Talk:Gilles de Rais/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled comment #1

I take it that the masturbation and severed heads stuff is taken from the numerous gruesome websites. Is there any more reputable source for this? --Chinasaur 00:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, it's lurid but it all comes from the trial records. Whether it's true or not is another matter... Morbid Morag (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Morbid Morag

Untitled comment #2

I think that the article would deserve some information checked from reputable historical sources. There seems to be a certain point of view that the allegations against Gilles de Rais were unfounded and that the prosecution was mostly motivated by jealousy; this would need confirmation. David.Monniaux 18:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• This seems to have been adressed. I just read this article and any bias towards him being not guilty is gone as of this edit.

Untitled comment #3

"conspirital plot"... Does that word exists? --Lektu 12:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Untitled comment #4

there are large factual errors in this, as with 99% of the rest of wikipedia. this shit is revolting and you should all be ashamed. stupid internet. for starters, Francois Prelati came to the scene 7 years after child murders began and Barron was merely Prelati's "personal" demon ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.25.125.113 (talk • contribs) 17 July 2005.

Please refer to Wikipedia:Civility, and name your reference. --BorgQueen 23:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoever removed the Werewolf link...

I believe the link IS relevent since it is an abridged version Gilles de Rais' trial. --Machine gun molly 20:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Untitled comment #5

I heard he was more a childraper and killer, then a women killer. There ware legends surrounding the village, when children went stealing apples in his garden, they never came back. They said there were eating children's flesh in the castel. I heard this in my history lesson, and we saw an original source, from a bisshop declaring these facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.241.67.4 (talk • contribs) 16 October 2005.

De Rais

I read one book where yes, Prelate did show up after De Rais began murdering for pleasure, but that it was the fallen priest who suggested he sacrifice boys, or more accurately offer parts of them, to the demon called Barron in exchange for alchemical wealth. Another book I have has transcriptions in French with indicate that he at least chewed upon human entrails.

Church perspective

I have to say, this article largely focuses on the Church's view of things, rather than on other views which doubt the "official" version and present other possibilities that the man might actually have suffered an ordeal similar to that of Jeanne d'Arc. Margaret Murray, for example, mentions such an alternative view in her Witch-Cult of Western Europe which deserves mention. And I don't think it is wise to state as fact that was a "serial killer" and "rapist." SouthernComfort 03:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Reading more of the article it is apparent that there are POV problems here. Everything is stated as fact even though there is enough evidence to question the credibility of the Church's record concerning these matters. SouthernComfort 03:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The "evidence to question" is fairly speculative. There's certainly enough authority to mention that divergent views exist, but in the spirit that "extreme claims demand extreme proof," unless and until there's a shift in consensus among historians, it should be considered fact and the questions placed in the "Controversy" section. I think the article is fine as is. (Since this reflects several of your edits, it's not clear that we actually disagree that much.) DCB4W 03:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that it seems rather one-sided as it doesn't really address the oddities in the accusations, the article just has one uncited reference that says historians disagree there was any conspiracy. If we were to take only the official church version of history, by the same token we might as well say there really were loads of men and women who ate babies, sucked their blood and spent most of their lives dancing with devil's and imps. I have read quite a few modern works by historians that have questioned the crimes of Gilles de Rais, perhaps these at least need some recognition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.203.192 (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the charges (XXXIX) actually blames Gilles de Rais's "accursed, unnatural lust" for "tremors, famines and pestilences". Another charge (XV) says that "for the past fourteen years [ie not the eight of the confession, which chimes so sweetly with Jehanne's death], every year, every month, every day, every night and every hour... [Gilles] took, killed, cut the throats of many children, boys and girls..." So there is at the very least exaggeration, contradiction and superstitious fancy. To me it seems quite proper to regard de Rais as the last victim of the Witch Trials to receive posthumous justice. Morbid Morag (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Morbid Morag

Which historians?

