart of the bloody grinder during the unsuccessful attack of the French troops on the bastion Saint-Loup on 4 July, 1429. Notwithstanding the danger of death, she stopped the French running off and kept them going in to the savage counterattack at the amazed and taken aback English defenders of the bastion. And she gained her first great victory, but it was the most  important that the French suddenly found out that their enemies weren’t  invincible  and they could be overcome. 

39)  All the same happened in all the following military actions near Orleans. The girl actually took part in all the operations and moreover, it was in the battlefield that she demonstrated her outstanding agility, training and skills both in having the use of arms and the ability to orient herself in the campaign tactics and to give command efficiently. Being seriously injured, she continued struggling after being operated and bandaged. And all this wasn’t a legend, but the truth. The Virgin became an idol for her soldiers just in three odd days. She gained the sincere and true admiration and respect, that only the bravest, the most adroit and skillful soldier could merit in his comrades-in-arms’ eyes. Everybody who served in the army knows it. Bravery and valour are the most valuable things in the eyes of every true warrior and man as well, and they are admitted by all surrounding people immediately and unreservedly, and they aren’t doubted in, they aren’t gossiped about. They either exist or dont exist, and if they are in sight, they are admitted. The more so, they enrapture experienced and even cynical people, who find them in the people, who weren’t expected to possess such qualities. The graceful, thin, 20-years old girl, who just yesterday was considered to be another regular, right-thinking clerical hypocrite proved in deed and not in name (and what a deed!) to all those warriors who were rude and brutalized because-of war and injustice, that she was able not only to show off on the grand horse and shine in her new armours in the crowd of citizens. She appeared  to be able to rush into the battle on that horse, dodging and fending off strikes skillfully, strike up herself on the move and furiously give orders to an embarrassed army. She could bear an arrow’s drawing out of the wound without flinching, puling and bursting into tears, and after that, overbearing violent pain fling herself into the saddle again and raise the flag with her sound hand. After three odd days the Virgin for processions, the role, that was prepared for Marguerite by the courtiers of Charles VII, turned into  the most popular and adorable captain among the soldiers. She was changing into a charismatic leader of the French army. And the only thing, that kept soldiers from the final worship and swearing allegiance was the fact, that most of them didn’t know that the Virgin was their old king’s daughter, whose blood was running in her veins. But it could be found out and it was rather dangerous both for Charles and his government.

40)  That’s why more and more often she was called Joan the Virgin (Joan the Maid), or just the Virgin (La Pucelle), not to utter her true name Marguerite de Valois any more. She was surrounded by ‘experienced warlords’ and the other people who were loyal to Charles VII. The contact of the Virgin (La Pucelle)  – the folk heroine - with the ordinary people was reliably blocked. She was separated from the people and even from the soldiers and the captains, who were devoted to her with the tight circle of ‘experienced warlords’ and ‘her own’ escort.

41)  After the total expelling of the English from Orleans and the area along the Loire, Charles VII sent her victorious army to Reims… to prepare his coronation. Certainly, it wasn’t his decision, ‘it was the Virgin (La Pucelle)’ , ridden also on the horseback with the army, who ‘craved and insisted on it’. Later, the official historians wrote seriously, that ‘the Virgin led the army to Reims to crown Charles VII’.

42) Even after the coronation of Charles VII they went on keeping Marguerite in the tight circle of ‘her escort’ so much, that after the defeat near Paris even the very prince of the blood John II of Alençon who was of the Valois family as well wasn’t allowed to see her. The decision, who they should see and talk to, instead of Alençon and Marguerite, was taken by Regnault de Chartres. It was an unprecedented impertinence, even from the side of such a dignitied clergyman. The young duke left, flying into a rage. And what about Marguerite? She remained there, as what was an offence for the king’s daughter, the princess of blood, Marguerite de Valois, wasn’t an offence or insult for the mysterious Virgin, whose origin was unknown. Although, it was possible that nobody told her about it.

