History In Full Goes Deeper: Joan Of Arc A Child Abuser? Why Myth So Far From Reality? Etc.

People tend to love the idea of non conventional wisdom… until it gets to their doorstep… 

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~Jonathan Swift…. Him, or her…

Here is a bit of non conventional wisdom in Franco-British history, just to illustrate how it hurts… Enjoy… 

There were major French actors on both sides during the so-called “100 years war” (which is more like the 500 years war…. as it lasted formally until 1815…). The “English” who roasted Jehanne d’Arc were in the service of the legitimate French line… and the line of the establishments in Paris and London…. which lost. Indeed an accord had been found to end the hostilities which initially arose when Isabelle, the “Louve de France” and ruling queen of… England… found herself, according to Lex Salica, legitimate queen of France, as sole surviving child of her dad, the king of France, Philippe Le Bel. Yes, the “100 year”, which lasted until 1815, was basically a Franco-French affair. This is a crucial point, generally overlooked by those who believe fervently in nationalism (I don’t… I am severely transnational…). Moreover, the France of Jehanne d’Arc was an ally, since 1296, of the Kingdom of Scotland which the English kings had tried to subjugate (while also subjugating France).

After a seven month siege of the rebellious city of Meaux, at the end of May 1422, Henry V of France and Britain was joined by his queen and together with the French court, went to rest at Senlis (France). While there, Henry V fell ill (possibly dysentery), and when he set out to the Upper Loire, he diverted to the royal castle at Vincennes, near Paris, where he died on 31 August. The elderly, long ruling king Charles VI of France died two months later on 21 October. Official French history insists that Charles VI was insane… But that’s a diagnostic which helps French history to pretend that the accession of Henry V to the throne of France was an act of insanity… thus self serving. When Charles VI acted as if he was surrounded by murderous traitors, history seems to have proved him right (surrounded by traitors is something which had happened even to Charlemagne, betrayed by his own son Pepin, whom Charles trusted and esteemed… even after his betrayal…)  

Henry left an only child, his nine-month-old son, Henry VI, later to become Henry VI, wise king of England.

So the youngish, war-like Franco-British king died of diarrhea. Followed by the death also from natural causes, of the French king he was supposed to fully replace, a few months later.

A child was left as the Franco-British king, and it is that child, the legitimate heir of the Franco-British throne, that Joan of Arc and her sponsors dispossessed. That infant would make an excellent philosophically oriented British king (I say “British” because much of the British isles was controlled from London, since Edward III Long Shanks, grandson of Philippe IV Le Bel of France, had defeated Scotland… Scotland, allied to the France of Joan d’Arc and the Dauphin, would be defeated again before the end of the “100 year war”…).

Joan of Arc’s “Dauphin” was actually probably a bastard not descended from the “mad king”, but only from the Bavarian queen. At the time of puppet Joan’s extravagant show, she, her army, was financed by the “queen of the 4 kingdoms” (including Naples), sitting pretty in the south, and hating the alliance between London and Paris.

The official history of the period, which most people repeat like regimented parrots, has little to do with what really happened and why. Arc was the heroine-martyr of a sordid war which turned Paris and London into adversaries for the next 5 centuries.

The war was won when the “French” heavy cavalry surprised and exterminated the British archers which had made them suffer earlier, and even more so because the Bureau brothers, who were generals but also engineers, had invented and deployed the first field guns the world ever saw… which played a crucial role in the annihilation of two English armies at Formigny (Normandy; 1450) and Castillon (Aquitaine; 1453) battles, ending the Lancastre/Lancaster phase of the war… https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/…/joan-of-arc…/

PATRICEAYME.WORDPRESS.COM Was JOAN OF ARC ROASTED TOO LATE?

History is all too often sheer propaganda from cherry picking facts and, or, contexts :

History is made of mostly three components: historiography (historical texts), archaeology, and logical systems tying together sets of facts and their interpretations. Archaeology is increasingly important, and has increasingly led to view historiography in a more critical way, often by admitting that historians had vested interest, and, I have insisted, the texts which were preserved were generally preserved because those who preserved them had interest to do so. 

Example: Hellenistic dictatorships had no interest in preserving the works of Aristarchus of Samos, who believed that Earth rotated around the Sun (something that pretty obvious as the Sun was proven to be much larger). Indeed Aristarchus had answered the main objections… Thus Aristarchus rolled out a new level of nuance and thus, of critical thinking. One would have to wait sixteen (16) centuries for Buridan in Paris, just after the devastation of the Black Plague had shown there was nothing to fear… for inertia to be rolled out as the explanation of why the world turned the way it did…

Cain, having killed his brother, as Romulus (earlier!) did… is having a problem with his head in the Tuileries garden, Paris...

All the historical documents we got from Greco-Roman antiquity went through the filter of millennia of ruling plutocracy… which carefully filtered out most of it, as it was Pagan, secular, materialistic, and often scientific and technical…. But the theocratic fanatics had an interest in preserving any single word from Saint Augustine… who quoted the Bible, his superstition book, more than 42,000 times…  

By attracting attention to the fact that the most significant part of history around the time of Jehanne d’Arc is generally omitted, I point out deliberate propaganda for the religion of nationalism… As the British establishment also profited from the religion of nationalism, it didn’t bother to reveal that the Franco-British civil war had been resolved around 1420 CE… All the more as Scotland was allied to the other side…

The martyrdom of Joan of Arc was an excellent psy-op against the London-Paris governance: after her execution the rumor went around that a saint had been burned, as she didn’t make much of a scene in public. So the party of the false king was favored in public opinion. Something similar had happened after the Scottish hero, the lesser noble William Wallace, Braveheart of Hollywood fame, was dragged for miles, then half hanged, deprived of organs most sensitive and private, then eviscerated, and said intestines burned in his presumably aghast presence, before he was finally cut into pieces to be exposed around town… The Scotts were not amused by the contempt directed towards their hero…. And proceeded to revolt successfully. That had been a century earlier…

Cynics will say that the competition between France and England made them, if viewed as a single entity, stronger…

Maybe, but that’s not the point of this essay: when the stories around Jehanne of Arc are deployed, the fundamental story is that peace had been established, a solution had been found, Paris and London had finally reached an agreement resolving the problem created in 1066 CE when a French army led by a French Duke took over England, freed the slaves, and threw forever Vikings’ hopes to the sea. The problem was that the king of England was vassal to the king of France… who was “emperor in his own kingdom” (so equal to the Germano-Roman emperor further east). The problem became worse after the queen of France and Duchess of Aquitania, childless, married the king of England, bore him many children, including the Lion Hearted, and also brought along the enormous and wealthy province of Aquitania… The two monarchies collaborated tightly, including during crusades, when they were not fighting each other dirty.

The war could have all ended, but for a lethal diarrhea. Peace went down the toilet… That’s an even more important lesson than the outrageous judicial decision of burning a manipulated teenager with voices in her head… because she had violated an oath never to wear men’s clothing again…

Only by learning history in full can one hope to avoid repeating the errors of the past…

Patrice Ayme  

Tags: 100 Year War, Henry V, History In Full, Joan of Arc Cult, war