What if Charles VII is the half brother of Joan of Arc (common father Jacques d'Arc - Darc Vader)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ban
Many of you have probably heard the alternate history that Joan of Arc (Jeanne Sybille d'Arc) is the half sister to the dolphin Charles VII (1403-1461). But have your ever considered who their common father was? Why not Jacques d'Arc? (I'll refer to him henceforth as Darc Vader, Joan's dark father).

Actor, Powers ("may the force be with you") Boothe, was a type of Darc Vader, Joan of Arc's dark father (Jacques Darc), in the 1999 TV mini-series, Joan of Arc (now on DVD).
In the opening scene, Darc Vader attempts to snuff out the life of his newborn daughter, Joan of Arc, but Joan's mother(Isabelle) prevents this from happening. Darc Vader remains quite a dark father throughout this TV miniseries.


I recently ran across an article published on the internet entitled,
"The Riddle Of Mark Twain’s Passion For Joan Of Arc" (by Daniel Crown).

I thought to myself, "Speaking of obsessions", my own, …

"How is Darth Vader relative to the Blessed Virgin Saint Joan of Arc?".

Here's how:

Georges de la Trémoille was Count de Guînes from 1398 to 1446 and Grand Chamberlain of France to King Charles VII of France. The Dolphin (Dauphin) Charles called Trémoille a “loving crocodile” in the 1948 film, Joan of Arc — starring Ingrid Bergman and Jose Ferrer. Charles (Jose Ferrer) called him a crocodile because of his constant preying on Charles. Charles frequently needed to borrow money from Trémoille, and Trémoille would make Charles put his signature at the bottom of a blank piece of paper. Trémoille would then make a legal document of it to his outrageous benefit.

What may Darth Gator (Trémoille) have said to the Dolphin Charles VII?

“ ‘Fluke’, you are my fodder.”

What SIGN may Darc Vader (Joan of Arc’s dark father, Jacques Darc) have given to his daughter Joan to take to the Dolphin Charles VII to prove she was sent by God?

“ ‘Fluke’, I am your father.”

So was Charles VII the illegitimate son of Darc Vader? ‘Fluke’ appears to be the perfect pet name for an illegitimate Dolphin of France. A fluke can be a fortunate accident or a dolphin’s tail.
“Heir Apparent” or “An Apparent Err”?

In Joan’s day, there were no DNA (Dolphin/Dauphin Nucleic Acid) tests. Joan of Arc was said to have a bright red birthmark behind one ear. Could it be that this same red mark was behind the ear of both: Joan of Arc, Darc Vader, and Charles VII?

How did Darc Vader and the Queen of France, Isabeau of Bavaria, perhaps manage to have an affair to conceive Charles VII in the year 1402? King Charles VI had gone mad by 1402.
Darc Vader did not marry Isabelle Romee until the year 1405.

Charles VII was born on Feb. 22, 1403 and died on July 22, 1461.
Darc Vader was 22 years old in 1402 (assuming he was born in 1380) when Charles VII was conceived.
The number 22 appears to be a SIGN that Darc Vader is the father.

Why did Charles VII quickly ennoble the Darc Vader family after he was crowned King of France?

Were Joan of Arc and Darc Vader hereditary Knights Templar nobility, descended from the Kings of Jerusalem? The Templars claim this is so.

Was Joan/Jeanne Sybille Darc (House of Anjou) a descendant of Queen Sibylla (House of Anjou) of Jerusalem some 200–250 years before Joan?

Is Joan actually a descendant of a Queen of Jerusalem?

Queen Sibylla was crowned Queen before her husband Guy ("Geek" I call him) was chosen by her to be King.

“Balian, I am your father”, [cute]

we hear actor Liam Neeson (Godfrey of Ibelin) tell actor Orlando Bloom (Balian of Ibelin), his illegitimate son, in the 2005 film “Kingdom of Heaven” about the Crusades (just before the 3rd crusade).

Balian the blacksmith becomes a Knight and defends Jerusalem, the King (Princess Sibylla’s brother), then later defends Queen Sibylla after her brother the King dies. Guy(Geek), her husband, whom she chose to be King, was a very dark Knights Templar who hated Balian and Godfrey.

Balian almost gets his hand cut off by an enemy sword. Does this remind you Star Wars fans of anything?

Queen Sibylla was not very fond of King Guy ("Geek"), but was fond of Balian. Balian had a chance to marry her too while Sibylla’s brother the King was still alive. But Balian refused to have Guy("Geek") executed to make this happen.