43)  In 1430 Charles VII and his couriers finally decided to dispose of the mysterious Virgin. She claimed to be legalized and didn’t want to be in such an equivocal and dangerous position of anonymous Jeanne the Virgin (the Maid). It means that the mystery could be revealed and the rumours, that were spread by Charles’s ideologists that God had chosen him for the throne of France through the Virgin (the Maid) could be simply like a house of cards, the coronation could be incriminated and proclaimed as a sacrilege from the side of Charles and the Armagnacs, whose reputation was very far from being excellent despite of the exploits and achievements of Jeanne and the other heroes from their side.

44) Following this purpose it was decided to get rid of the girl and demonstrate a trial in such a way that even saying the truth about herself was dangerous and of no avail for her.

45)There was a spectacle with the Virgin’s capturing performed near Compiegne on 23  May, 1430. In fact Marguerite was ‘passed from hand to hand’, i.e. from her escort to the escort of earl Jean of Luxembourg who took her back to her old protector Philip the Good, the Grand Duke of Burgundy, who was her and her mother’s custodian after 1422 and who she set out to Chinon from in 1429. 

46) It still remains a secret the way, how they managed to make the Virgin (La Pucelle) answer Cauchon’s questions in Rouen. It’s most likely that the violence was again committed over her will. The old politician and experienced schemer Cauchon, who had taken part in a good deal of “backstage affairs” earlier, was well-experienced in the affairs of such kind. He carried out the legal proceedings in the best way and satisfied all the orders of the three authoritative factions at a time: the English were satisfied with the fact that the Virgin was proclaimed to be an outlaw and heretic; the French clergy and Inquisition were content with the fact that the statements, ascribed to the Virgin (La Pucelle) , that Saints supported Charles’s right to ascend the throne of France were proclaimed as heretical and invalid; and finally, Charles VII and his group were satisfied with the fact that the Virgin was condemned separately, without accusing of heresy Charles himself and his ideologists: Gerson, Christine de Pisan, Régnaud de Chartre. Thus, the Virgin (La Pucelle) was exposed as the only person, who was responsible for the ideology of divine support to Charles’s right for the throne and his coronation. Of course, R. Cauchon thoroughly red-penciled all the materials of the legal proceedings and all the embarrassing answers of the defendant were eliminated and only those were left that gave the right and ground to condemn her severely, without starting the new legal proceedings of conviction of Charles and clergy from the group of Armagnacs, who participated actively in the action of proclamation of the wonderful mission of the Virgin (La Pucelle). 

47) As far as the English government, king Henry VI, duke of Burgundy and even Pierre Cauchon knew Marguerite of Valois to be the aunt of the king of England, it was out of the question neither her committing to the flames nor tortures. But to give the people a public lesson about the punishment for such an impertinence and the heresy that had already been convicted, instead of the princess, another girl was committed to the flames, she might be Joan by name too, or a countrywoman, or probably from Domremy. As Cauchon and Charles VII, as well, concealed the true origin of the Virgin, so did the English government, that didn’t want to mention about that fact, that the heroine of Orleans was the daughter of the king of France, it wasn’t difficult to make a replacement during of the execution – it was announced that a heretic, a certain Joan the Virgin was committed to the flames without calling her true name and her parentage. The formal legality for show was observed and the absolutely innocent girl was executed excruciatingly on 30 May, 1431. The girl accepted her death with purely Christian humility, that even impressed her executioners. 

48) At the same time, the execution, actually, eliminated the Virgin of Orleans (the Maid of Orleans) in the eyes of public, as well. Because the Virgin was officially proclaimed to be burnt. And this meant, that even had she survived, she wouldn’t have been able to lay a claim to the merits and honor of the heroine, who once had set free Orleans. The charismatic leader of France was destroyed even without murdering – since that time, Marguerite couldn’t name herself the Virgin of France, who liberated Orleans, under the pain of starting the new inquisition’s trial. She could be accused either in being impostor (pointed out the fact of the execution) or they could institute the new proceedings against her as a fugitive from the  church tribunal. Her new name and glory were officially wiped out by that process in Rouen and the execution. Nevertheless, she was still kept in captivity.

