Review of CBS' Miniseries: JOAN OF ARC

Over all the CBS miniseries Joan of Arc had good entertainment value. The actress Lee Lee Sobieski, portrayed Joan as a noble, compassionate, courageous yet at times head strong and willful young woman. I also like the emotion she displayed during the coronation scene. In addition the miniseries presented Joan as a virgin, who loved God and wanted to serve HIM. It also showed her as someone who loved her country but was used by others. Its careful description of the terrible living conditions of medieval life was accurate. I liked the costuming, the sets and 'Joan's' battle standard and sword.


Its over all historical accuracy was appalling! I believe too many important facts that needed to be conveyed were, for the lack of time, being left out and in its place the screen writers had incorporated nonsense into Joan's magnificent story.

The CBS miniseries JOAN OF ARC started off by quoting a supposed prophecy made by Merlin, the magician of King Arthur's court: "It was said that after nearly a century of war this young maiden would unite her divided people and lead them to freedom."

This was, in fact, NOT a Merlin prophecy. According to the American historian, Albert Bigelow Paine, a generation before Joan's birth - the French mystic, Marie of Avignon, prophesied to the then King of France, Charles the Sixth, the following: "France, ruined by a woman, would be restored by a maid from the borders of Lorraine." Mr. Paine goes on to say that this prediction was fairly well known as Joan had heard and quoted it herself. A similar prophecy, attributed to the mythical Merlin concerning Bois Chenu, or Chesnu, seems not to have been known in Domremy and in fact had no connection with any forest in France. (This information came from Page 26 of volume 1 of Mr. Paine's two volume work JOAN OF ARC: MAID OF FRANCE.)

The fact that this film kept emphasizing the idea of the "legend" about the Maid of Lorraine and that the 'Joan' character kept denying it, is important to consider. It is significant for the reader to realize that during Joan's lifetime she NEVER used the title "Maid of Lorraine," nor did she ever use her father's surname "D'Arc." The only title Joan ever used for herself was "The Maid." This title emphasized her virginity and that she was God's servant.

The only conclusion that I can come to, for the miniseries over emphasizing of the term "Maid of Lorraine" and erroneously making the assumption that it was spoken by Merlin, was to give this film a "new age" flavor.

The influence of the English playwright, Bernard Shaw, is greatly felt through out this film. I will explain each occurrence as I discus the CBS miniseries.


The miniseries portrays Joan's father as a cruel, hostle, stingy monster who wanted to kill Joan at birth just because she was girl. This is a very harsh judgment that the historical facts don't support. Rather, the historical records describe the D'Arc family as willing to open their home to strangers and to share what they could with them. People remembered how Joan would willingly give up her bed to these strangers while she herself slept by the hearth. This would never have happened if her father had forbidden it!

It is true that when Jacques d'Arc dreamed that Joan would 'go with soldiers.' he told his sons: "If I believed the thing I dreamed of her would happen, I should wish that you might drown her, and if you did not do it, I would drown her myself." Many people hold this statement against him without realizing that the idea of going with soldiers was the same as becoming a prostitute. Instead of seeing Joan dishonor herself or her family by becoming a prostitute he would rather see her dead. But obviously his bark was worse than his bite because he never acted upon this threat. Joan admitted that after her father had this dream, her parents held her in 'great subjection' but Joan was obedient to her parents in all things except when she went to France.

After Joan was received by the Dauphin, she sent a letter to her parents asking their forgiveness for leaving home without their permission. Joan received their forgiveness through her two brothers, Peter and John, who joined her in the city of Tours.

The beginning of part 2 of the miniseries shows Joan's father praising his two sons who were married and showing contempt for Joan. This is UNTRUE. Joan's father was very proud of his daughter's accomplishments. He and his wife, Isabelle, walked all the way from Domremy to Reims so they could be there for Charles' crowning and share in their daughter's triumph.


He was not the incompetent idiot Governor of Vaucouleurs as shown in this miniseries. He did not use the 'Merlin prophecy' as a ploy to send Joan to the Dauphin. Instead he was convinced of her God-given mission when Joan, on the day of the battle, accurately predicted the defeat of the French army near Orleans. The royal messenger actually delivered the news to him seven to ten days later.

Also the people of Vaucouleurs were not in as desperate state as was shown in the movie. They had food available so they had no need to swarm around Baudricourt's food supply. Nor did Joan organize the defense of Vaucouleurs. The idea that de Baudricourt's hens would not lay their eggs until Joan was sent to the Dauphin comes straight from Bernard Shaw's play, SAINT JOAN.