Other historians have rejected this idea, pointing out that Murray's representation of Rais' case bears little resemblance to the evidence contained in the many historical documents concerning the matter.

What is the source of the above claim? If it is not properly sourced, it will be deleted. SouthernComfort 08:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Jenny Gibbons

An anon added a link to a book review by Jenny Gibbons [1]. This is inappropriate, since Gibbons, in her very brief article, makes no mention of de Rais. SouthernComfort 09:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A note on English grammar

The traditional possessive for a proper noun that ends in "S" is to still add an apostrophe and S. The exception to this rule is ancient names, which typically receive only the trailing apostrophe. The examples from The Elements of Style are Charles's, Moses' and Jesus'. The Wikipedia Manual of Style reads, "Possessives of singular nouns ending in s may be formed with or without an additional s. Either form is generally acceptable within Wikipedia." When there are multiple acceptable standards, reverting a correct one to another correct one is discouraged. So please stop. DCB4W 02:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A note on French grammar

The French word "de," particularly in the context of a name, means "of." As part of a name it usually indicates a noble family, once "of" a certain place. The article is almost invariably deleted at the beginning of a sentence, and generally when referring to the surname. Democracy in America wasn't written by "de Tocqueville," it was written by "Tocqueville." "De Tocqueville" is certainly not the right way to start a sentence about its author, even though his name is Alexis de Tocqueville. DCB4W 02:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Think again, muppet

The above unsigned comment was posted by anonymous user 90.7.134.139 at 15:16 on 27 September 2006

"Muppet?" Muppet? What kind of insult is that meant to be? Seriously, please specify. Are you suggesting that I'm spineless? Or that my head is empty and made of cloth? Or both? Clear writing is the most vital skill for any contributor to this encyclopedia. When engaging in pointless trash-talking, you should always endeavor to make your meaning clear. The fact that your anonymity precludes any importance from being attached to your comment (if I don't know who you are, there is absolutely no reason why I should care what you think of me, or indeed what you might think about anything else) does not excuse you from your obligation to raise the level of discourse on Wikipedia. If you expect your online graffiti to be taken seriously, you must improve your writing. DCB4W 22:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Grammar aside, I'd just like to point out that the Library of Congress cataloging rules agree with the original post. I.e., they list him as "Tocqueville, Alexis de" supporting somewhat that he should be referred to formally as "Tocqueville." In speaking, however, I almost always would say "de Tocqueville." -- Quartermaster 12:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources

This bit is unsourced: Mainstream historians reject Murray's theory, often labeling it bluntly as "patent nonsense." The many such historians include C. L. Ewen, Ronald Hutton, G. L. Kitteredge, Norman Cohn, Keith Thomas, and Georges Bataille (e.g., The Trial of Gilles de Rais). They point out that Murray's representation of Rais's case, and the Dianic Cult theory in general, bears little resemblance to the evidence contained in the many historical documents concerning these matters.