49)  The French nonconformist researchers consider Pierre de Menthon, a vassal of the duke of Savoy, to be the jailer of Joan the Virgin, and that she was kept in his castle Monrottier (Robert Ambelain, 1993, p.199-200). I think, that in fact, Marguerite of Valois, was held at Grand Duke of Burgundy Philip the Good from 1431 to 1436. And his chancellor Nicolas Rolin was in touch with her more than once.

50) After concluding peace treaty in Arras by Charles VII and Duke of Burgundy, who accepted Charles as the legal king of France, the Maid of Orleans (Marguerite of Valois) was released from the custody. Probably it was that period of her life, from 1436 to 1439, that is reflected in the works of the nonconformist historians, devoted to the phenomenon of Joan des Armoises. 

51) Contrary to the nonconformists, I suppose, that, the so-called marriage of Joan the Virgin and Robert des Armoises was a fictitious one, that was contracted with the only purpose - just to give her legal resources for living and to give her the new name. The princess of royal blood couldn’t be married a simple courtier seriously. 

52) Later on, she was forced to visit Orleans in 1439 and accept Charles VII to be the legal king once more, what became an ordeal for her - the true daughter of the king.

53) After that rite, in the same 1439 she married her cousin, the prince of Valois blood under the new name. They received the earl dignity and the right to possess the old and rich fief near Orleans.

54) The French princes, who were indignant at Charles’s ruling wanted to dethrone him in 1440. This conspiracy entered the history under the name 'Praguerie'. Charles saved his throne only after recognizing the new husband of Marguerite as the prince of royal blood and giving the promise to cede the throne to him and his children, princes of royal blood after his (Charles’s) death. But in that case, his own son Louis, (Louis XI in the future)  was denuded of hope to occupy the throne. In such a way, one of the sons of  Marguerite of Valois  was to succeed to the crown after Charles VII and it was the promise, that calmed down the nobility, who were indignant with Charles. 

55)  In 1449, after taking Rouen, Charles VII initiated (under the pressure from the side of the Virgin’s husband) the investigation of the Virgin’s case and proceedings in Rouen in 1431. Her new husband did his best to promote it.

56) She gave birth to her son in 1450, and not Lois XI but he, who was to inherit the throne of France after the death of Charles VII. This boy had the Valois blood, both from his maternal and paternal sides.

57) Bordeaux was taken by the French in 1453, and the English troops left the territory of France, except Calais. But peace wasn’t concluded, the war wasn’t officially finished, and up to 1802 the English didn’t accept the fact of annexation of English Guyenne and other English territories in France at the level of diplomatic relationships.

58) The process of rehabilitation took place in 1455-1456, and as a result, the name of the Virgin was completely acquitted from accusations of the Rouen tribunal. Jean Bréhal, Grand Inquisitor of France became the main rehabilitator of Joan the Virgin (Jeanne La Pucelle). In his ‘Recollectio’, (‘The summary explication’), to vindicate Joan he again leaned on Merlin’s Prophecy, mentioned above, and treated her phenomenon in the spirit style of providentialism. It was the work of J. Brehal, that ‘turned a heretic into a Saint’, as V.I.Raytses wrote with reference to Régine Pernoud (p. 106). Not to destroy that belief, the true name of the Virgin was decided to keep secret, and registered the rehabilitated heroine of Orleans as Joan, the daughter of a peasant, Arc by name.  In this way the name 'Joan of Arc' appeared. It’s possible that the peasant origin of the Maid was ascribed to her by judicature of 1456 in memory of that countrywoman, who was committed to the flames instead of the Virgin on 30 May, 1456, probably, on the basis of her record of proceedings, by which Cauchon replaced the examination record of interrogation of the Virgin of Orleans. The English didn’t interfere in it, as far as ‘Wars of the Roses’ started at that time. 

