Could it be that one more page of the history the French are so proud of is yet another lie?

It is apparently so. And the national figurehead being challenged is Joan of Arc.

According to renowned Ukrainian orthopedic surgeon Serhiy Horbenko, who was commissioned by the French authorities to conduct research on French King Louis XI and his wife Charlotte de Savoie, the real Joan of Arc lived years after her supposed martyrdom (Thx to J. Mayeau for the link - yes, I know, I'm terribly late):

Horbenko's research into the skulls and skeletons of France's long-dead royals has led him to conclude that the woman on the pyre was not Joan at all but another French woman.

The surgeon has suggested that with the English armies threatening the French throne, the monarchy needed a miracle and their supporters concocted one.

What does he mean exactly by "concocted"? That they deliberately lied to the people? To historians? To everyone? Allons, allons Mr. Horbenko, it's la France and Jeanne d'Arc we're talking about!

He said that the person who was chosen to play the role of saviour - always ascribed to Joan - was in fact a noblewoman called Marguerite de Valois, the illegitimate daughter of the previous monarch Charles VI.

Horbenko, believes that Marguerite de Valois was in fact the illegitimate daughter of Charles VI and, in possession of fine military skills, performed her role much better than anyone expected. She became such a powerful figure in the eyes of her followers that she was perceived as a threat to the French throne.

"I think that if she had revealed her Valois lineage, she could have secured the backing of enough nobles and soldiers to overthrow the Dauphin," Horbenko said. He believes that Marguerite was removed from the scene and another woman was substituted to become the martyr.

Horbenko believes there may have even been a further switch so that the place of the woman who made such an impression at the trial was taken by one of five women he learned had been condemned to be burned to death for witchcraft.

The surgeon said that Marguerite, meanwhile, was effectively held as a prisoner for the remainder of her life and died in her late 50s.

The theory put forward by Horbenko, who was invited by the French authorities, is of course causing some grinding of teeth.

Denise Reynaud, the deputy mayor at Clery who commissioned Horbenko, described the Ukrainian as a "very difficult man to work with owing to his Slavic temperament'.

Ah, those Slavs, they really miss every good opportunity to shut up!

Analysis some bones, this man is able to know that Joan of Arc lived in fact some decades after her supposed death...
What a moron !

Analysis the bones may tell you ONLY that the bones belong to Joan of Arc or not. The rest is pure fantasy.

And of course, Marc Levis knows better than a renowned orthopedic surgeon.

Nobody knows exactly what Marc Levis is doing for a living, but the moron is the orthopedic surgeon that was commissioned by the French authorities.

Heureusement que le ridicule ne tue pas, n'est-ce pas Marc ?

Unfortunately for him , the renowned surgeon doesn't escape to the pure logic.

All these precise informations about her life, acquaintances, relationship with the King , would come from a shape of a bone ? Suuuuree.

Too bad some people loose time to listen to such guy. He should stick to his bones analysis and don't try to remake History.

To conclude, we can say that this renowned orthopedic Surgeon est bete comme ses pieds.

Too bad some people loose time to listen to such guy.

Smile, because whether you agree or not, it's with your money.

I gotta go with Marc on this one. The story of Joan of Arc has been examined backward, forward, and pretty much every which way over the ages. Her court records are available, her identity was verified, and all of the details were examined not once, but twice (they had a rehabilitation trial). And that was when they had all the evidence before them. During the French Revolution, the rebels destroyed a ton of it because they decided that the Catholic Church (and hence St. Joan) was eeeeeevil.

Oh, and tinnitus manifests as a ringing tone in the ears, not voices.

Joan of Arc, wasn't she Noah's wife?

(Tounge firmly in cheek, thanks to Bill and Ted.)

It is a scientific fact you can tell how old a person was by examining the bones.

Also you can tell who they were related to by Dna raken from the marow. Also you can tell what they did for a living due to the stoutness of the bones. also you can tell when they died due to carbon 14 radioactive decay. This fellow Dr. Horbenko is only telling the facts. Provable facts. While the trials (both of them) are only hearsay evidence.

So the whole issue is not whether a woman kicked the Brits' ass or not, but whether her name was Joan or Marguerite?

Don't you guys have a life?

If someone lied to the French back in the 1400's, I can deal with it. I know of a country who's been lied to only a few months ago.
Suspicious minds will take note that Brits were around in both cases. Evil, evil people.

Steph,

What about the people who lied to you?