The contributor must present evidence that the above listed authors have actually discussed Murray's theory in their works. SouthernComfort 22:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that it's "unsourced." It does at least give specific names of the writers alleged to hold the stated positions, although I'd agree that more information-- like citing to specific books in addition to The Trial of Gilles de Rais-- would be appropriate. I disagree with your deletion of the paragraph-- this seems to be precisely what the {{fact}} flag is for. I don't think that "must present evidence" is the right standard; I've always felt that the assumption of good faith strongly implied that when someone-- like the contributor of that section-- makes specific factual claims that we have to assume he didn't pull it out of thin air. DCB4W 00:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it lists numerous authors claiming that all those writers have specifically disputed Murray's theory. I find that highly unlikely considering most historians don't even mention Murray when writing about Gilles de Rais. The first quote ("patent nonsense") also is not sourced to any particular author. It's not asking a lot for the contributor to actually provide some evidence in the form of quotes so we know that those authors are actually mentioning Murray. Otherwise it's POV and doesn't belong. SouthernComfort 02:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not POV if you're right; it's simply wrong. In any event, the way I read the paragraph, at least some of the "other historians" are referring to Murray's entire theory, that there was a Dianic cult, to be the patent nonsense. Which, as best I can tell, actually is the historical consensus over the last 30 years. Presumably this is why "most historians don't even mention Murray when writing about Gilles de Rais." That lack of mention itself is something that should probably be in the article. Omitting any mention of the professional consensus about Murray is probably the least NPOV option suggested thus far. Of course, if you're personally familiar with those historians' works and know that they've said nothing about Murray, generally or with regard to Rais, then your edit is right. If they've criticized Murray's underlying theory without specifically mentioning its application to Rais, then the section just needs to be rewritten, rather than removed. I've taken a shot at part of that; with the glory that is Google, tracking down reputable (Hugh Trevor-Roper's reputation took a blow with the Hitler Diaries, but not a fatal one) historians' rejection of Murray was a fairly trivial task, and I've rewritten it to comply with what I can substantiate. DCB4W 04:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I pretty clearly botched my <ref> markups in the article. I'm going to try to figure out what I did wrong, but in the interim help would be appreciated. DCB4W 05:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Fixed it. This was my first shot at adding a notes section myself-- until now I'd added edits to a preexisting one only-- so I omitted part of the markup. DCB4W 05:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Lewis Spence's version

My main acquaintance until now with a detailed account is in Lewis Spence's Encyclopedia of the Occult, republished by Dover; over a hundred years old by now and perhaps not reliable. I'm wondering if anyone has read it? I'll have to study and compare it and the writeup overleaf for any significant differences, but I'm wondering if it's worth the bother.Skookum1 21:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if this is in any way relevant.

Some twenty years ago, I read a fairly controversial view on the whole Gilles de Rais trial. It postulated that not only was Gilles de Rais not in debt, but he was wealthy enough, and ostentatiously so. According to this thesis, the king of France was envious of the opulence at Gilles de Rais estate; so envious in fact that he pressured charges of any possible application be brought against him, and remove this more flashy guy from the scene. Probably very speculative theory, but it is out there. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 11:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Appearances

At the present rate, the fictional appearances section will overtake the body of the article in length. Do we really need this much trivia in an encyclopedia? DCB4W 03:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they should be made in to their own article.ShadowWriter 18:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Considering the list, I'd say the time is ripe for a "Gilles de Rais in popular media" page... Will do that, as soon as I have a chance. 87.16.42.217 06:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia

According to the article, he raped children, and got sexual pleasure from them. That sounds like pedophilia. Any dissagreements? Mishy dishy 22:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. Allegedly, he was guilty of murder and dismemberment. You should stick with your other amusing fantasies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.105.9 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 21 May 2007

I think you are the one fantasizing, 24.4.105.9. He was arraigned on multiple charges, not just "murder and dismemberment". Dismemberment isn't a chargeable offense; the offense is that he murdered them, not that he cut up the bodies. Or were you referring to mutiliation? Torture and mutilation leading to death are circumstances of the murders themselves, not separate crimes, although the relative enormity of the details would certainly bear on the verdict and sentencing. The rape and presumed sexual pleasure falls under the heading of sodomy, then (as now) a fairly vague catchall that also covers paedophilia. 12.22.250.4 20:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture

The picture of G de R shown here is clearly from a 17th century book of villains and shouldn't really be included here. Sjmawson (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This "portrait" is often reproduced in connection with G d R but has absolutely no documentary value. There are no contemporary depictions of G d R extant, and even if there were they would be of doubtful value since the style of portraiture in the late middle ages was not realistic but idealizing.helio 02:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Contradicts Another Article

I have noticed that the article on the Loudun Possessions lists de Rais as being burnt to death, not hanged. Neither account is sourced in any way. Can someone provide a source that solves this matter? 211.30.66.138 (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there really any need to have an advert for "cradle of filth's new album" on the page of an historical figure? The fictional appearances section has been taken down so why is this appearance an exception? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.5.68 (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Description of Crimes

While they say he killed a lot of people, the actual section on what he allegedly did is, well, absent. There's no description of his alleged crimes. There probably should be, given that's what he's really famous for. 208.51.48.155 (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Murders

In this section, more than once the children he killed are refered to as "it". Could someone please edit this as it dehumanizes the child victims. I would also like to see some statement in relation to how many victims there may have been as leaving this unstated raises conjecture and assumptions he could have slain hundreds which I don't believe was the case.