59) Both Louis XI and his mother, Marie of Anjou, who was exiled from the court of the king, were very worried about the secret plans and promises of king Charles VII, concerning passing the throne to the other pretender (see thesis 56). As a result of their conspiracy, Charles was poisoned in 1460 and died soon in his favourite castle of Mehun-sur-Yèvre on 22 July, 1461, even didn’t manage to announce his heir. At the same time, there was an attempt upon the life of Marguerite’s son, and as a result he was seriously wounded, but survived. After giving promises to make large concessions to the Duke of Burgundy, Louis XI returned with his help to France from the emigration in Flanders, where he concealed himself from his father. He became a king of France on 15 August, 1461, and left his father to be buried by other people. Soon, the wounded son of Marguerite died from poison in his father and mother’s arms. 

60) After his death, the couple changed their plans to be buried in the basilica of Notre-Dame de Cléry, where they had built a crypt for themselves, but had to bury their son there. They left the will to bury them near the tomb of their son by their request.

61) King Louis XI brought down repressions against this family. He wanted to rub out all the remembrance about the Maid and the right of her son to occupy the throne. The tomb in the basilica of Notre-Dame de Cléry, that could hide in different symbols the mystery of the Virgin of Orleans and the secret of her origin worried him badly. Marguerite and her husband tried to resist it by making the texts of their will indicating details and rituals, the only fulfillment of which could recall the Maid of Orleans  and her son.

62) She died in Cléry in 1464, and was buried near her son as she wished, and her will was fulfilled by her husband.

63) In 1465 he participated actively in conspiracy of the nobility against Louis XI, which is known as the ‘The league of the Public Weal’. After conciliation of the league’s leaders with the king, he was granted an amnesty and returned to his feud and to his wife and son’s tombs.

64) He died in 1468 and was buried according to his will near his wife and son’s tombs with great honours. About 2 500 noble people gathered from all the corners of France to honor his and Maid’s  tomb (the Tomb of  Maid of Orleans).

65) But after his death, king Louis XI captured the church in Cléry and organized there a ‘reconstruction’ in 1472, transformed it beyond recognition, on the pretext of building his own shrine. Since that time, the tomb of the Maid of Orleans was considered by many nobles  to be lost.

66) In 1477 king Lois XI killed the last three witnesses of the true origin of the Maid of Orleans, who had some evidences. And he concealed the secret of her parentage and the right of her descendants to occupy the throne of France forever . Another son of the Maid of Orleans was killed, the elder one, from whom his origin was hid earlier. He was secretly buried incognito in Cléry. 

67) King Louis XI died in the last day of August in 1483. The legend says, that he was buried in Cléry. It was performed secretly, anyway, neither other scientists nor I found any documents, concerning the exact burial place of king Louis XI and  Charlotte of Savoy until  2002.

68) During the reign of king Louis XI the story of Joan of Arc was suppressed and wasn’t mentioned officially. The only person, who mentioned it, was François Villon in his "Ballad of the Ladies of Times Past". Only the burial of the Maid of Orleans  and her family, their testament and rare papers, which weren’t taken away by the order of the king, kept the secret.

69) Her entombment in Cléry was ruined several times, and bones were transferred between the four sepultures. The five French expeditions in XVIII-XIX centuries attempted to identify the sepultures, but some of them only muddled them up.

70) Some members of the French royal family and the higher clergy knew the place of the Maid of Orleans burial, but till 1802, all the information was kept in the strictest confidence, as a state secret. 

71)  In 2001, finding out the tangle in the bones’ placing in crypts of the basilica of Notre-Dame de Cléry, I had to learn them and the history of the sepultures more thoroughly, that revealed to me those strange circumstances. I described the results of my work of identification in my book. But for some unknown reasons even its first part isn’t published in France by the people, who expressed their own free will to be the first editors.

 72)  According to the last will - the Testament of The Maid of France and her husband, which is violated now by the local authority in Cléry-Saint-André, their bodies must be laid together in a crypt  near the body of their small son, whom they separated some place to. The last will must be executed, regardless, if anyone likes or not the fact, that the obtained data differ from the stereotypes of the official explanation (version) of Orleans Maid’s history.