I beleive rather the Doc's case says that Joan was Margarite's alias, and that she was spirited away to strengthen a dubious persons claim to the crown of France. Further that some poor soul was murdered by the state to keep this a secret.

I would think this is good news. It seems that France didn't abandon their most Famous heroine to be burned at the stake. Although they were perfectly happy to imprison her for life to protect the guilt of the men in power.
Only a degree of separation from total betrayal, but at least a step closer to right.

Thanks for the hat tip Carine.

I would follow both Steph and Carine.

Indeed, the french media were insisted before the war on a very probable quagmire.
They were making a big thing on "the personal Guard of Saddam Hussein", on the man to man fights that would occurs in the streets of Bagdad, on the GI not prepared for such fights...

Bullshit. The US army slaughtered the primitive iraqian Army, and Tanks were inside the city, in less time you need to say it, and almost no man to man fights occured.

On this subject our media here in France were incredibly naive. They wanted to create a "suspens" in this war to attract more audience,
but it was no suspens. They were wrong . Shame on them for their lack of competence.

Also they showed mostly "small" demonstration against US army, but forgot to cover the happyness of the huge part of the population.
They must be blind, or afraid to be considered as a pro-american channel if they were simply revealing the truth: a clear, quick , total british-american military victory.

I was more satisfied of the coverage of what happened in the UN before the war. We could hear both sides, both arguments coming from pro-american position, and coming from anti-war position.

Carine,

The people that lied to me (of course they did, but since they lie even about the weather forecast it wasn't much of a surprise) haven't killed anyone. On the other hand, the people that lied to you have the lives of a few hundred dead GI's (+ whatever number of Iraqis) on their conscience. And Osama or the WMD are still to be found, not counting the fact that most of the Arab world now REALLY hates the West and is pushing for more extremist regimes. So much for world peace and democracy.

Amusingly, I just learned that the US were the only country ever condemned for State Terrorism! (and they still owe 17 billions for that).

The people that lied to me (of course they did, but since they lie even about the weather forecast it wasn't much of a surprise) haven't killed anyone.

Turning a blind eye on the massacres of Saddam's regime was indirectly participating in the slaughering of the thousands and thousands of Iraqi people that were found in mass graves in Iraq.

I bet you demonstrated (1) to support the continuation of such a slaughtering, (2) against the possibility that the Iraqi people could one day have the opportunity to know freedom and to stop living in fear.

You must be proud of yourself.

You're the perfect useful idiot.

Saddam's poodle.

Please tell me, did you cry when he was captured?

The fact that Saddam was taken doesn't remove the fact that the US administrations lied.

The disparition of Saddam is certainly a god peice of news for Iraqians, but that's not the steph's point.

Americans have been lied, manipulated by their governement. And this is completely anti-democratic method, that shows no respect for the US citizens.
They made it once, they'll make again. You can't trust them now.

Hope US Citizens will consider this point for the next election.

Yeah right, as if Bush really cared for the freedom of the Iraqis! After that I bet he'll go for the War against Poverty. Oh no wait, he's first going to the moon. Come on! The neocons in power in D.C. are Realists (academic sense), not social workers. Or if they are, then Reagan is a dangerous marxist thinker.

How about the mass graves in Burma or North Korea? How about Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, or wherever in Africa? Where's the army?

I bet you participate in this blog (1) to support intervention against such slaughterings, (2) for the possibility that the Iraqi people could one day have the opportunity to sell their oil to freedom-loving countries, so that that big SUV you always dreamed of could come true.

You must be proud of yourself.

You're the perfect useful idiot.

Whoever-has-power's poodle.

Please tell me, did you cry when the US refused to send troops to Liberia?

Marc,

The "Bush lied" issue has been discussed here over and over again. This simplisme to quote Védrine has been proven wrong an incredible number of times. I am not going to repeat it over again for someone like Steph who visibly has been fed with communist propaganda all of his short life and is completely unable and, worse, unwilling, to think on his own. Pave's archives are here anyway.

Steph,

You're fascinating me.

I am fascinated by your limitless ignorance and imbecility. Really, you are amazing.

It has been quite a while since we had a world-champion troll like you here.

Steph comments: "How about the mass graves in Burma or North Korea? How about Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, or wherever in Africa? Where's the army?"