I do think the graphic nature of the murders should be stated because it really presents the monstrous nature of what he did. So should anyone suggest this be removed, please consider that it reveals the monstrous nature of what this man did.

Another contributor mentions the werewolf angle. I myself heard this many times about this man and the link was that he was not just a witch, but also a werewolf. While i think it best to portray him as the serial killer he was, many serial killers were also linked to being werewolves. This maybe should be a sidenote even if to dispute the claim. (Armorbeast (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

GA nomination

Is anyone interested in bringing this article up to GA standards with me? The article is well written but first, references must be cited. Second, a map of Brittany showing the locations of events in this story would be a nice addition. I'm adding citations now and would appreciate input and suggestions! Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Cultural References

George Bataille's Trial of Gilles de Rais is not a novel but one of the most important secondary sources on de Rais. I substituted Huysman's Là-Bas for it, even though de Rais is only one of that novel's themes.

A fictionalised Gilles de Rais, who has become immortal thanks to his slaughter of children, is a major villain in Kelley Armstrong's Women of the Otherworld novels. I believe he's in two or even three of them, and is the major adversary in the final book of the series. How would I go about including this in the article? I'm not a regular WP contributor and I'm not sure how to properly source it. 120.144.2.56 (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Some Would Argue

Many wiki users would argue that this article is chock-full of weasel words. I support the GA nomination, this needs to be re-written completely to correctly maintain NPOV. Encyclopedic content doesn't need to be a flamewar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.221.14 (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Huysmans novel referenced is actually entitled "Lá-Bas" - The Damned. 64.213.98.17 (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the spelling in the immediately above comment is correct, Là-Bas. In French, only e ever has an acute accent. The title is literally "Down There" but sometimes translated "The Damned." I think most English versions retain the French title though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.57.170 (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Innocent?

In the past twenty years the revisionist viewpoint of Gilles de Rais has become far more accepted and it is now quite difficult to find a book that does not mention the doubts about his trial. In France, the subject of de Rais's possible innocence is far more freely discussed than it is in the English-speaking world. In 1992 a Vendéen author named Gilbert Prouteau was hired by the Breton tourist board to write a new biography; Prouteau was not quite the tame biographer that was wanted and his book, 'Gilles de Rais ou la gueule de loup', argued that Gilles de Rais was not guilty. Moreover, he summoned a Court of Cassation to re-try the case, which sensationally resulted in an acquittal. As of 1992, Gilles de Rais is officially an innocent man. I do think that this is worth a mention. There is even a rumour that he was put forward for canonization in the 1920s, but I have been unable to find the source of this story. Morbid Morag (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Morbid Morag

Keep looking, by all means, does this mean he has already been beatified? I would think the Devil's Advocate in this case would have had a fairly easy time of it, but, hey, considering the church's lax attitude toward pedophilia these days anything's possible. Thanks for the "information" "Morbid".helio 21:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

He was turned down for beatification. I think we'd all know about it if he'd been accepted! The one reference to this that I can find is in a book about Bela Bartok - it's sound, I think, but I'd like to know more detail, particularly the grounds his sponsors gave. This was at the time when Joan of Arc was canonized and it was widely supposed that Gilles de Rais, too, had been framed. The revisionist view isn't some recent aberration, it's run like a thread through his strange afterlife, more prominent at some times than others. In fact, at the time of his death, most of his contemporaries refused to believe in his guilt. Prouteau gives an odd little factlet:- "Le 3 janvier 1443... le roi de France dénonçait le verdict du tribunal piloté par l'Inquisition. Charles VII adressait au duc de Bretagne les lettres patentes dénonçant la machination du procès du maréchal: 'Indûment condamné', tranche le souverain. Cette démarche a été finalement étouffée par l'Inquisition et les intrigues des grands féodaux". So Charles VII, who never lifted a finger to aid either Gilles or Joan, belatedly told Jean V that Gilles had been unjustly condemned. And that was just 18 months after his execution. Intriguing, no? Morbid Morag (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Morbid Morag