Later in the film, we see Guy ("Geek"), captured by Saladin’s army. Saladin makes King Guy ("Geek") ride/parade shirtless atop a donkey (ass) while seated backwards facing the donkey's tail end. Saladin parades the captured King Guy ("Geek") this way for all Jerusalem to witness.

Then, after Jerusalem is surrendered to Saladin, we see Queen Sibylla ride off with Balian.

Interestingly, we see Queen Sibylla cut her hair off in a Joan of Arc fashion before Jerusalem is surrendered - likely to keep from being raped.

So was Joan of Arc the return of Mary Magdalene? All the SIGNs point to that being the case. Both women saved France. One with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One with the Sword of the Lord and her own martyrdom. Charles VII died on July 22nd (1461) which is the Feast Day of Mary Magdalene in the Catholic Church. Both ladies provided a SIGN to the King or Dolphin of France in their day (See "The Golden Legend" for the story of Mary Magdalene).

In the 2016 film, RISEN, starring Joseph Fiennes (as Tribune to Pontius Pilate), Mary Magdalene is a Joan of Arc figure. In one scene, she gut kicks a Roman soldier chasing her, knocking him to the ground, then Mary jumps out the window to escape. These are very Joan of Arc moves. Also, Mary M. is called both a “witch” and a “martyr” and a “woman of the street”. These things were said of the Blessed Virgin Saint Joan of Arc by her English and Burgundian enemies/captors. If my memory serves me: Lucius (Tribune's aide) says to Tribune (regarding the captive Mary Magdalene) something on the order of, "Perhaps she is a witch sir? Shall I have her burned, or at least stoned?".

Elijah returned as John the Baptist.

Mary Magdalene can certainly return as Joan of Arc.

The Knights Templar patron saint is Mary Magdalene, and, the Templars associate Mary Magdalene with Joan of Arc.

Are both ladies incarnations of the Holy Spirit? I believe yes. In fact, I believe Joan of Arc to be the holy spirit of TRUMPETS; Mary M. the holy spirits of YOM KIPPUR and TABERNACLES; Simon "Peter" (Hebrew: Pita, Greek: Peeta) Bar-Jonah (Son of an intoxicating dove, Hebrew: Yayin Yownah) the holy spirits of PASSOVER, UNLEAVENED BREAD, and FIRST FRUITS; and John Bar-Zebedee (Son of the "Gift" of the Holy Spirit, Son of Righteous Indignation) the holy spirit of PENTECOST.

In the 1948 film by Victor Fleming (Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz), Joan of Arc, starring Ingrid Bergman and Jose Ferrer, we hear the TRUMPETS really blaring on two occassions: once at the battle of Orleans, and once at the coronation of King Charles VII at "Homs" (Rheims) Cathedral. Very beautiful.

Joan of Arc road a white horse, wore white armor, and wielded a two-edged sword. She came (at age 17) to vanquish the enemies of France forever. And Jesus Christ will come again (at the close of the ages) in similar manner to vanquish the enemies of God forever. Joan was canonized as a Saint (in 1920) by the Holy Mother Church some 500 years after she was burned at the stake by that self same Church, who had condemned her as a: witch, heretic, blasphemer, schismatic, cross-dresser, invoker of demons, and more. Jesus Christ was condemned in similar fashion by the Jewish Council/Sanhedrin.





 
Welcome to the board

To my knowledge, Jesus Christ was never convicted on the grounds of being a cross-dresser or a sorcerer. Heretic, blasphemer - He claimed to be Son of God when such a claim would've been blasphemy to the Jews of the day. Schismatic - Judaism was already sort of split between the pharisees and the saduccees. Invoker of demons? Not so much, they only accused that he drove out demons by Beelzebub.

The Templars association of St Mary Magdalene with St. Jeanne d'Arc is a dead letter since by the time of Jeanne's execution, they'd been disbanded for a century. Jeanne only ever referenced Sts. Margaret (of Antioch), Catherine (of Alexandria) and Gabriel (the archangel), never St Mary Magdalene. Even the sword she first wore into battle came from the church of St. Catherine not St. Mary Magdalene, IIRC.
 
erm... what did I just read?

Movies are not to be taken as accurate historiographical sources and analogy must be used with extreme caution if at all when comparing historical characters living hundreds of years apart.

But maybe this is written as a parody or with an in universe point of view from some weird alternate timeline, in that case, well done.
 
