he
dearly loved the King and the kingdom.

The Sire de la Tremouille and the Lord Archbishop of Reims have been
suspected of desiring to get rid of the Maid and of having promoted
her discomfiture. There are those who think they have discovered the
treacherous methods employed to compass her defeat at Paris, at La
Charite and at Compiegne.[2048] But in good sooth such methods were
unnecessary. At Paris there was but little chance of her being able to
cross the moat, since neither she nor her companions in arms had
ascertained its depth; besides, it was not the fault of the King and
his Council that the Carmelites, on whom they relied, failed to open
the gates. The siege of La Charite was conducted not by the Maid, but
by the Sire d'Albret and divers valiant captains. In the sortie from
Compiegne, it was certain that any dallying at Margny would cause the
French to be cut off by the English from Venette and by the
Burgundians from Clairoix and to be promptly overcome by the
Burgundians from Coudun. They forgot themselves in the delights of
pillage; and the inevitable result followed.

[Footnote 2048: Thomassin, in _Trial_, vol. iv, p. 312. _Chronique du
doyen de Saint-Thibaud_, in _Trial_, vol. iv, p. 323. _Chronique de
Tournai_, in _Recueil des chroniques de Flandre_, vol. iii, p. 415.
_Chronique de Normandie_, ed. A. Hellot, Rouen, 1881, in 8vo, pp. 77,
78. _Chronique de Lorraine_, ed. Abbe Marchal (_Recueil de documents
sur l'histoire de Lorraine_, vol. v).]

And why should the Lord Chamberlain and the Lord Archbishop have
wanted to get rid of the Maid? She did not trouble them; on the
contrary they found her useful and employed her. By her prophecy that
she would cause the King to be anointed at Reims, she rendered an
immense service to my Lord Regnault, who more than any other profited
from the Champagne expedition, more even than the King, who, while he
succeeded in being crowned, failed to recover Paris and Normandy.
Notwithstanding this great advantage, the Lord Archbishop felt no
gratitude towards the Maid; he was a hard man and an egoist. But did
he wish her harm? Had he not need of her? At Senlis he was maintaining
the King's cause; and he was maintaining it well, we may be sure,
since, with the towns that had returned to their liege lord, he was
defending his own episcopal and ducal city, his benefices and his
canonries. Did he not intend to use her against the Burgundians? We
have already noted reasons f