Despite what the miniseries depicted, Jean de Metz was NOT romantically involved with the real Saint Joan! He was her second helper. (Uncle Durand, not mentioned in the film, was the first to believe in her and brought her to de Baudricourt.) Jean was convinced of her truthfulness and that she was sent by God after talking with her just once! He remained loyal to Joan and was a part of her household staff until the end of September, 1429, when King Charles ordered him and Bertrand back to Vaucouleurs. (By the way, Bertrand was NOT a squire - he was a Knight. It was Jean de Metz who was the squire. And while we are on the subject of Bertrand, he was NOT killed during the attack on Paris. He lived to be an old man and gave testimony about Joan during the trial of Nullification some twenty plus years after Joan's death.) Jean de Metz was NOT in Rouen during Joan's trial of Condemnation nor did he hold the cross up for Joan to look at while she was dying in the flames. That honor goes to Father (called Brother) Martin Ladvenu. The miniseries implies that Jean did not marry because of his love for Joan! I suppose the writer of this film decided to throw this fiction in so that the story would have a romantic edge to it.


Peter and his younger brother John, (Joan was the youngest of the five d'Arc children) joined up with their sister in the town of Tours and they remained with their sister until her capture at Compiegne. John managed to escape capture while Joan's squire, Jean D' Aulon, her brother, Peter and her confessor, Father Jean Pasquerel, languished in a Burgundian prison for some 6 years until the Baron Gilles de RAIS, (better known as Blue beard) finally paid their ransom. Peter was NOT killed in the battle of Paris as was implied by the movie. He too lived to be an old man and saw Joan's trial of Condemnation overturned.


The character of Captain La Hire was well played by the actor Peter Strauss. La Hire was a hard bit and crude captain. Joan had to win him and the other captains over before they would willingly follow her advice and her lead in battle -- this task did take her some time to accomplish. BUT once he was convinced, he was fiercely loyal to Joan and remained with her until the end of September, 1429, when King Charles disbanded his army. It is true that La Hire did capture the town of Louviers, which was close to Rouen, perhaps in hopes that he and his men might be able to rescue Joan. But La Hire was never in Rouen during her trial nor did he attack Rouen any time during Joan's trial, never mind while she was being burned to death! The scene in the dining hall where La Hire warns Joan to "watch her back" is also an idea from Shaw's play, SAINT JOAN.


The character of the Dauphin/King Charles was well played by the actor, Neil Patrick Harris. I believe that he accurately captured the historical personality of Charles VII. However the real King Charles was short, ugly and scrawny whereas Neil Harris is tall, dark and handsome. King Charles VII was a Machiavellian prince. For him no law was sacred, no person beyond sacrifice. In contrast, Joan lived by the Christian rule of honor, loyalty, and love. She believed that to love God and to do His will was the ultimate good. The tragedy of Joan's story was that she was loyal to King Charles but he didn't appreciate what she did for him and in the end, he betrayed her.

This film gives the totally false impression that it was the Dauphin Charles' idea that she lead his army and that Joan was a mere mascot or symbol for the French people and army to rally around. The idea that she was a mere pawn in the hands of the Dauphin, nobles and military leaders who used and manipulated her to accomplish their own ends is outrageous! It is true that those in power thought this way at first but they quickly realized they were mistaken because they did not reckon with Joan's strong will and determination. In addition Joan actually did command the army. For example, in Orlean the captains wanted merely to deliver the food tothe town and then leave. Instead, Joan insisted that the army fight the English and under her command, the French won and freed the town. I believe the kings advisors were afraid of losing their influence with the King and advisors so the King and his nobles ultimately betrayed her and allowed the enemy to burn her.

Bishop Pierre Cauchon

The actor, Peter O'Toole, did an excellent job with his character given what he had to work with. Unfortunately the script writers portrayal of the Count-Bishop of Beauvais, Pierre Cauchon, was totally NON-historical!

Bishop Cauchon was NEVER the spiritual advisor of Charles VII. In reality he was totally in the English/Burgundian camp and wanted the young child, King Henry VI of England, to be King of France also. Bishop Cauchon lived a long time in the city of Reims and was forced to flee when Joan's forces advanced on the city. He again had to flee for his life when pro-Charles VII forces took over the town of Beauvais. So for this reason he had an 'ax to grind' against Joan. Cauchon never had any contact with Joan until she was brought to Rouen.