Welcome to the board

To my knowledge, Jesus Christ was never convicted on the grounds of being a cross-dresser or a sorcerer. Heretic, blasphemer - He claimed to be Son of God when such a claim would've been blasphemy to the Jews of the day. Schismatic - Judaism was already sort of split between the pharisees and the saduccees. Invoker of demons? Not so much, they only accused that he drove out demons by Beelzebub.

The Templars association of St Mary Magdalene with St. Jeanne d'Arc is a dead letter since by the time of Jeanne's execution, they'd been disbanded for a century. Jeanne only ever referenced Sts. Margaret (of Antioch), Catherine (of Alexandria) and Gabriel (the archangel), never St Mary Magdalene. Even the sword she first wore into battle came from the church of St. Catherine not St. Mary Magdalene, IIRC.

Afraid you are off track here and have misinterpreted what I have said. That's okay. Perhaps my fault. I never meant to portray Jesus Christ as a cross-dresser. All I was saying was that Jesus was tried in a similar fashion to Saint Joan of Arc, convicted on trumped up charges, falsely condemned at the beginning of a trial.

It does not matter if the Templars had been disbanded. They can still operate as a secret society preserving important knowledge and artifacts/relics, etc.

Knights Templar hereditary nobility (descended from the Kings of Jerusalem) may show that Charles VII had royal blood in him through the Jacques d'Arc line.

Michael, not Gabriel, was the archangel who appeared and spoke to Joan of Arc.

Did Joan of Arc know she was the return of Mary Magdalene? Likely not.
Did John the Baptist claim to be Elijah? No. It was Jesus who made this connection for us.
Did John the Baptist know he was the return of Elijah? Maybe. Maybe not. That knowledge may not have been given to him from above.
Did John Bar-Zebedee know that he was Elisha returned? Perhaps? Maybe not.
Elisha served 50 years. John Bar-Zebedee was the holy spirit of Pentecost. Elijah had given Elisha a double portion of his spirit.
Elisha promised 3 times to never leave Elijah, and he never did... until...
until John(Elisha) left John the Baptist (Elijah) at the River Jordan to follow after Jesus.
Was this okay? Yes, because someone greater than Elijah had come.
Jesus was the fullness of the Son of God made manifest in human flesh.
Moses and Elijah were the Son of God too, just not the fullness thereof.
Moses and Elijah appeared in all their glory with Jesus at the Transfiguration.
  • Jesus told John and Peter and James not to mention this until after he was crucified and raised from death. Why? Because the Jews would never have had Jesus crucified had they known Moses and Elijah were part of Jesus.
 
Last edited:
erm... what did I just read?

Movies are not to be taken as accurate historiographical sources and analogy must be used with extreme caution if at all when comparing historical characters living hundreds of years apart.

But maybe this is written as a parody or with an in universe point of view from some weird alternate timeline, in that case, well done.

Movies/Films can show us that we are not alone in our personal observations. The portrayal of Mary Magdalene as a Joan of Arc figure (RISEN, 2016) is evidence that others share similar (but unspoken) beliefs. This is unprecedented.

If you look at these things from the realm of the Spirit of God, you will understand that God is showing you evidence of what you are holding in you heart as possible truth, is truth. God does not reveal this to everyone, but to those He chooses too. Ask and you will receive. Seek and you will find. Knock and the door will be opened to you. But anyone who honestly desires to know the unrevealed truth, can expect to receive it if they will only ask with an open heart.
 
Movies/Films can show us that we are not alone in our personal observations. The portrayal of Mary Magdalene as a Joan of Arc figure (RISEN, 2016) is evidence that others share similar (but unspoken) beliefs. This is unprecedented.

If you look at these things from the realm of the Spirit of God, you will understand that God is showing you evidence of what you are holding in you heart as possible truth, is truth. God does not reveal this to everyone, but to those He chooses too. Ask and you will receive. Seek and you will find. Knock and the door will be opened to you. But anyone who honestly desires to know the unrevealed truth, can expect to receive it if they will only ask with an open heart.
I am afraid I cannot follow you on such leaps of faith.

In any case, no offemse, but this is a forum for discussion and speculation about relatively realistic different outcomes of key historical events (points of divergences/PODs) and their development into coherent speculative fictions about plausible alternate historical events as consequence of one or more realistic PODs (Alternate Timelines/ATLs).

This is unfortunately not the place for theological or mystical speculation and appeals.
 
I am afraid I cannot follow you on such leaps of faith.

