Welcome to the last legal duel in France!
Once upon a time, one could seek justice by duel before the king of France. It was assumed that God would help the righteous man get justice and smite down the liar/offender.
In this particular case, the charge is rape. Yes, even back then it was a crime. However, not a sexual one against the victim (usually a woman), but a property theft against the rape victim's male guardian (father, husband or similar). Most women never complained about rape because if they lost and were accused of bearing false witness, they were killed (and in a very gruesome way). Moreover, rich males often got off with a fine whereas female minor offenders (thieves for example) were killed. Even when the crime was equal, females usually received a more severe punishment than the male offenders. Nevertheless, IF a rape victim of noble birth could secure her male guardian's support, she could charge her rapist through him.
This is exactly what happened in this case. Knight Jean de Carrouges - in the name of his wife Marguerite - accused squire Jacques Le Gris of rape and asked the parliament and king for permission to settle the matter in a duel.
How did they get to that point?
Well, we're in France during the 100-year-war when Charles VI was (boy-)king. Jean and Jacques used to be friends, but while the latter rose despite no money and no noble ancestry, the other struggled despite being a formidable fighter of many battles.
Land disputes, money problems, humiliation before other noble families ... there were many quarrels that seem to have culminated in the duel on December 29, 1386.
However, before the matter was settled with lances, swords and daggers, there was the official inquiry that was especially terrible for Marguerite. Not only had she to recount the terrible crime, she was numerously accused of having dreamt it, trying to hide an affair (she was pregnant for the first time after 5 childless years in marriage so it was assumed her child was Le Gris'), and was intimidated by being told exactly what the law was gonna do to her if she didn't change her testimony.
Nevertheless, she persisted.
This book has been a treat! The author is very good at bringing to life this historical setting as well as showing what we know from historical sources (letters, court papers etc) and what is speculation (and on what basis). We not only get to know the noble families involved but also the time period in which this trial took place - which is important for history lovers in general, but also to understand certain people's motivation behind their actions.
From battlefields in Scotland to plague-ravaged towns and early child deaths, it wasn't a pretty time to live in. But a fascinating one that the reader gets sucked into from the first page. To say nothing of the "scientific knowledge" used in court (such as that a woman cannot become pregnant from rape as one only conceives after enjoyment and a "successful little death" aka orgasm). Infuriating, certainly, but it also is evidence of just how far we’ve come (thankfully).
My first historical true crime book and what a hit!
Also, I should mention that I watched the movie last night and loved it! No, there are no wild explosions or alien invasions which might prompt some to say it was "boring". This is history, though, and history is never boring! :D Moreover, the movie closely follows the actual account of what happened (with a few minor deviations such as the age of certain actors vs the actual people) and is historically accurate (which is not a matter of course because too many movie studios and producers are indeed concerned about "not being boring"). So watch it, it's worth it. But definitely read the book, too.
We will never know what truly happened. I, for one, believe the supposed victim. Not because I believe every woman without having actually "checked the facts" (hard, here, anyway). But let's not forget that this woman stood nothing to gain but everything to lose and yet persevered through all trials and tribulations in order to get justice. She had small to no hope of even getting to the king's court after having to confess to her husband that another man had her, to say nothing of the fact that nobody could know which fighter would win IF parliament and the king signed off on the duel.
In short: there was no incentive to make the rape public knowledge and press charges. She did it anyway, knowing full well the shunning that was to follow by friends and family members (her own mother-in-law called her a liar and she lost all her social contacts). She also did it not only at great risk to her own life but, eventually, that of her by then newly born child (in case her husband was to lose, the child would be orphaned and shunned, diminshing its chances of survival greatly). All of which leads me to believe that she was telling the truth. There are other factors, but that would go into too much detail - find them by reading the book for yourself. ;)