I think most people who have studied de Rais in any depth have run across (very) occasional claims for his innocence. To be perfectly frank, proponents of this view are treated with the same disdain as holocaust deniers. No, I don't find anecdotal reference to a report that a near contemporary of de Rais entertained doubts as to his guilt at all "intriguing." De Rais was a Marshall of France after all, there were bound to be contemporaries who could not countenance the possibility that he was capable of such crimes. And as for that book on Béla Bartók you allude to in support of the man's innocence—whose title you cannot even remember—how much more marginal and tangential can a publication be to the case of de Rais than a (putative) book on Béla Bartók?!?.

Gilbert Prouteau was a novelist and a poet, not an historian. You can read La réhabilitation de Gilles de Rais, canular ou trucage ? (1993), an article by the historian Olivier Bouzy for an (not exhaustive) list of Prouteau's errors & inventions. The book of the writer Alain Jost provides equally useful information (Gilles de Rais, Editions Marabout, 1995, p. 151-161). And even Jean de Raigniac, one of Prouteau's sympathizer, prefered to call a spade a spade, and Prouteau's provocative approach a hoax : Lire en Vendée, n°21, june-december 2010, p. 5. Raigniac explains also the "intriguing" "lettre de réhabilitation" of the king Charles VII : « Pour Gilles de Rais et la pseudo lettre de réhabilitation de Charles VII, le livre de Jacques Heers publié en 1994 donne l’explication, que Gilbert Prouteau ne peut pas ne pas avoir lue : une procédure entamée par le roi à la suite d’une tentative d’appel de l’accusé. La déclaration de l’innocence du maréchal y est certes proclamée, mais par le requérant, que cite le roi dans sa lettre patente. ». By the way, Prouteau summoned a so-called "cour arbitrale" and not a Court of Cassation. Montmorency1 (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoever the anonymous soul is who likened me to a Holocaust denier, that is monumentally offensive & should be retracted. The Holocaust took place within living memory & there are eye witnesses. Gilles de Rais was executed in !440, there was no evidence worth a damn, his judges were biased & the King of France quashed the verdict of the court eighteen months later. Also, the 1992 Court of Cassation examined all the evidence & acquitted. I suspect that you have only come across occasional revisionists because you don't speak French. But English-language dissenters include Aleister Crowley & Margaret Murray, & recent articles on Gilles de Rais uniformly acknowledge doubts about his guilt. This was a witch trial conducted by the Inquisition - it is almost universally accepted that the "witches" were tortured until they spouted ridiculous confessions & that the Inquisition was not a template for justice. Why it is so difficult to accept that the trial of Gilles de Rais was entirely bogus is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps human beings need bogeymen... I would implore anybody who has any doubts about this matter to read the trial records with an intelligent eye. There is no doubt whatsoever that the confessions were extracted by torture. 87.102.3.71 (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Morbid Morag 4th October 2010

Invoking holocaust denials in this connection was inappropriate—I obligingly retract it. The confessions in de Rais' case were not extracted by torture; it's your research that wobbles there. If you're going to set yourself up as a voice of healthy skepticism in this article you're going to have to do better than that; getting your facts right would improve matters. Until I see evidence of any such improvement I'm not going to respond anymore. Still waiting for the title (at least) to that book on the 20th-century Hungarian composer Béla Bartók that is apparently the most important published source to date undermining the case against de Rais. As for citing Aleister Crowley and Margaret Murray, you're only digging yourself a deeper hole. No doubt this sort of thing plays well in the parking lots at NIN concerts.helio 03:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Inside Bluebeard's Castle by Carl Stuart Leafstedt - unfortunately, the link to the exact page is broken. Apparently the application for canonization was made in the 1920s. What makes you think the confessions weren't extracted by torture? It's impossible to read the testimony of Henriet & Poitou without coming to the conclusion that they were. 77.86.90.247 (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Morbid Morag 4 October 2010