Fair questions to ask. But might I ask exactly what are France, the EU, or the auspicious UN doing, or have ever done, to resolve these or other numerous violations of basic human rights taking place in this world? What about Cuba? Belarus? Chechnya? Tibet? Kashmir? Please enlighten me as to why it took an American initiative before the Europeans acted to stop the slaughter taking place on their own continent in Bosnia and Kosovo? Please show me evidence of mass demonstrations taking place in Europe protesting Russia's ruthless treatment of Chechnya, or Indonesian brutalities in East Timor. Where are the banners displaying solidarity with the people of Taiwan against the persistent intimidation by China? Where were the thousands of protestors when Mugabe visited Paris?

No, it's much easier to vilify America or Israel. The European left displays all the moral character of Pontius Pilate.

"Where are the banners displaying solidarity with the people of Taiwan against the persistent intimidation by China?"

In France, we have more to offer than banners.
We gave Taiwan a set of modern frigates.

Would that be these frigates?:

http://www.taiwandc.org/iht-2002-02.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2057599.stm

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/local/archives/2000/03/15/27885

http://www.armsdeal-vpo.co.za/articles05/scandalous.html

Oh, BTW I believe that France SOLD, not GAVE these items.

MB, swing that hammer! Keep pounding that nail in the coffin. Couldn't agree more.

Carine,

Trolling about is rather what YOU do (why I am wasting time telling you this anyway?). If you have so much fun insulting poeple disagreing with you, buy yourself a freaking tape recorder and have fun listening to your own diatribes; there'll be at least one person in the room thinking you say something smart and witty.

MB,

Thanks for your (polite and argumented) comment. As a matter of fact, I never said that France or Europe have done any better to stop third world dictatorships: T-W leaders are usually useful pawns and I see no reason to overthrow them before their own civil society is ready to do so. I only criticize the way the Bush administration chose this particular one, the way they did it, and the reaction that came when someone told them it was fishy.

Steph comments: "T-W leaders are usually useful pawns and I see no reason to overthrow them before their own civil society is ready to do so."

Your comment implies a belief that the citizens of countries such as North Korea, Burma, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, etc., have the capacity to rise up against their governments or to organize a viable resistance. I find this notion to be at best naive.

Most people in the West haven't the slightest idea of what it is to live in a police state. My wife, whose opinion I value greatly, grew up in a third world dictatorship. You would be hard pressed to find someone who appreciates the freedom that America offers more than she does. Her opinions of right and wrong are might seem simplistic to a "sophisticated" European, but for me they are an object lesson in moral clarity.

A close friend of mine is a Ukranian immigrant who grew up in the Stalinist era. He and I have discussed on many occasions the societal impact of living under a regime with ablolutely no scruples concerning human rights. Try to imagine being unable to trust even your own family for fear you might be informed on to the secret police. Read The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksander Solzhenitsyn and tell me if you still believe that "civil society" can under such conditions ready themselves to dispose of a totalitarian regime.

Is America innocent of having supported unsavory governments? The short answer is no, but I doubt there are any governments who are without fault. However, my argument here is not with governments, but with those who have the advantage and benefit of living in free societies, but who choose to ally themselves, either explicitly or tacitly, with the very forces who would destroy said freedom.

Freedom is not free. The world is not perfect. Evil does exist. Ignore it at your peril.

Is America innocent of having supported unsavory governments? The short answer is no, but I doubt there are any governments who are without fault.
Finally, someone with open eyes in the American side. I started to become hopeless...

You are right MB . The original mission of the UN was to avoid wars, thanks to an organized , civilized community . It's indeed maybe time, after the Iraqian case, for the UN enlarge its scope, to become a power capable to replace dictatorships by civilized , democratic societies.

However, I would argue in the opposite that some culture are not "developped" enough to accept a democracy as a ruling system. In many African Countries especially, only "the stronger" is accepted as the leader.
Should we remove a peaceful dictatorships ( it exist) by a potential chaotic democracy ?

"I think that if she had revealed her Valois lineage, she could have secured the backing of enough nobles and soldiers to overthrow the Dauphin,"

Certainly not: only men could inherit the throne

Marc Levis comments: "Finally, someone with open eyes in the American side. I started to become hopeless..."

Here is a paradox for you to consider. The neo-con's (of which I consider myself) who are almost universally demonized by the Euro Left (and the American Left for that matter), are perhaps the one political faction in America who readily admit to past mistakes. However, what I might consider to have been a mistake, as opposed to what you do, is an entirely different matter.

Marc Levis also comments: "However, I would argue in the opposite that some culture are not "developped" enough to accept a democracy as a ruling system."

Based on your statement, there are those who might determine that certain European countries are incapable of democracy.