In addition the historical Bishop was NOT at all compassionate toward Joan. He wanted to do the bidding of his English masters, Bedford and Warwick, because they offered him the Archbishopric of Rouen as a reward for a job well done. This position was something Cauchon coveted because its prestige and power rivaled that of the Archbishop of Reims. At the end of the film, the miniseries incorrectly stated that Cauchon became the Archbishop of Rouen when in fact Cauchon did NOT become the Archbishop of Rouen but instead was demoted to the small and insignificant diocese of Lisieux!

I feel the screen writers' style was very reminiscent of Bernard Shaw's play SAINT JOAN, especially in the scenes where Joan first enters Charles' court and the Bishop's reaction to her, the Bishop's interaction with Joan after the coronation as well as the entire opening to the trial scene.


Listed below are twenty- two reasons why I believe Joan's trial was invalid from its conception right through to its tragic end.

1) Joan should have been housed in an ecclesiastical prison guarded by women, rather than in an English prison guarded by soldiers.

2) Cauchon's authority was in the diocese of Beauvais, not Rouen.

3) The alleged crimes committed by Joan were never committed in the diocese of Beauvais. Therefore, Cauchon had no right to sit in judgment over her.

4) In the hierarchical order of the Catholic Church, the Archbishop of Reims, Regnault de Chartres, was Bishop Cauchon's direct superior. At Poitiers, this same Archbishop, found Joan to be ecclesiastically acceptable. It would therefore be logical to state that the decision arrived at Poitiers would supersede Bishop Cauchon's authority to try and condemn Joan.

5) Cauchon's court suppressed the findings of the Poitiers court.

6) Cauchon also suppressed the favorable findings obtained at Domremy and elsewhere.

7) Cauchon suppressed the favorable findings obtained by the Duchess of Bedford that Joan was, in fact, a virgin, and therefore could not be accused of being a witch or of witchcraft! (It was legally necessary that the findings of the above points, i.e. 5, 6, and 7 be made part of the trial record. These findings were not publicly produced, nor were they included in the official record, thus making the trial invalid.)

8) If Cauchon's court failed to condemn Joan, in all justice, she would have to be set free. If that had occurred, the English would not have obeyed the Church's order to free her but would have illegally continued to hold her prisoner.

9) The outcome of the trial had already been decided by Bishop Cauchon and the English before the proceedings ever began.

10) The judges and churchmen who participated in the trial were either pro-English, were paid by them, or feared them. This made them unfit to sit in judgment of her.

11) The members of the court were not free to give their honest opinions. Those members who attempted to do so were imprisoned.

12) The charges filed against her were either totally false, gross distortions, or half-truths.

13) Joan on more than one occasion was judged on the evidence of persons who had never confronted her and whose names were unknown to her.

14) Since King Charles was implicated in the trial, he or his representative should have been called to give evidence.

15) No counsel was called to help Joan answer the court's questions or make objections to invalid questions, conclusions or the harassment of Joan.

16) The English and/or Cauchon threatened with imprisonment or death any one who tried to assist Joan in answering the questions put before her.

17) The court tried to harass and browbeat Joan by asking her subtle and difficult questions in rapid succession without giving her time to answer.

18) The questions were purposely mixed and confused so as to entrap her in contradictions.

19) Trials in Joan's time were generally not orderly procedures. Joan had up to fifty-seven judges hearing her case. Each judge had the right to ask her a question at any time and Joan was expected to answer all their questions. Before she could answer one question, another judge would ask her a different question, while still another would interrupt that judge. Her replies were interrupted at almost every word. Manchon, the chief court clerk, had stated that he would give up his position as court clerk if this chaos was not stopped.

The ability of Joan's mind to answer all their subtle questions as well as she did is miraculous! Not only was she able to avoid their traps but she was also able to remember all the questions that were asked her throughout the trial! This feat of memory alone is astonishing and worthy of praise and contemplation.

20) The court tampered with the records of the trial. They ordered the chief clerk, Father Manchon, to change the phrasing of her answers or to set down garbled testimony or omit answers that did not please the court. This he refused to do. The court decided instead to conceal scribes in an adjacent room to write down her answers without her explanations. The secretaries of the English King recorded her replies as they pleased, writing down those responses that showed her in a bad light, while ignoring those favorable to her.

