# The Rouen court treats Joan’s male dress as a capital-adjacent heresy article

Date: 1431

## The fact

In 1431 Rouen articles and the relapse finding treated Joan’s male dress as heresy-relevant.

## Context

Prison safety and theological dress codes collided. The court’s choice to make clothes capital is the welfare issue. Later culture-war captures of this article are not 1431.

[Joan of Arc](/people/joan-of-arc) is not the sole author of every later object, law, or museum label that uses the name. Shared work with courts, excavators, printers, spouses, officials, and later states does not erase a documented role, and it does not make an ancient person the signer of a twentieth-century statute.

## Evidence and sources

Historial and Britannica independently describe dress as a central 1431 article, especially at relapse.

Official or archival record: Historial Jeanne d’Arc — Rouen (https://www.historial-jeannedarc.fr/en/; Historial Jeanne d’Arc / Rouen).

## Significance

Gendered-persecution path. High confidence on the clothing articles.

A coat is not a voice. Keep visions out of the Fact.

## What is established and what is not

Established: male dress was a Rouen charge and relapse hook. Not established: that Joan authored a gender-rights programme.

What would change the picture: a contradictory original with a different date or name, or a measured series that can be argued, with lag and alternatives, as a consequence of this instrument rather than of later institutions.

The date is the date of this instrument, not a licence to back-date every later harm or benefit.

## People

- Joan of Arc: https://factrail.ai/people/joan-of-arc

## Drivers

- Protection of Minority Rights: https://factrail.ai/drivers/protection-of-minority-rights

## Sources

- https://www.historial-jeannedarc.fr/en/
- https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Joan-of-Arc

## Methodology

https://factrail.ai/methodology

Canonical: https://factrail.ai/facts/joa-dress-articles-1431