Later women’s legal-memory uses Joan’s 1431 trial and 1456/1920 reversals as a public example
After the 1920 canonization, and on the longer 1456 rehabilitation record, public women’s and legal-memory writing used Joan as an example of a female defendant destroyed by a political court. In the causal graph this event strengthens Protection of Minority Rights, a driver that strengthens Having a say in government — an improving welfare path.
Read the full account
After the 1920 canonization, and on the longer 1456 rehabilitation record, public women’s and legal-memory writing used Joan as an example of a female defendant destroyed by a political court. This Fact stores that reception, not a claim that she drafted a suffrage law.
Context
Nationalist and colonial uses of the same name are stored as worsening. Legal-memory uses can be real without cancelling those. Split the paths.
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.
Why it matters
Medium confidence on welfare size; high that the uses exist in public writing.
A cited example is not a statute.
Who was responsible
Contribution type and responsibility level for each recorded actor — not sole-author shorthand.
Joan of Arc
PersonDirect responsibility
responsibility level 0.15 · verified
Complex: later organisers cited her trial identity. She is not a 1920 legislator of women’s civil rights.
What changed
Fact → Driver → Indicator. Relationship strength orders the paths; it is not the observed indicator movement.
- FactLater women’s legal-memory uses Joan’s 1431 trial and 1456/1920 reversals as a public example
- strengthensDriverProtection of Minority Rights
- strengthensIndicators (2)Having a say in government
impact weight 0.55 · Effect from 16 May 1920 · verified
Strengthens · Relationship strength 0.25 (weight 0.55 × strength 0.45)
Observed
29.8% of population aged 16-65 years · 8.13 below the normal line (2023)
Worse than normalTwo readings: 30.2% of population aged 16-65 years (2021) and 29.8% of population aged 16-65 years (2023).
20212023 Above normal = better
Weakens · Relationship strength 0.25 (weight 0.55 × strength 0.45)
Observed
43.9 Score · 43.9 above the normal line (2024)
Worse than normal26 readings, 1996–2024: rose from 43 Score to 43.9 Score.
Normal is zero · any amount = worse
Evidence
The sources behind this fact and its verification state.
- 1.Benedict XV — Vatican documentation portalHoly See · High credibility · verified
- 2.Britannica — Saint Joan of ArcEncyclopaedia Britannica · High credibility · verified
What the sources establish
Vatican 1920 and Britannica’s biography independently make the trial-and-saint sequence the public carrier those later uses cite.
Established: later public women’s legal-memory uses of Joan’s trial and reversal. Not established: that 1429 was a feminist programme, or that 1920 is a civil-code amendment.
Causal path
How this event connects to drivers and indicators in the graph.
- ActorJoan of Arc
- contributed toFactLater women’s legal-memory uses Joan’s 1431 trial and 1456/1920 reversals as a public example
- strengthensDriverProtection of Minority Rights
- strengthensIndicatorHaving a say in government
Cite this page
Factrail. (2026). Later women’s legal-memory uses Joan’s 1431 trial and 1456/1920 reversals as a public example. Factrail. https://factrail.ai/facts/joa-womens-legal-memory
https://factrail.ai/facts/joa-womens-legal-memory
Accessed 15 October 2026.
By the Factrail desk · Method: how we source and score · Last reviewed
Dispute this factNamed here, or represent someone who is? Request a right of reply.