She was a peasant teenager inspired by voices from God to lead the French against the English, and burned as a witch before being recognised as a hero and saint. For centuries, France's cult of Joan of Arc has been seized on by politicians looking for patriotic martyr figures, including by Nicolas Sarkozy during his presidential campaign. Now a new book has sparked anger among historians by claiming the Maid of Orléans was not an illiterate peasant but a royal. She did not hear voices and was not burned at the stake, but escaped with the help of English soldiers and went on to live a happily married life. In L'Affaire Jeanne d'Arc, or the Joan of Arc Affair, French investigative journalist Marcel Gay and former secret service agent Roger Senzig claim that France's most famous virgin peasant was the illegitimate daughter of the French queen consort, Isabeau of Bavaria, who groomed her for use as a political puppet.

They claim Joan was manipulated in a cover-up they call Operation Virgin. Joan was not inspired by voices from heaven to lead troops to miraculously lift the siege of Orléans and save France from English domination. Gay says she was trained for warfare, taught languages and well-educated for her mission. After her trial for heresy in 1431, she escaped, and an unknown woman was burned in her place. She later married a French knight, Robert des Armoises. "She spoke English and it was the English who saved her from the stake," Gay told the Guardian. "Everything we were taught at school was wrong." French medievalists this week rubbished the book, saying it rehashed discredited ideas to satisfy the booming audience of conspiracy theorists intent on dismantling the Jeanne d'Arc story. The publisher said the work fitted the trend for Da Vinci Code-style investigations debunking official history.

View: Full Article | Source: Guardian Unlimited

Amazing the amount of conspiracies we're blindfolded with.. Joan of arc after all was not a religious extremist but an intelligent person who was clever and agil.. neat

Very interesting theory. I'v actually never heard this before... however, I don't believe it's true.

i would think she is dead now though.

Yeah she is.

I read the article. But I don't know. I know the story of her. But not all of it. Plus I'm not big on her though.

That's a new one. Sounds complicated, though... Somebody write a book about it.

TeraLink Was Here!

Find me more sources and I will be more inclined to believe that we have been "blindfolded" with this conspiracy. However, it is an interesting theory.

she was fighting the english so i can't believe the english would've helped h

Yeah, that struck me as not very plausible, also. I watched a show a while back that claimed that she was not burned at teh stake, I guess someone saw her after her death and swore she was not dead. I wonder if we will ever know?

I have come across something like this before. Only Joan was Marguerite de Valois (1407-58) or possibly her sister. Marguerite was the illegitimate daughter of King Charles VI and his mistress Odette de Champdivers. She was legitimized in 1428 by her brother King Charles VII, and she married Jean de Harpedane-Belleville. It is easy to assume that being the illegitimate daughter of the King that she would have perhaps some military training or education.

All I want to find out is how do we know that it was her which wasn't burt at the stake?
I know that the article says that another girl was put in her place, but there isn't really any way which this can be verfied or debunked.

As unusual as this theory is, I would be inclined to say that it is false.

The point about the Englishmen helping out struck me as a bit odd as well.

Even if Joan WAS the illegitamite daughter of Isabeau of Bavaria,she would have been raised in a royal or noble household or shipped off to some place like the Royal Abbey of Fontverault,which had members of the nobility as nuns there,not dropped off to be raised by peasents.This is what was usually done at those times for the nobility anyways.
By the way,if you wonder why in paintings and portraits of the period it seems like the ladies have no eyebrows,it's because Queen Isabeau had none,so they shaved theirs in imatation of her.

Please,just because one was a peasent,didn't mean these people were stupid or ignorant.How do these writers think commerce and trade
was able to go on?people kept track of sales and shipments of goods,they wrote letters,Look at the famous Paxton family letters of England.They weren't serfs,but knights,but still knights come from somewhere.They did have schools during this time period.Pauda was famous for it's Medical College.
There was the University of Salamanca and other universities throughout Europe.Parents sent their sons to college then as now.
Parents then thought if their children got a higher education they could work for the courts as clerks or for the Catholic Church as a priest or even become a bishop.They could also work for a Prince or Duke or someother noblemen. Perhasp be a steward or some other position with hard work and ability.

I seemed to recall once that Joan learned to read and write from her family,though I could be wrong.In any case she could read and sign her name.
As far as her not burning at the stake,I had read this somewhere before.After her death,there were several women who claimed to be Joan.
Joan was against the English,who I doubt would help her. If I recall the English were trying to recover and place under their control lands that had belonged to the english through Eleanor of Aquitane,who passed them on to her children. In any case the english were driven out and at thetime of Henry the Eigth,the only english possesion in France was Calais.

god i hate it when people can't just except it when somone amazing does something cool and it seems like people mean becasue she's a girl she's obvioulsy being played it sicknes me!

I agree. I never even heard about this until now. It seems very out of place and sudden. Looks to me more like a Da Vinci Code wannabe as the article states.