21) They denied her demand to be taken before the Pope of Rome, which was her legal right of appeal.

22) By condemning Joan, with broad legal charges, the court showed itself to be vindictive and fanatical in their condemnation of her. They were not interested in finding out the truth in defense of the Church, but only in doing the bidding of their political masters, the English. The Church can accuse a person of being an Idolater: one who worships idols, and an Apostate: someone who once was a Christian but now no longer believes in Christ. The Church can accuse a person of being a Schismatic: believes in Christ but does not want to be under the authority of the Holy Father. A Heretic: believes in Christ but not in all the doctrines of the Catholic Church. When Joan's court accused her of all the above charges, it showed itself to be illogical as these charges are mutually exclusive.


1) The film gives the audience the totally false impression that Joan would display such irreverence while attending Mass by first not using some kind of head covering and by having her jump up and run out of Mass especially during the consecration! The real Joan would never have done such a thing as she was very pious and prayerful.

2)The film gives the audience the totally false impression that Joan would verbally confront her father for being so mean spirited and stingy.... This would NEVER have happened because Joan was a dutiful and obedient daughter.

3) Joan did not have either a blind brother or friend. This character is purely fictional and was created to show how kind Joan was to the disadvantaged. Even though this is historically inaccurate it did show, correctly, Joan's kindness to those who are less fortunate.

4) Joan did not leave Domremy the way it was shown. Her Uncle Durand asked her parents permission to take Joan to his home so that she could help his wife with the house work and to help her with the delivery of her child. While Joan was there, she convinced her uncle of her mission. He took her to see Robert de Baudricourt in Vaucouleurs.

5) This film gives the audience the totally false impression that Joan was unclear about her mission and others forced it upon her. Joan knew even before she left Domremy that her mission was from God and she knew what had to be done - raise the English siege at Orleans and have the Dauphin crowned king of France.

6) Mother Bebette is a purely fictionalized character. Joan did not have the comfort of having a female companion (chaperone) while on her military campaigns.

7) Joan cut her hair before she left Vaucouleurs, not in the woods as was shown in the movie.

8) The church of Saint Catherine was not a burned out ruin when Joan arrived, nor did she rummage through a pile of swords in order to find the "Sword of Saint Catherine." After the historical Joan was approved by a Church council headed by the Archbishop of Reims and held in the town of Poitiers, she sent a letter to the priests of St. Catherine de Fierbois asking them to look for a sword that was buried in the ground behind the main altar. They did so and found the sword just as Joan had described. It was all covered with rust but when they wiped it with a simple cloth, the rust miraculously fell away. The sword is called "the sword of Saint Catherine" not because it belonged to Saint Catherine but because it was found in the church of Saint Catherine. It is believed by many historians that this sword originally belonged to Charles Martel who in 732 saved France from distraction and occupation at the hands of the invading Saracens. Charles Martel had the church of Saint Catherine built and left his sword there as a votive offering for his victory over the Saracens. Thus this sword was significant because it had defended France in the past.

9) The type of Joan's armor depicted in the miniseries is called Gothic which is highly decorative. This type of armor did not come into fashion until some 20 years after Joan's death. In reality Joan wore a type of armor called WHITE ARMOR which was plain and highly polished steel that had little or no decoration.

10) In the movie, at Orleans, Captain La Hire wanted the food for the soldiers only and it was Joan who insisted that it be given to the starving town's people. In reality, the Captains were trying to bring the food into the city of Orleans so that the people could survive the siege for a longer period of time. The Captains had no desire to fight and drive the English from the city's walls. Joan on the other hand thought she was heading directly to where the English forces were the strongest and that with her in the lead the French army would drive the enemy from Orleans, in one clash of arms. Joan did not realize that her escort of troops was taking the long way around to avoid any contact with the English. When Joan did find out that she was deceived, she became very angry at Captain Dunois, the commander of the city.

11) I found the battle scenes to be realistic without being too bloody. During the battle at Orleans they accurately portrayed the wounding of Joan by the English arrow. Joan did cry like a child from the pain it caused. In fact the arrow did penetrate completely through her. The head of the arrow was broken off and Joan did indeed pull the shaft out with her own hands and after only a few hours rest she was back leading her troops to victory!

