Even if one insists on taking a wholly cynical view on Joan of Arc's contributions (which our friends across the pond are particularly-but not always-prone to do), the fact is (correct me if I am wrong people) the English never won a major battle starting the day she first raised her banner. Lucky for the English, they were facing Charles the Base.
They didn't won a major battle since Verneuil in 1424. Joan of Arc isn't responsible of Lancaster attentism that began during the last part of Henry V : lack of ressource, lack of unity, unreliable ally, etc.
Saying that Lancaster didn't won a major battle after 1430's is like arguing about Napoleon not having won a major battle after 1815. That's technically true, but missing the point by far.
And, no, there's no contemporary mention of Charles the Base I can think of. Now, if you have a contemporary chronicle using this precise surname, please share the source.
Biographies of Joan of Arc are usually quite unreliable, because they focus on her action rather than the historical context.
Critically when, as I said above, she didn't had the effective military command of the french armies.
If you understand french (well, that would be quite necessary to have direct sources after all), I recomand
this. It's far from perfect, and biased on its own way but at least highligt the overall context, instead of a Great Man (well Woman) History.
A slight digression from the opening post but I've often wondered whether England might not have been better off with a French monarchy that's weakened and forced to give up a lot of their influence over their more powerful nobles leading to a greater decentralised state rather than trying to take the lot themselves. English Aquitaine and Gascony, Burgundy, Brittany, perhaps a recreated the Duchy of Toulouse etc. would all be interested in seeing a less powerful monarchy.
You forget that continental holdings of English Crown were as divided than the rest of the realm, especially everything south of Loire. And their continental vassals were interested on a relativly strong french king as it allowed them to go against their immediate suzerain. (It's basically what caused Plantagenet-Capetian wars).
Furthermore, Plantagenets were felt more as a threat than an ally, due to their "imperialistic" ambitions. Toulouse, by exemple, entered in an alliance with Capetians (that allowed eventually the formers to intervene directly) precisely because of Henry II's claims. Plantagenet's neighbours preferred eventually to deal with who was seen as the ultimate suzerain rather than more direct and possibly present dukes.
It's as true for other holdings, as consulates in southern France gaining the support of royal
sénéchaux.