In any case, no offemse, but this is a forum for discussion and speculation about relatively realistic different outcomes of key historical events (points of divergences/PODs) and their development into coherent speculative fictions about plausible alternate historical events as consequence of one or more realistic PODs (Alternate Timelines/ATLs).

This is unfortunately not the place for theological or mystical speculation and appeals.

Really? not the place?
I have as much right as any man (or woman) to write a history.
The histories of the "lost cause", for example, are all written out by "big bugs", generals and renowned historians.
But high private SAM WATKINS (1st Tennessee Regiment, Company aytch "H") decided to write a history on the American Civil War from his own perspective.
Was general Robert E. Lee "gone in the head" as was similarly thought (at one time) of general Sherman (Union side)?

Sam Watkins remembers grabbing hold the reigns of "Traveler", Lee's horse, who was loose, and returning the horse to Lee, who said,
"Thank you my son". Did Lee think he was Jesus Christ?
Sam Watkins writes that Lee wore no rank insignia nor carried any weapons on him about this time.
Sam Watkins writes that he wanted to go up to Lee at this moment and say, "Hi Uncle Bob !"
and can't be sure that he didn't do just that.
 
Er, to be explicit, this site is for alternate paths of history not alternate interpretations or hidden history.

Eg "what if the rebels lost the American Revolutionary War" rather than "the loss is a facade".

Does that help? You're coming across as the latter not the former and the latter get banned.
 
Er, to be explicit, this site is for alternate paths of history not alternate interpretations or hidden history.

Eg "what if the rebels lost the American Revolutionary War" rather than "the loss is a facade".

Does that help? You're coming across as the latter not the former and the latter get banned.

No, it does not really help. And here is my example why:

The student textbook, America's Story, Hardcourt Brace & Company, 1997, page 370, states that ex-slave, Sojourner Truth, who spoke to crowds against slavery, believed that slavery could be ended peacefully. And that ex-slave, Frederick Douglas, argued in his speeches that only rebellion could end slavery. The textbook follows by saying,

"In the end, Douglas was proved right".

"The nation that grew large and strong would soon be divided by civil war."

Do you see how written history and perceptions and morality can be tainted by false statements like this?

Douglas was NOT proved right

All history shows is that militant radicals like: Abe Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, William Lloyd Garrison, and John Brown, took matters into their own hands and forced history to turn out in their favor by starting a war before anti-slavery peace lovers had the necessary time to end slavery without violence.

Anti-slavery peace lovers like: Sojourner Truth, Harriet Beecher Stowe (of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" fame), and Harriet Tubman (called "Moses"), all women, could just as likely have had success with their methods given the time, and without the militant radical's interference. Perhaps the ladies' solution of changing American hearts and values was just around the corner within a few years. Or perhaps at least quicker than war and reconstruction. And just look at the partial cost of that war (600,000+ lives lost).

What if Moses had had militant radical competition while he attempted to lead the Children of Israel out of Egypt peacefully? We know Moses' way worked. But had radicals caused the Children of Israel to rise up against the Armies of Egypt at the same time Moses was doing things peacefully God's way, and had the radicals changed the course of history their way, history would once again be written that militant radicalism alone wins out, specifically, that the only way that the Children of Israel could have been freed from Egypt was by bloodshed and rebellion. In Modern time, that equates to, the only way to end global terrorism was to start a 9 year bloody war in Iraq (2003-2011).
 
HISTORY HAS BEEN WRITTEN?

America's good friend, film producer/writer, Ken Burns, whom we truely admire, who brought both the histories of Baseball and the American Civil War into our own Living Rooms, surely had "the wool pulled over his eyes" though.

(Ken, there has been a mistake. It will not happen again. I know your quality. You are one of the finest producers of historical documentaries I have ever known, and your service to this country has been invaluable. But seriously:)

Ken's narrator in, The Civil War - Episode 1 - 1861 - The Cause - At the Crossroads of Our Being, describes Confederate General Thomas J. "Stone wall" Jackson as a hypochondriac who rode into battle with one hand raised, Jackson said, "to keep the blood balanced". (to be fair to Ken, this has been perpetuated by historians.)

Now Ken, just because he said he raised his hand above his head as he rode into battle to keep the blood balanced, does not mean he is a hypochondriac. Perhaps he said that because he didn't want people to know the truth of why he was doing it (i.e he did not want to cast his pearls before swine). He probably got asked that question over and over and was being facetious.