Not according to the sources I've read: the confessions were made under the threat of imminent torture, but torture was never applied. Again, read Bataille's book (he's even French!).helio 23:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliogabulus (talk • contribs)

We are told that Gilles de Rais was threatened with torture but gave his confession without the use of torture. We do not have this assurance with the other witnesses - they were "interrogated". Their highly suspect testimony preceded de Rais's own statement and, as Salomon Reinach has pointed out, his testimony is disturbingly similar to those of Henriet and Poitou. I have just re-read Bataille's attempted refutation of Reinach's theory and find it lame in the extreme. I can only reiterate that all the facts of Gilles de Rais's trial were examined in 1992 and he was acquitted. Interestingly, the sudden revival of the revisionist view of his life and death began in the early 1970s - that is to say, a few years after the full trial records were translated into modern French for the first time and people could make their own judgement based on primary sources rather than biased and sensationalised biographies. Morbid Morag (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Morbid Morag

You mean to tell me the dozens of corpses and bones found in his properties were not "evidence" that something truly horrific had been going on? That multiple children were taken to be his pages and were never seen again is not "evidence" itself? I find it ridiculous that anyone would honestly argue that the man was innocent. The physical evidence by itself is incredibly damning. 71.116.54.77 (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Corpses and bones would certainly be a sign of guilt. However, none were found. There was no physical evidence at all, nor is there any evidence for a mass disappearance of children on his estates, nor that his pages were in particular prone to vanishing. This lack of proof has persuaded many people and Gilles de Rais has now been posthumously acquitted twice, once eighteen months after his execution by Charles VII and once by a Court of Cassation in 1992. Morbid Morag (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Morbid Morag

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliogabulus (talk • contribs) 05:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Internet connection to "Siege of Paris!"

In your article you have these words; "Following the Siege of Paris, Rais was granted the right to add the royal arms, the fleur-de-lys on an azure ground, to his own. The letters patent authorizing the display cited Gilles’ "high and commendable services", the "great perils and dangers" he had confronted, and "many other brave feats".[20]"

May I ask the question, just why do you have a hyper-link to "the Siege of Paris"?, when the hyper-link makes no mention at all concerning any siege during the time period of Gilles and Joan! Is the problem your, or is it the problem of those who maintain the "Siege of Paris" site? 69.92.23.64 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Gilles de Rais, or Gilles de Ray?, etc.

Is there not a question that the family name "de Rais", is but a version of the family name "de Ray?" If so, then perhaps there should be mention of this? Regards, 69.92.23.64 (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Anachronisms: executed in/by France? Not really.

I noticed that de Rais' birth and death were put as "France" (when in fact he was born and died in the Duchy of Brittany, then an independent country). As well, he is in the "people executed by France" when in fact the proceedings and execution took place in Nantes, the de-facto capital of Brittany. I have removed him from this category as well as it is technically incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.194.85 (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point! He was a French war hero tried and executed in Brittany at the instigation of two Bretons - the Bishop of Nantes and the Duke of Brittany - who favoured the English side. Morbid Morag (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's more complicated than this bicameral view of the Hundred Years' War. Once again, Gilbert Prouteau's claim proves only his lack of knowledge of the Duchy of Brittany, especially John V's "pendulum swings" policy in order to safeguard his "independence" between France and England. Just read the historian Jean Kerhervé, for example his article : « L'histoire ou le roman ? », Le Peuple breton, n° 347, nov. 1992, pp.6-8. Montmorency1 (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1