Also, could you be a bit more specific as to which cultures are less able to manage with democracy than others. I wouldn't want to draw the wrong conclusions nor put words into your mouth.

I think I know what Marc means by "developed", and it gives me the opportunity to explain what I meant when I say civil societies able to overthrow leaders.
There is a good number of economists (hardcore free marketers, before anyone objects), who argue that most political change comes with/from economic growth. When middle classes (or even upper classes) are large enough in a country, they start worrying about something else than just food and security, they want the political power that comes with their economical power. They are also more receptive to democratic ideas rather than power based on brute force, hence a transition to a democratic system from within.
To sums things up, political freedom stems from economical freedom. Imposing a system from outside (as in Iraq) is nearly pointless if there's nothing to sustain it.
Check out "Austrian school", "mont pelerin society" and "Hayek" on google for more (and better explained) details.

And I wouldn't consider Chirac being from the "Euro-left". Nor Putin (which was ready to veto at the SC as well), as a matter of fact. Nor even the 70% of the Brit population who opposed the war.

Kind of the chicken and the egg, isn't it, Steph? How can a people gain economic freedom when a totalitarian government controls the commerce? Communism, for example. Either one feeds off the other. Freedom is freedom. You can't be economically free and socially imprisoned. Likewise society is not free when it cannot make economic progress due to governmental controls. Economic and social freedom are one in the same.

Please cite your source for the 70% claim. Arguments are made in the following manner:

assertion/justification/assertion/justification

not:

asertion/assertion/assertion/assertion

Steph, Let me see if I understand you correctly.

You make the statement "...To sums things up, political freedom stems from economical freedom. Imposing a system from outside (as in Iraq) is nearly pointless if there's nothing to sustain it."

So, does this mean that support for freedom and human rights should be contingent to the relative wealth of a given country? Should I be less supportive of democracy for Burma, North Korea, or Cuba because they are very poor countries? Should I be more willing to tolerate dictatorships there until such time as they become economically viable?

You also comment: "And I wouldn't consider Chirac being from the "Euro-left". Nor Putin (which was ready to veto at the SC as well), as a matter of fact."

Nowhere did I state or infer that they were. Although I may vehemently disagree with the decisions of certain European leaders, my own personal antipathy is reserved for the Western Left in general, regardless if they are European, North American, or wherever.

safe to say all European countries were shattered economicly after WW2. SO by Marc's veiwpoint none of them were viable democracies. Yet we set up the Marshall plan and thus we are were we are today.

Not ready for democracy? pish posh from a snob.

Sorry, I was wrong with the poll thing: it was rather 1 Briton out of 10 who favored the war in Iraq without a UN mandate. My mistake.

(MB) As for the economical/political freedom debate, and sadly for Hayek, it is certainly not because one has a Nobel prize that one is right. Lots of external parameters also come into play and may oppose this markets-will-save-us point of view, like external support/intervention, economical structure (if all resources are oriented towards one particular economical area only, like natural resources), and of course cultural background (e.g. previous experience of democracy or importance of religion/ethnic tensions). I only brought this argument to feed the discussion, hoping it would also please our more economically conservative friends over here.
But I consider the Marshall plan to be derivative (or precursor?) of this idea of democracy sustained by economic development, even if India is a good example of sustained democracy in a very underdevelopped environment. There is more than one way to do it, it seems.

Also, when you say "Should I be more willing to tolerate dictatorships there until such time as they become economically viable", I think the question isn't about should or should not, but rather "do we" or "do we not" ("we" being our govts). I do not think anyone cared about democracy in Afghanistan or China until they became i) a threat (in which case once the threat is gone nobody cares again) or ii) a real economic partner.

I also misunderstood your point about the Euro-left, since you'd talked about "the neo-cons demonized by the Euro-left": I think it is wrong to think that all people opposing the Bush policies are from the Left (even if it depends on how far on the right you are). As for Soviet Russia, we must note, as I said, that it crumbled from within. And you may enjoy reading this.

(Beo) "You can't be economically free and socially imprisoned".
Go to China or see Chile under Pinochet's rule.

(J.Mayeau) As for rebuilding Europe after WWII, the survivors had it easier since they already had a capable, educated civil society on which to rely on, and strong foreign aid to prevent any commie mishap. But pouring money alone isn't enough.

Assertion, link, link, link, assertion. And link.

steph replies: "As for the economical/political freedom debate..."