'Pearls before swine' implys that things (such as pearls) should not be put in front of people (or in this case, swine) who do not appreciate their value. From Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. source: Wikipedia.com

I can guess with a pretty good degree of probability that because Jackson was a student of theology that the reason he raised his hand going into battle was no different than Moses raising his staff in the air as the Children of Israel fled for their lives from the approaching Armies of Egypt as they were crossing the parted Red Sea. As long as they could see Moses' staff raised, they took courage and pushed forward.

Jackson surely did it to let his men know that God was with them and not to fear. Or perhaps Jackson did it for his own benefit, to keep up his own courage before God - for his men's sake. Jackson had his hand shot in doing so, but simply wrapped his hand and immediately held it back up.

Can you imagine Moses being asked all the time why he had raised his staff in the air? He probably got tired of that fast and came up with something silly just to make people leave him alone, and have a good laugh with himself in the process.

Moses: The reason I raised my staff in the air was because I made a bet with God that I could get the Children of Israel across the parted Red Sea before

God could strike me dead with lightning. I tried to make it easy for God,

but I still won. Maybe that's really why God didn't let Moses into the Promised Land?

Moses really put God between a rock and a hard place. (just kidding, just kidding)

======
At the Battle of Gettysburg: Confederate Brigadier General, Lewis Armistead...

(who was under General Pickett, who was under General Longstreet, who was under General Lee - too many cooks spoil the soup, right?),

upon both him (Armistead) and his men having reached by foot the stone wall (from across the immense unprotected distance of the battlefield) to where the Union troops had hunkered down behind)...

Armistead removes his hat, takes his sword, drives it through his hat, raises his sword above his head, and says, "Virginians! Who will go with me?"

Taking courage even amongst the heavy carnage all around them, Armistead's men push forward into the Union lines facing dreaded hand-to-hand combat.

It was General Armistead, that, before leading his troops into battle that day, looked up to heaven and said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." And it was General Armistead who once said, "If I ever raise my hand against General Hancock, so help me, may God strike me dead."

Armistead was mortally wounded that day and died within the matter of a few days. Armistead faced Hancock's troops on the Union side that day. Hancock was severely wounded, but lived. Armistead loved Hancock like a brother, and vice versa, both knowing each other well - for quite some time before the War.

But nonetheless, history has been written that General Thomas J. "Stone wall" Jackson was a hypochondriac.
 
I'm not any clearer what your thread is about.
Are you saying:
1) I think Joan of Arc and the Dauphin shared a biological father
Or
2) What if (unlike our timeline) they shared a father
Or something else?
 
I'm not any clearer what your thread is about.
Are you saying:
1) I think Joan of Arc and the Dauphin shared a biological father
Or
2) What if (unlike our timeline) they shared a father
Or something else?

1). I think Joan of Arc and the Dauphin shared a biological father.

Was Charles VII still an heir apparent to the throne of France?
Perhaps yes, in God's eyes at least.
Perhaps God did not want the "mad" genes of King Charles VI (House of Valois) passed on to the Dolphin of France.
Perhaps a royal blood line (from the Kings or Queens of Jerusalem) was the alternative choice God made.
Perhaps a merging of the blood lines from the House of Anjou (Darc family) with the royal house of Isabeau of Bavaria
(House of Wittelsbach)?
 
1). I think Joan of Arc and the Dauphin shared a biological father.

Was Charles VII still an heir apparent to the throne of France?
Perhaps yes, in God's eyes at least.
Perhaps God did not want the "mad" genes of King Charles VI (House of Valois) passed on to the Dolphin of France.
Perhaps a royal blood line (from the Kings or Queens of Jerusalem) was the alternative choice God made.
Perhaps a merging of the blood lines from the House of Anjou (Darc family) with the royal house of Isabeau of Bavaria
(House of Wittelsbach)?

So this isn't about an alternate timeline in which they are siblings but about your actual believe that they were siblings?
 
1). I think Joan of Arc and the Dauphin shared a biological father.

Was Charles VII still an heir apparent to the throne of France?
Perhaps yes, in God's eyes at least.
Perhaps God did not want the "mad" genes of King Charles VI (House of Valois) passed on to the Dolphin of France.
Perhaps a royal blood line (from the Kings or Queens of Jerusalem) was the alternative choice God made.
Perhaps a merging of the blood lines from the House of Anjou (Darc family) with the royal house of Isabeau of Bavaria
(House of Wittelsbach)?

Two things here:

1) Pre-1900 is made to explore alternate scenario, by your own admission you don't want to do that since you believe what you say to be the historical truth
2) Conspiracy theory, and this is what it is despite the whole theological mombojombo, are actually frown upon around here.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top