12) The miniseries portrays Joan's character incorrectly by giving the impression that she actually enjoyed the battle and the killing! This is totally wrong and so NON-historical as to make it a laughable lie! The scene that distressed me the most was when Joan calls the English Captain Glasdale out saying, "Glasdale, come out so that I might send your soul to hell!" I could NOT believe it! What a travesty of the truth. Saint Joan would NEVER say such a thing, never mind even think it! There are in the historical record too many examples of Joan crying and praying for the dead whether they were English, Burgundian or French.

13) This CBS film shows Joan confronting King Charles at a public function - a court dinner. The real Joan would NEVER do such a thing... in private and to his face perhaps, BUT in public NEVER!!!! She was staunchly loyal to him and defended him even when she was about to be burned at the stake.

14) After the failed attack on Paris, Joan DID NOT GO BACK HOME!!!! I suspect that she would have very much liked to so but the historical record shows that Joan became a virtual prisoner at King Charles' court. When she did finally leave, it was under the pretext that she and what was left of her personal household staff were going for a ride in the country. But they never returned!

15) The historical Joan never ALLOWED herself to be captured by the Burgundians. She and her 250 man force left Compiegne to attack a small neighboring village. During this skirmish two large forces, one English and one Burgundian, suddenly appeared on either side of Joan's forces and despite her valiant efforts to rally her men, they panicked and started running back for the safety of Compiegne. Joan remained behind to guard her force's rear from enemy attack. This allowed the majority of her troops to reach safety within Compiegne. Unfortunately this great act of selfless courage left her vulnerable and she was pulled backward off her horse by a Burgundian archer. And that is how Joan became a prisoner of the Burgundians!

16) During her trial Joan NEVER gave such a lengthy description of Saint Michael. What Joan actually said and what was written down in her trial record is the following: "He (Saint Michael) was in a form of a true and honest man, and as for the clothes and other things, I shall not tell you any more."

17) Now on to the BIG question -- was Joan raped after her abjuration as was implied in this miniseries? I would like to quote Father Raymond Schoth S. J. from an article he wrote on May 19th, 1999, called THE ELUSIVE JOAN OF ARC: "Historians tell us how much Joan cherished her virginity and that it remained intact in spite of a marriage offer and rough treatment in prison. Although there is no evidence supporting it in the several sources I consulted, the CBS script indicates that the inquisitor, Le Maitre, planted the male clothing in her cell and that, at the priest's command, Joan of Arc was raped.

Not satisfied with a heroine who loved the church even as its ministers oppressed her, who won battles and gave hope to a whole nation, who slept in the fields besides hundreds of men, who cherished her virginity as she did, the CBS scriptwriters -- eyes on the audience -- felt they had to make her a rape victim as well. What Joan of Arc protected all her life she lost on American TV.

I too would like to address this question Was Joan of Arc raped after her abjuration?

It is curious to me why modern scholars are so insistent that Joan was raped or even gang-raped, sometime during the three days after she signed the abjuration. They appear to be so convinced of it that they are willing to state the point as though it was fact instead of conjecture. Where did this proposed idea come from?

I believe this opinion started with, the scholar, Andrea Dworkin. In her work entitled, Intercourse, Chapter 6, Virginity, Ms. Andrea Dworkin states on page 104, "She (Joan of Arc) was attacked and beaten, at least once. It is inconceivable that she was not raped during the period she was in female clothing if the men, or a man, an English lord, determined that she would be raped. She was chained, no longer physically strong; no longer a witch, no longer a soldier; dressed female. They were armed. Any woman who can be badly beaten can be raped." "She was a woman who was raped and beaten and did not care if she died - that indifference a consequence of rape...."

"She never admitted to being raped - admitting to an attempt (? my question mark and emphasis)- would be humiliations enough and reason enough to help her if her judges ever intended to - and being a virgin was still the only chance she had for mercy." (my emphasis)

Yet earlier in this same chapter, on page 100, Ms. Dworkin states, "The Inquisition did not honor Joan's virginity: It was barely mentioned at her trial, except by her. The Inquisition did not accept Joan's virginity as evidence of her love of God as it would indisputably accept virginity in feminine dress."

And again on page 101 the author states, "Though Joan was examined while held captive by the Burgundians, (This is an error of the facts. Joan of Arc was examined by the Duchess of Bedford and her matrons while being held in the English prison of Rouen. My comment), to see whether she was a virgin, the subject of virginity was avoided by the Inquisitors. A virgin could not make a pact with the devil; but Joan would be convicted as a witch."