The world is indeed imperfect, complex, and full of difficult choices to make. As for me, Western civilization, democracy, and capitalism, when weighed against the alternatives, are far preferable despite any inherent faults.

You continue: "There is more than one way to do it, it seems."

I quite agree. My question is are you willing to take personal responsibility in the case that you make the wrong choice? I will give you a personal example. In my youth I was against the U.S. war in Vietnam. I supported the withdrawl of American troops from SE Asia. What were the consequences of my choices? Thousands upon thousands of refugees trying to escape a when the communists took over. Many more killed, brutalized, and imprisoned by the regime even to this day? The whole Cambodian population enslaved by the Khmer Rouge, an estimated two million slaughtered, and a country that still today suffers from the legacy of a madman. All of this and yet more if one includes the Laotian people who suffer under the Phra Thet Lao. These are the consequences of my choices. While it is unknown what might have happened if we had not abandoned SE Asia, we certainly have plenty of evidence of what happened because we did.

You further comment: "I do not think anyone cared about democracy in Afghanistan or China until they became i) a threat (in which case once the threat is gone nobody cares again) or ii) a real economic partner."

Well, I for one did and still do.

You comment: "I think it is wrong to think that all people opposing the Bush policies are from the Left (even if it depends on how far on the right you are)."

My problem with the Western Left is that they are in my opinion, for the most part, hypocrites. They claim to defend the disenfranchised, the poor, the suffering, and the weak. But their actions belie their rhetoric. They overwhelmingly either openly support, or tacitly ignore, the most corrupt, depraved, and brutal governments in existence, all from the comfort and safety of democratic Western societies. The irony does not escape me is that the very regimes and ideologies who enjoy the support of the Left, would also just as gleefully put a bullet in the back their heads, as they would mine or my family.

At least the Rightists are not so intellectually dishonest. Their words can generally be taken quite literally. They openly express their opinions and do not hide their prejudices and goals.

You also comment: "As for Soviet Russia, we must note, as I said, that it crumbled from within."

But not without substantial external pressure. It took a unified effort on the part of the West, with a disproportionate contribution by America in my opinion, and despite the protestations of the same Leftist element as today, to facilitate the collapse of the Soviet empire. How can I in good conscience tolerate these same apologists and defenders of communism, socialism, and Marxism, who today defend Islamism? When they have been so thoroughly discredited in my eyes in the past, why should I believe that their solutions for today are any less disreputable than their ideas of yesterday?

(Beo) "You can't be economically free and socially imprisoned".
Go to China or see Chile under Pinochet's rule.

Wrong. Sure, China is a big economy - for the government and those privileged enough to live in "special economic zones." Guess what else poeple who live in the "special economic zones" enjoy? More social freedom. The commies aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, but they're not totally stupid either. When they got Britain's gift of Hong Kong in 1997, they didn't start stripping people's freedoms. At least not right away. It may come, and if they're clever, it will happen so gradually that the citizens of Hong Kong will never even notice. If they're really clever, they will try to model their nation on the same principles that made Hong Kong the success it was in 1997. Social and economic freedom.

By the way, despite over a decade of cover-up and denial, people in China are slowly starting to find out what really happened in Tiananmen Square.

Hi.

GE, you are almost exactly right. We know more about Joan of Arc, more certainly, than about almost any other famous historical figure before modern times. It's all solid legal testimony.

These conspiracy theories about Joan have been around for donkey's years. It never ends, it's like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or something. Real historians just have to grit their teeth and ignore the latest crazies.

As for the alleged tinnitus: ho ho ho. It takes more than an alleged ringing in your ears to move you into the ranks of history's great captains of war.

Joan is one of the few historical heroes that turn out to be as impressive as they are supposed to be when you examine the cold facts. Some folks find that rather confronting. That may be at the back of some of the fantasies: a desire to deny that any mere peasant girl could have done what Joan certainly did do.

Then again, some, like Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle, have found inspiration in her amazing life and brave death.

However, there was no Saint Joan during the French Revolution, except perhaps in heaven.

Saint Joan of Arc, Beatified 11 April 1905 by Pope Saint Pius X, Canonized 16 May 1920 by Pope Benedict XV.

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintj05.htm

Maybe the French needs to remove that log from their own eye before complaining about the splinter in the United States eye.
There is all kinds of documentation about Saddams regimes' attrocities going back to Clintons early years. And of course all the talking head resolutions from the U.N. that Saddam resolutely dismissed.
Hope you guys enjoy that new American StarBucks that just opened up in Paris. :)