Joan of Arc was not stupid! She knew that the prelates who were trying her had no interest in or intention of documenting the fact that she was found to be a virgin by the Duchess of Bedford. "Ha! You take great care to put down in your trial everything that is against me, but you will not write down anything that is for me!" Joan declared at her trial. In the light of this fact why would Joan believe, even for one moment, that being a virgin was still the only chance she had for mercy. Ms. Dworkin can't have it both ways.

In the trial of Nullification, Fr. Manchon, testified that Joan told both Bishop Cauchon and the Earl of Warwick that, "my guards have several times tried to do me violence. Once even as I cried out, you, Lord Warwick, came at my cries to rescue me; and if you had not come, I should have been the victim of my guards."

Fr. Machon went on to say, "In fact, Joan dreaded that during the night her guards would assault her. Once or twice she complained to the Bishop of Beauvais.., that one of her guards had wished to violate her."

Now if during her trial Joan was not embarrassed nor ashamed to speak about her fears of being raped by her guards, why would she be ashamed or embarrassed to do so if she had actually been raped? In all her life, Joan never held her tongue but always 'told it like it was.'

The trial transcripts clearly states Joan's own words, "Alas! Do they treat me thus horribly and cruelly, so that my body, CLEAN AND WHOLE, WHICH WAS NEVER CORRUPTED, must be this day consumed and reduced to ashes!"

Here is another reason why I believe Joan was not raped. Is it not common for a male to brag about his sexual 'accomplishments?' If this last statement were true, then would it not be conceivable for the guard or guards to brag all over Rouen about their rape of Joan? This information would have spread, like 'wildfire,' throughout the English troops coming finally to the ears of some Burgundian or English chronicler.

Since the Duke of Bedford had such a vile hatred for Joan, would he not have gloated over this fact at least in the letters he wrote to his friends? I believe he would have cited the event, if for no other reason than as 'proof' that Joan was not from God because God did not protect her from such a violation.

Even if the supposed rape were not written down by a chronicler, as I said before, it definitely would have been 'verbally' spread throughout the English army in order to lift the morale of the common foot soldier. This nasty little tidbit could easily have been passed down- as everybody likes to listen to and tell nasty stories about famous people - until the time of Shakespeare. Now, seeing how Shakespeare treated Joan in his play Henry VI Part I, he would have had no difficulty relating this vile story to the audience.

Are modern scholars saying Joan was raped in the interest of "Historical Honesty and Accuracy?" Is it because they feel, in the 'real' world, "Any woman who can be badly beaten can be raped." and therefore Joan HAD to have been raped?

In my paper, "God's Providential Care of Joan," I show how God preserved Joan's life on four separate occasions. If God could do this, could HE not save her from being raped?

The modern scholar might reply, "Ah! but that's the point, the existence of God cannot be scientifically proven, therefore there is NO GOD! At least no God that would be interested in one individual life or their safety."

Is it just because Joan's life speaks of the existence of a personal and caring God, that modern skeptical scholars have such difficulty accepting it? In order for the modern scholar to be able to 'live' with this extraordinary and exemplary person, they have to go in search of "logical and scientific" reasons that will comfortably explain her life away.

18) In the film, -- and as a known historical fact -- Joan asked for a CRUCIFIX to be held up in front of her as she died. It would appears from how the producers handled this request that the showing of a cross with the Corpus of Christ on it -- i.e. a crucifix -- IS POLITICALLY INCORRECT and so instead they use a plain cross.... It would also appear that to use the name of "Jesus" is also POLITICALLY INCORRECT as the script writers allowed the actress to say the word 'GOD' several times and the holy name of "JESUS" only once! when in reality Saint Joan called on the name of Jesus seven, count them, seven times! How sad, How NON- historical, HOW INSENSITIVE and INTOLERANT toward Catholic beliefs and ideas this producer is!

19) The miniseries was correct when it stated that Joan's mother, Isabelle Romée, petitioned the Pope to have the verdict against Joan rescinded.

20) The film was also correct when it stated that Joan's heart did not burn. This was testified to by Fathers Jean Massieu and Isambart de la Pierre.


For those who do not have the historical knowledge as I do, this miniseries deeply touched many people.

I have received many emails from people who expressed their great admiration for the Miniseries because it touched their hearts and thereby influenced them to want to know more about Joan and God and they wanted, because of her example, to lead a more virtuous life.

For Hollywood to produce such a Godly and uplifting film is a miracle and I give them credit for doing a good job.

Virginia Frohlick-Saint Joan of Arc Center